In the New York Times today, Drew Gilpin Faust, president of Harvard, worries out loud about higher education becoming too practical, focusing on providing a workforce rather than also focusing on research and on providing a broad liberal arts education to its students.  While I agree with much of what she says, that universities can and should be places where discoveries are made and where students can be exposed to many different subjects, it seems to me that she is a bit myopic herself.  First, not every institution of higher learning should be a place where discoveries are made.  Too many schools try to be like Harvard and require their faculty to do similar kinds of research with much less time and fewer resources.  I do think original research has a place even in a teaching-focused school, but in many of those places the tenure requirements don’t reflect the teaching focus, instead following a research-oriented pattern.  Any kind of school can focus on “the big questions” with or without research.  Second, not all research is created equal.  While I definitely think the humanities (it’s my field after all) is truly important to a college education, I don’t think that we need 20 more books on Shakespeare (or almost any other author).  We might need more funding for exploring how to teach the humanities or how the humanities can inform the sciences, etc.  In other words, in fields where we might not be making new discoveries, we might get creative about what counts as research instead of doing the kind of research that people have been doing for 50 years.

As for having curricula that encourage students to focus early and not take a broad view of life, I agree that this happens too often.  I’ve been in institutions where students declare a major before they arrive and advisers put them on a course where they barely look at a literature class (or a science class if they’re humanities majors).  There are a couple of things that I think might help here.  Changing the curriculum to require courses that look at broader issues, that include courses in philosophy or history or literature, is one way to alleviate this.  And I’d suggest not allowing students to “get those out of the way.”  Taken later in their college career, as students become more mature, might make these classes more meaningful.  Offer classes that appeal across disciplines.  The Gender and Technology class that I co-taught in the spring is one such example.  It’s a good thing for computer science students to think about gender and it’s a good thing for art history students to think about technology (and many of them said so in their final evaluations).  When planning courses, chairs could think about what courses in other disciplines might benefit their students.  Ethics for business majors (and CS majors, too.).  The chemistry of art. The art of physics. Having conversations with colleagues in other departments about their course offerings might lead to some creative ideas, even co-teaching opportunities.

I agree with Faust that economic pressures often cause us to put blinders on and think narrowly about jobs.  But most employers, even now, are still saying that what they need are creative people who have the ability to think critically and learn new things.  Any narrow focus, whether it’s on literature or business, can prevent more creative and thoughtful approaches.  Instead of hitting the panic button and generating more business majors to make money, colleges should seriously consider their own purpose (not Harvard’s or Yale’s), and consider how they can make the most out of their faculty and students.