Let's refine, not "end the university as we know it"

For the most part, Taylor’s recent op-ed piece in the New York Times repeats sensible recommendations for helping the sorry state of higher education. I agree that abolishing tenure and using more applied approaches to topics are necessary. As for Ph.D programs, there are simply too many over-educated individuals out there for a finite number of tenure-track (TT) teaching positions. As “Piled High & Deeper” puts it, it’s a ponzi scheme. Adjunct professors are brought in to fill immediate demand. In many departments, adjuncts outnumber TT professors. I’ve experienced several departments where it is nearly impossible to rise to a TT position from an adjunct one, even though this is a goal of many adjuncts. However, I feel that Taylor oversteps when he advocates to,

Abolish permanent departments, even for undergraduate education, and create problem-focused programs. These constantly evolving programs would have sunset clauses, and every seven years each one should be evaluated and either abolished, continued or significantly changed. It is possible to imagine a broad range of topics around which such zones of inquiry could be organized: Mind, Body, Law, Information, Networks, Language, Space, Time, Media, Money, Life and Water.

Taylor’s example of a temporary department based around a specific timely problem reveals a significant problem with his approach. Universities are not think tanks, and these “broad” categories neglect the existing lineage, and risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Departments and disciplines have evolved to encompass particular approaches under certain theoretical lineages. The cynic in me says that a “media” department would replicate the existing focus of journalism and mass communication departments. The constant creation and demolishing of temporary departments would also be an unfair burden on departmental and university administration.

Meaningful ideas separate disciplines. The variety of research being conducted in academia resists the unification Taylor proposes. I would hope that this is viewed as a strength by researchers and not as a liability. Academia has always approached similar issues from different perspectives. Sociology has a different set of concerns under investigation than psychology, although they may mesh when considering, say, social psychology. Some departments, such as communications, already suffer under an extremely broad scope. One professor’s research has little in common with another in the same department. In short, I favor unification and evolution in higher education, but not through yet more ill-fitting labels being created for disciplines.