Wisdom in University

An article by Steven Schwartz about wisdom in higher education. I "reproduced" from Times Higher Education.

---- Not by skills alone ----

In their haste to prepare students for a career, universities have lost sight of the true meaning of education, argues Steven Schwartz

"I don't think it would have all got me quite so down if just once in a while - just once in a while - there was at least some polite little perfunctory implication that knowledge should lead to wisdom, and that if it doesn't, it's just a disgusting waste of time! But there never is! You never even hear any hints dropped on a campus that wisdom is supposed to be the goal of knowledge. You hardly ever even hear the word 'wisdom' mentioned!"

- J.D. Salinger, Franny and Zooey

Let's face it, wisdom has an image problem. As far as the popular media are concerned, it is the province of ghost whisperers, extraterrestrials - think Mr Spock, the Vulcan - and wizened kung fu sages ("The body is the arrow, the spirit is the bow, Grasshopper").

Wise people are not only portrayed as old, alien and weird but also bookish, risk averse and unemotional. No wonder their pearls of wisdom are routinely ignored by the impetuous young. Young people thirst for new experiences; it's in their nature to take chances and follow their hearts. Wisdom just gets in the way. "Fools rush in, where wise men never go," sang Elvis. "But wise men never fall in love, so how are they to know?"

You might think that universities would hold a different view; after all, they are in the wisdom business. Well, you might think this but you would be wrong. Every type of knowledge - massage therapy, homeopathy and circus-performing - is represented on campus, but the word "wisdom", as Salinger has Franny say, is rarely mentioned.

It was not always like this. Wisdom, at least in its religious version, was central to the medieval university, and its importance persisted right down to John Henry Newman's day. But wisdom is no longer on the curriculum; it has been replaced with skills. Today's universities are mainly concerned with preparing students for a career. Newman called such practical learning "a deal of trash", but surely he was wrong. There is nothing wrong with vocational training; a fulfilling career is an important part of a good life.

Much of my academic work over the years has been devoted to career preparation. I was once a dean of medicine and there are few courses more vocational than that. Our students were all bright but they were narrowly focused on their career goals. They resented time spent on subjects not directly related to diagnosing or treating patients. It's easy to see why. Studying philosophy does not make it any easier to remove a prostate gland and reading Galen sheds little light on how to recognise pneumonia. As far as our students were concerned, time spent on any subject not related to a doctor's daily work was time wasted.

It's easy to empathise with them, for medical education is long, arduous and expensive. Why add to its length and cost with apparently irrelevant subjects? If students want to study history, literature and philosophy, they can take them up when they retire and have time for such frivolity. This makes some sense from the students' vantage point, but it demeans our purpose as universities. Yes, we must prepare graduates for what they will do, but we also have a duty to help them at least to think about what kind of people they want to be.

Indeed, these two educational goals are inseparably linked. No one would try to argue that a deep knowledge of philosophy makes surgeons better at removing a prostate. But it might deepen their empathy and improve their understanding of what constitutes a good quality of life, both of which could help them to decide whether a prostate should be removed in the first place.

It's not just doctors who could benefit from a broader education. Studying drama would not have prevented financiers devising the complicated financial derivatives that plunged the world into crisis, but if they had been familiar with Faust they might have thought twice about the consequences of their actions.

Being able to quote Shelley will not help politicians get elected (certainly not in Australia) but studyingOzymandias might make them more humble and thoughtful about their accomplishments.

As I write these words, I can imagine the raised eyebrows of my academic colleagues. A generation of graduates familiar with the great works of history, philosophy and literature is a wonderful vision but reading widely does not guarantee wisdom. They are correct. Reading, by itself, will not make anyone wise. Experience is also required. As Odysseus learns on his journey back to Ithaca, some important lessons can only be learned the hard way, through experience. Nothing has changed. Young people start out with sex, drugs and rock'n'roll and with experience they eventually come to appreciate the Delphic prescription "nothing to excess".

There is a problem, however. Experience alone cannot guarantee wisdom any more than reading can. The lessons of life are only available to those who are ready to learn them. If wisdom is the goal, then students must "walk 10,000 miles, read 10,000 books" said the 17th-century Chinese philosopher Gu Yanwu. In other words, becoming wise requires not just having adventures but a cultured mind that is open, ready and able to absorb the lessons that experience teaches. Louis Pasteur famously said "Chance favours the prepared mind", and our job as university academics is to take his words seriously.

To prepare students to learn from experience, we need to go beyond vocational training. Life, death, love, beauty, courage, loyalty - all of these are omitted from our modern vocational curricula, and yet when the time comes to sum up our lives, they are the only things that ever really matter. On Ash Wednesday, the priest admonishes the faithful to "Remember that thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return". A salutary reminder of what we all have waiting for us. In the meantime, like the Preacher in Ecclesiastes, we spend our years trying to find some meaning in our lives.

It is easy to fall into the pit of nihilism, to consider life "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". But before we let our students reach this conclusion, we should at least try to provide them with the intellectual foundation they need to make such a judgement. In the few years they are with us, we should be concerned not only with teaching students the state of the various arts, we should be equally concerned with the state of their hearts.

In Choruses from The Rock, T.S. Eliot asks: "Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?" If you think these are just the melancholy musings of a poet who spent too many hours at his desk, out there in the "real world" they're saying the same thing, albeit in different ways.

