Christopher Jagers

Saturday, January 27, 2007

The Sandbox Committee

I have recently taken part in a brainstorming meeting called the “Sandbox,” that is looking for ways to accommodate interdisciplinary research and hybrid interests among students at SMU. I think this is a current challenge among universities in general, and I feel a small revolution brewing. Just as the 70’s blew open the education box, I believe (hope) that we will undergo another wave of change that will prepare students for living within such a interconnected world, where innovation happens at the intersection of different genres.

However, their are several impediments to change:

1) The current degree structure - The degree program for majors is so “full” that there is no room for taking classes outside of the “plan.” If students are highly motivated, they can make cross over studies happen, but they often to not recieve credit for such endeavors. More than this, they run into the problem of which school within the university will award the degree. (This has major financial implications). So, the verticle “silo” structure of degree problems needs to be re-evaluated.

2) Faculty contracts - The tenure system does not reward faculty for such experimental efforts. In fact, they are punished. Faculty tenure is based on 3 things (in order of importance): professional accomplishment within their field, respect of their peers, and student reviews. Right now, for an experimental class to happen, they usually have to do this on top of their normal load without compensation. This takes away time from their time from personal achievement (which is the major factor for tenure). If universities want to instigate change, they need too start here, and reward faculty for taking on such ambitious programs within the classroom.

3) Tired Faculty - I won’t deny that some faculty need to move on. Some of these old timers don’t even know how to check email, run powerpoint, photoshop - or ANYTHING! They want to have all this done for them, and they seem incapable of trying anything new - or incorperating any 21st century tools. Meanwhile, legions of young MFA’s, who want to teach, and who are highly capable and full of energy, are kept from joining the university faculty ranks because of so few openings. Universities need young blood.

Needless to say, I see change as needing to happen “top down. ” However, the Deans of the various schools have decided to take the “bottom up” approach. This means: survey students, see what they want, prove demand, raise money based on numbers, etc (the old way). The philosophy here is the “paths of desire” analogy - see where students walk, and then pave the sidewalk once you see where the trails are.

While I agree student imput is critical, the “paths of desire” usually lead to the bar. Plus, we already know the demand exists - the fact that every school already has its own interdisciplinary program is testimony to this demand. We just need to figure out how to allow this healthy trend to swell across various schools (english, math, music, art, engineering, ect) - so that cross fertilization can happen. I believe this change will not only provide a better education to students, but ultimately be necessary for a university to survive.

The university should be a place of experimentation - and I see SMU wanting to move in this direction, which is exciting. However, I am not sure their current mentality will be effective. We’ll see.

Dennis Hollingsworth just posted about how USC art department is undergoing similar restlessness.

posted by cjagers at 11:22am