My second-born, who is at SJC, is seriously thinking of transferring because of the breadth of her education and her desire to focus on specifically preparing for public policy. I am admittedly disappointed that she is ready to narrow her learning and wants to leave such a beautiful institution of true learning and inquiry. How would you advise her?
Would an institution, either large or small, enhance their appeal and serve students by a) accepting that an 18 year old often doesn't know what he/she wants and then b) offers a clear path to let said student learn that? For example, a declared major in "science" but not chemistry or biology or geology? Allowing an student to specialize, without backtracking two years in? Certainty allowing for uncertainty? Recognizing reality for many?
It's a tricky thing because even majors that are, in the scheme of things, similar, like chemistry and biology, have very few courses in common. The disciplines are so specialized that the only "common core" they have is whatever general education courses the university mandates.
I think the only way to do that would be if the university were to require a "pre-major" period of some kind. But that would also require interdisciplinary science courses for students to take, which would require faculty buy-in. I think all of that gets more complicated the larger a university gets.
The question, I think, is what the incentive is for the institution. They may, reasonably, want to discourage undeclared majors because they feel that students without a set trajectory are more likely to drop out. Of course, students who take a bunch of courses and hate the major and have to start over might be more likely to drop out too...
That's very true. All of the block schedule colleges were the result of structural reform, but the specialized and progressive institutions all began that way. It makes sense because the block is really just a rearrangement of the semester schedule without really rethinking what constitutes a major or a degree.
I'm increasingly convinced that more substantial structural experiments have to be initiated from the founding of an institution or they won't be at all. Ironically, those experimental institutions also have trouble updating their experimental approach as they develop their own stakeholders. Inertia is a tough foe, even at purposefully contrarian institutions.
My second-born, who is at SJC, is seriously thinking of transferring because of the breadth of her education and her desire to focus on specifically preparing for public policy. I am admittedly disappointed that she is ready to narrow her learning and wants to leave such a beautiful institution of true learning and inquiry. How would you advise her?
Would an institution, either large or small, enhance their appeal and serve students by a) accepting that an 18 year old often doesn't know what he/she wants and then b) offers a clear path to let said student learn that? For example, a declared major in "science" but not chemistry or biology or geology? Allowing an student to specialize, without backtracking two years in? Certainty allowing for uncertainty? Recognizing reality for many?
It's a tricky thing because even majors that are, in the scheme of things, similar, like chemistry and biology, have very few courses in common. The disciplines are so specialized that the only "common core" they have is whatever general education courses the university mandates.
I think the only way to do that would be if the university were to require a "pre-major" period of some kind. But that would also require interdisciplinary science courses for students to take, which would require faculty buy-in. I think all of that gets more complicated the larger a university gets.
The question, I think, is what the incentive is for the institution. They may, reasonably, want to discourage undeclared majors because they feel that students without a set trajectory are more likely to drop out. Of course, students who take a bunch of courses and hate the major and have to start over might be more likely to drop out too...
All true.
The question is strategic, not tactical. If we have a structural problem, it can only have a structural solution. And those take courage.
I was simply trying out a thought experiment at what such a structural solution might look like.
Any such proposal will garner little support :-)
That's very true. All of the block schedule colleges were the result of structural reform, but the specialized and progressive institutions all began that way. It makes sense because the block is really just a rearrangement of the semester schedule without really rethinking what constitutes a major or a degree.
I'm increasingly convinced that more substantial structural experiments have to be initiated from the founding of an institution or they won't be at all. Ironically, those experimental institutions also have trouble updating their experimental approach as they develop their own stakeholders. Inertia is a tough foe, even at purposefully contrarian institutions.
A very tough foe.
So many examples, in academia, the public sector, the private sector, individuals.
We ignore it at our own peril.