|
Volume CXXXI, Number 23 |
 |
Interdisciplinary needs
GENEVIVE CREEDON
A few days ago, a friend of mine was considering taking all government
classes next semester. He laughed about it, but has since spent an exorbitant
amount of time complaining that he has "nothing" else to take
otherwise.
Then, of course, I have my scientific friends whom you couldn't pay to
take an English or philosophy class, or the humanities buffs that would
rather eat grass than take a science course.
Many people might place me in that last category. But the first thing
I do is turn to the science pages when I'm selecting classes.
This has yet, however, to result in my taking a science class. Somehow
the notion of taking Bio 105 isn't quite as thrilling as a good number
of choices outside the sciences.
Despite my course selection, I do like science. For the better part of
my education, I was set on a scientific track, which I enjoyed, for the
most part. I've come to the conclusion, however, that my reluctance to
take science classes lies in the fact that virtually all classes offered
are applied sciences. Save the few "Physics of the 20th Century"
classes, there are no inviting options for those of us who would very
much like to make the study of scientific thought an integral part of
our education.
Though there are some limited efforts to cross certain boundaries, it
seems to me that most departments and disciplines largely keep to themselves,
so that we may never see a class about the history, literature, or philosophy
of science. The reason may be that few think there is an interest here,
but the few examples I have seen (both here and in high school) of interdisciplinary
offerings have been the most successful and enriching components in my
education thus far.
Courses that bring different fields together are a necessary component
of education, because nothing in life is so black and white as to be able
to fit nicely under the auspices of a "historical problem."
It invariably proves to be a historical problem with political implications,
explorations in literature, and possible scientific solutions.
The idea of a liberal arts education is to be able to explore all fields
rather than sticking to one or two, but in many cases, the freedom of
a liberal arts education facilitates a student's ignorance of a lot of
options that are not necessarily connected to his field of interest.
Double majoring has been increasing in popularity over the years, which
detracts a lot from opportunities to bring ideas together. I'm a culprit
of this too-for many of us aspiring to various endeavors, one major simply
doesn't seem to be enough of a challenge.
The problem is that the challenge may very well come at the cost of the
liberal arts or "total" education, because it severely limits
our possibilities of being exposed to new ideas outside our primary fields
of concentration. That result is not a desirable promotion in a premier
institution of higher learning.
The problem rests with students who come into college already having narrowed
their minds. It also rests with the makeup of departments that rarely
venture out to embrace other departments. This is not to say that professors'
interests aren't far-reaching. They are, but because we are not always
aware of these interests, it seems just fine to constrain ourselves to
a single area-possibly at the price of the humanist notion of education,
and certainly at the expense of our duty to be educated about the world
in a variety of interacting fields.