|
The Failure of the American University
(Or, Has Anyone Seen the University lately? It seems to have gone missing)
Part I: The Confusion of Identity
The Invalidity of the BS
The Great American Industry
Upon a morbid curiosity, I sat and read through my, shall I
say first university (saving the title alma mater for my beloved second
university), and though disappointed, though not surprised by its lack of
sophisticated (and by that I mean post-high school level) writing, I started
ruminating, from my lofty six-years-ago perspective on its most significant
shortcomings. I must confess I
concluded that SBU is not really so much a problem university as it is so very average. And so any rant must expand from the
difficulties of SBU to what is the real crisis behind most (but not all)
American universities.
I will
say that I judge, without much pity or mercy, all universities I come into
contact with. I have found the most
revealing test is watching its recruitment videos, and in some cases, its
commercial advertisements. In nearly
every case, and particularly two of the three universities I’ve been closely
associated with, these universities present potentials with dazzlingly happy
students, playing, and feeling confidently prepared to tackle some career that
will often do little else for them than to provide a living. “Come!
Be trained as a plumber! It’ll
put a roof over your head!” NB: the two key elements – 1) the pleasure of
the student experience and 2) the offer of practicality.
But the
root of the university is in the knowledge it provides. I classify university studies into two
groups: primary and secondary. The primary group includes all those fields
considered ‘academic’ – English, history, psychology, biology, linguistics –
most of the ‘-ologies’. These are the
fields that prompt the forlorn conclusion by passive observers of “so what are
you going to do with that when you’re done?
Teach?” as they perceive this
knowledge as mostly irrelevant. But the
university is the home of these forsworn studies, by virtue of the fact that
there is no other encompassing institution for these studies – once the Church
gave them up, oh, about 400 years ago, the University took them in and has kept
them ever since.
Then as
universities proliferated, they took on studies from the colleges, for whatever
reasons (and this, I should stress, is not recent). Business studies, probably because many American universities
were originally funded by very rich businessmen, education (to control what
information was passed to an increasingly-literate public), ministry (perhaps
because what was sacred should be involved with what is prestigious) each found
a place, though perhaps a bit on the fringe, in the university. These skills-presenting studies constitute the
secondary group.
Then,
as the end of the 20th century approached, the University took on
more diverse offerings – perhaps because of the potentialities of the
computer. Stealing more and more from
the training colleges, universities took on practical programs, such as
physical therapy, nursing, computer programming, construction, et c. And with the industrialization of the
university, it made perfect sense. Now
the University became immediately relevant to a much greater portion of the
American public – and to their wallets.
Fine. But we still haven’t reached the
problem. Students came to the
University with the intent to study through these secondary programs. They came seeking skills, not knowledge, and
the University was happy to comply. Yet
the University was unwilling to let students pass without some experience in
the primary fields, and the students were forced through the dreaded “Gen
Ed.” These classes they approached as
they did in High School, and mostly its content was passed off as
irrelevant. Soon the teachers began to
approach these classes as did the students, dumbed them down to be passed
easily, or ‘modified’ to be ‘more relevant.’
Or best yet, passed on to graduate students. Of course, some schools, notably Harvard, fought to maintain its
traditional core curriculum, but even there the debate persisted – practical
versus traditional. But the damage was
done – the primary group had been passed over, lost for its lack of (notably
American) practicality.
Yet
the debate is long over. The University
has identified itself already through its more (some incorrectly say ‘modern’)
practical programs. As I said, browse
through the advertisements. The
University has exchanged its sacred place as keeper of knowledge for the place of
an extended childhood – where it is ‘pleasant’ and practical. These students entirely miss the idea of
education – as my recent students so aptly demonstrated by a complete ignorance
of the idea of an ‘educated man.’ The
idea of framing a life by an application of classical knowledge is substituted
for a schema of business practicality – ‘worth my dollar’ mentality. And thus the University replaces the
College, withers, and dies. Against
what is popular right now, the confluence of so many Americans to the
University does not make an educated nation – not in the classical sense, at
least – but instead renders the University meaningless. |