In just one example, the World Social Science Report 2010, published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation, observed that today's global challenges are increasingly interrelated, spread fast from one part of the world to another, and so bring into question traditional university disciplinary boundaries.

These "profound and menacing developments" need to be understood "in a plurality of contexts", which surely includes what we learn from the great works of the past. Specific and narrow skills are simply not enough to enable us to understand and solve the problems we face.

It is not easy for universities to go against the utilitarian flow but it is our duty to try. As the author Flannery O'Connor wrote in a letter to a friend, "You have to push as hard as the age that pushes against you". It's time we once again started hearing the word "wisdom" on campus.

Postscript: Steven Schwartz is vice-chancellor of Macquarie University, Sydney.

Qualification Inflation

A short article by John Wilkins about qualification inflation. I "reproduced" from Times Higher Education.

---- Qualification Inflation: Time for a Reality Check ----

Since the inception of higher education, professions such as law and medicine have been part of the university curriculum. The rest of what were then called "trades" - now known as "economic activities" - were not. Subjects that were theoretical or needed research were the focus of higher education. Even as the field of education itself became profession-alised in the latter half of the 19th century, a doctorate was a rare degree that showed you could not only teach a subject but advance it.

But after the Second World War, governments increasingly began to see universities as manufacturers of skilled players in the economy. The implications have been profound.

Before the war and for a while after, it was not uncommon for someone to begin working at 14 and enter a profession through on-the-job training, by way of an apprenticeship. This applied to nurses, journalists, accountants and managerial staff, although they would often gain certificates along the way.

My grandfather is a good example. He began by earning a marine engineer's certificate as a teenager and ended up as the chief firefighter of the city of Melbourne in the 1930s. No one would hold such a position today with less than a bachelor's degree, and those struggling to rise through the professional ranks need at least a master's. No doubt it is only a matter of time before a doctorate is required just to be a nurse manager or, as they used to be called, a ward sister.

Does anyone else see the problem here? If somebody needs a bachelor's degree just to enter the workforce, this typically means that they have had 12 years of pre-university schooling and at least three years at university. If they then need specialist graduate diplomas or a master's, this can add another two years, or maybe three. When these "qualified" graduates enter the workforce at the age of 24 or so, they still need to be trained to do the work.

This is because universities teach, well, academically. University education is focused on writing essays, passing exams and doing practical exercises in conditions that graduates rarely find in industry. So the age at which the individual starts to be productive is now around 26 or 27. If doctorates then become a requirement, this will go up to 30-32. All the while, there is a constant dearth of skilled workers.

Something is very wrong. We have added over 10 years of education before people can become producers in our society.

At the same time, governments are ending or sharply reducing the "traditional" intellectual pursuits in universities because these do not contribute to economic output. No matter how often academics object to the industrialisation of education, they are ignored by governments and their bureaucracies on both sides of the political fence. Languages, history, classics, philosophy - anything that lacks a dollar value - will be reduced to a tiny rump or eliminated as inefficient.

It is time to confront the sausage-making university model that has become the shared property of educational administrators and politicians around the world. "Qualification inflation" is how governments avoid having to do anything about underemployment, and it generates a massive bureaucracy that has its own interests in perpetuating the system.

My proposal is this: we should return universities to a research focus and eliminate professional degrees, moving education for the professions back to what used to be called technical institutes. Otherwise, we should recognise that universities have been terminally corrupted from their initial purpose and set up pure research institutes, which alone would have the ability to award doctorates. I would even go so far as to say that medical education should be run independently in separate medical schools, and the same goes for law.

A society that cannot do research or intellectual work is a society in decline. At the same time, a society that hides its underemployed is a society that is not being productive anyway. Employers now use university qualifications as markers of competence, but this is expensive and misleading. We need to "deskill" universities.

John S. Wilkins is a philosopher and historian of science. He is an associate at the University of Sydney and visiting Fellow at the University of New South Wales. He blogs atEvolving Thoughts.net.

University Fees

"Tuition fees"

"6k or 9k"

"Only rich kids will go to university"

"Elitist education"

"Social mobility"

These are some of the common phrases in the recent debate about increasing the tuition fees for universities in the UK. I am in a privilege position, not only that all these changes will not affect me as an international and final-year student, this is also one of the rare opportunity for me to observe and follow the debate without having to take a stance.

In following all these debates, the main argument seems to be, "By allowing universities to increase the tuition fees from 6k to 9k, this will effectively stop or discourage students, especially those from lower and middle income groups, from going to university". In other words, it was perceived that with the increase in tuition fees the number of students entering university will decrease, especially those from lower and middle income groups. But, it is also important to point out that students will be given a loan if they got a place in university and will only repay the loan after they started working and earning a certain level of income. The gist of the argument is therefore, "with the increased tuition fees, students will have a larger debt to repay in the future and hence this will discourage those students from lower or middle income group from even thinking of going to university".

This left me wondering, "Is this really the case?"

Personally, I do not think so. My rationale is that during the period that university education in the UK was free (or zero fees), the participation rate was significantly lower than the period when there was a 3k tuition fees. Is fees really the problem that is discouraging students from going to university? Let us not forget that the UK higher education system has traditionally been an elitist form of education, even during the period of zero fees. It was after the introduction of fees that the higher education sector in the UK went through the period of massification.

Therefore, I do not think that the fees or even debts are the factor that hinder or discourage students from aspiring to go to university, and perhaps the debate might have been "barking on the wrong tree".