On General Education (Again)
PrintBy Gerson Moreno-Riano, July 30, 2008 in Uncategorized
Both Lee and Phil have raised the issue of general education requirements as well as the processes that often are in place at various institutions for the creation of the general education core.
One of the issues that has been raised is the self-interested and factious nature of general education committees. Every member is looking out for his or her major or department with little thought about a good and virtuous education for the students.
I think, however, that there may be another problem lingering in the background. Maybe I am wrong about this but if so will trust my colleagues here to correct me.
In my experience, most faculty engaged in general education committees and discussions about the core really do not understand liberal arts education, the purpose of general education, and, frankly, the purpose of education in general. They have been educated so narrowly in their own Ph.D. programs that they have never had the opportunity or maybe even desire to read and think broadly and philosophically about education and the epistemological and axiological dimensions of education and human life. Consequently, they tend to consider education as indoctrination or an extension of an unenlightened self-interest. Thus, it seems to be the case that for these colleagues the notion of liberal arts education in the core is just sugar coating what they consider to be indoctrination and the raw will of a few zealots. Changing this opinion is a difficult task since it stems for years of abuse.
What are we to do? I have some ideas on this but before I venture further would be interested in the input of others on this discussion.
Gerson is correct that that the prior question what constitutes an educated person should be resolved before creating a general education program. Besides the problems of specialization and ideological indoctrination in graduate school, and self-interest on faculty committees, I would add the practical problems of the transformation of the university from liberal education to vocational training and the pressures of education accreditation. Of course there are exceptions in the United States, but most universities include disciplines that are not liberal in any sense, e.g., criminal justice, computer science, engineering programs, business schools, education colleges. The inclusion of these technical or vocation programs with their faculty makes conversion about liberal education impossible (faculty from liberal arts programs can't converse about it as well but for an entire different set of reasons mentioned above). Furthermore, the pressures of education accreditation require faculty to document (if not actually practice) their pedgagoy for utilitarian ends, such as critical thinking or analytical writing. It should come to no surprise that the justification of general education programs speak in the utilitarian language that accreditors can understand. It would be nice to state the general education program is to examine and reflect about human life and our place in society, but it will fall upon deaf ears of the accreditor. I'm not entirely opposed to education accreditation (at least for the time being the Bush Administration was beaten back by the accreditors in the government's attempt to take control over the process, i.e., No Child Left Behind for Higher Ed), but the weight it is given by administrators in higher education is disproportionate to its actual value or function. Before we discuss this topic any further, it might be worthwile to concentrate on either what constitutes an educated person or what are the problems and obstacles to creating a coherent general education program.