And I definitely agree with Dev about sequencing. University of Chicago was my top choice for four years, but I never even applied out of fear of “the core.” What’s significant, is that what I remember about the core, it was science and math heavy; such an emphasis betrays that a “core, liberal arts education” is a construct–think about how sciences always receive infinite more funding than humanities, and humanities students are met with a gasp of “what are you going to do with THAT degree?”

In fact, on the interdisciplinary side, the best teacher I had in high school turned honors English into “Humanities” classes–we learned art, philosophy, history, AND literature in our three years with her. Significantly, it was the only class I ever took in high school that taught me to “think critically,” in part due to its interdisciplinary nature. Your mileage may vary, though, as my high school coexisted in the boondocks of the horrible land of Illinois (horrible, in that our education funding is NOTORIOUSLY bad; I think we’re at the bottom of the national list). I’m sure someone from Winnetka or Bethesda might have had a different experience.

There’s other issues with primary and secondary education. I think gifted education, which obviously applies to most of us Brandeis students, is very underfunded, and in times of crisis, it’s one of the first budget items to go. Fine arts programs are often cut as well. Critical, creative thinking is just not financially endorsed, even if some teachers (like my English teacher) do foster inquiry and contemplation. I’m not an expert, BUT my mother is the president of our school board, and we’ve had referendums it seems every other year.

Contrast this to high school. You have to take everything in sequence–biology before chemistry, English 10 before English 11. There is none of this choosing what you learn when you learn it. There is no saying “maybe I haven’t read Hamlet yet, but that doesn’t mean I can’t understand and analyze Jane Eyre.” I learned in my Sociology of Education class freshman year that elementary and high school education is really teaching you to be good citizens–behave yourself, do as your teacher tells you, your success is in the hands of people higher than you–not so much the actual subject matter. (Do you remember anything they taught you in US History class?) Shouldn’t this concern us more than the state of universities, especially since success in these lower schools is a prerequisite for even attending a university?

And I definitely agree with interaction between profs and students; sitting in a lecture hall provides no real “intellectual work” on behalf of the student. I suppose I’d support a greater AMOUNT of education–lecture still, in addition to discussion, in addition to one-on-one professor interaction. I think professors are, for many undergrads, a widely underused resource. Most of the best experiences I’ve had with professors have been one-on-one conversations; unfortunately things like “office hours” seem to be largely ignored by many students.

1) Radical restructuring of education does require broader social change, but I don’t want to dismiss how individual efforts can work to those ends. Professors have a responsibility, not just to teach about social problems and contradictions, but to actively so something about them, and goad their students into doing the same. This has to be done in a way that’s both respectful of student rights (i.e. no indoctrination) yet not so neutered that progressivism becomes a mere slogan or posture (i.e. certain sociology professors). It’s a fine line to walk, but it’s absolutely essential to bridging the divide between the academy and the ‘real world’.

2) Related to that: a real understanding of ‘independent learning’ goes quite a bit beyond lecture vs. seminar, or assigned work vs. individual research. Although those can be useful barometers for the independence of one’s education, the most vital component of a good education is student engagement – that is, how deeply one is committed to what goes on in the classroom, and how powerfully this affects life outside.

To bring these together, I think this is what Sahar was aiming for in his point about the university fostering discussion – that there needs to be a fundamentally re-imagined dialogue and intercourse between stored experience/knowledge (represented by the faculty) and living experience/action (represented by students). That is to say, we need some old-fashioned ass-whuppin’ Marxian praxis up in this piece!

But more importantly, the foundation of the university is its donors. It’s a business. You can’t have a radical restructuring of education unless you have a radical restructuring of the economic base (again, yay crude economism). Professors have a lot less freedom than you might think.

Also, I’m not in favor of a pure Socratic seminar-style of teaching for undergrads. Professors are there to lecture because they are a valuable resources; it’s not just what they’ve learned after 10 years of schooling, it’s how they’ve learned to approach problems. The way we’ve currently been brought up as far as education goes, we aren’t taught to be good discussion participants (there’s a reason most students won’t get into “real” seminars until grad school; you have to “prove yourself worthy” so to speak). So I’ll agree with Jon here, a restructuring of higher education demands a restructuring of K-12. Also, I think the “independent learning” that you’ve alluded to–reading books out of class, as well as paper-writing, etc.–is extremely beneficial. It allows you to think of your own ideas, without simply repeating classmates ideas (as you might in a discussion). Of course, different professors encourage different levels of independent research; some people might just rehash current scholarship and the professor’s lectures in the paper. Still, there’s a reason to make honors you have to do a thesis, and not simply take an upper-level seminar. For those interested in graduate school, independent initiative is the backbone.

That’s not to say I discourage discussion, as I’m an English major and that’s what the bulk of my education has been. But, lecture is still helpful, and moreover, so is independent work (not that you’ve argued against this in your article; I’m simply delineating what I support).

This is not to say that universities don’t need to be restructured, and can even be a front for change in the wider society. But focusing too closely on what we can do within the ivory tower leads to navel-gazing and complacency.