Sheril in the New York Times

another amen!

Humanties are crucial to performing top quality research in the sciences (I am strong believer that every mathematics major be required to take a course in epistemology). But isn't this what an undergraduate liberal arts education supposed to be about? If we at the university did our job properly at the undergraduate level, why should this be necessary at the graduate level? What is it about this material that makes it inappropriate for the undergraduate level?

Being a writer is crucial to being a professional scientist. But if it is just a matter of writing, then this work sounds more remedial than interdisciplinary to me.

In my mind, graduate school is not so much about learning new scientific material (theoretically, a liberal arts education should have gotten you to the point where you can do this on your own). It is more about learning to contribute meaningfully to the body of scientific material.

w00t!

Congratulations on getting published, and a hearty “well said!” to the letter itself.

Yay, Sheril. Well said indeed.

Thanks Chris et. al.

All I can say about getting some ink in the Times is that I'm honored. And obviously, learning from the best ;)

In light of all the BS on WMD, aluminum tubes and the like that the NY Times printed that was used as a rationale for invasion of Iraq, the editorial page would seem to be the only thing of any value in the NY Times.

Beautifully written, let it resonate...

Chris,
First, I'll add my congradulations to my Roomie. She does good work.

Second, I'd like to address Walker's thesis: Yes, a quality liberal arts education both can, and should do everything Sheril describes in her letter, and the NY Times describes in its article. Unfortunately, many larger state univerisities have moved so far away from an integrated liberal arts focus that graduuate schools have to readd this to the curriculum. If an undergraduate at a school over more then 4000 students get an interdisciplinary focus in their Bachelor's program, iti is usually as a freshmen, and then academic specialization takes over. By the time they graduate four years later, they have long ago forgotten the cross-disciplinary topics they were discussing.

So if graduate schools need to bring back that focus, I'm ok with it. At least someone is.

The University of Florida has recently undergone a budget contraction of historic proportions. Sadly, it is the humanities that have received the heaviest blow from the budget cuts. As a scientist who has developed and fostered interdisciplinary programs, I am convinced that this form of administrative myopia is guaranteed to produce mediocrity. Interdisciplinary science programs, especially those including a role for the humanities, are the future of the modern university. At UF, the academy has been deconstructed to a single metric: research dollars. Such a narrow definition of scholarship is ultimately antithetical to creativity and innovation. Moreover, science and technology lack context and ethics if not developed with the guideposts provided by history, philosophy and literature.

Unfortunately, I see a trend among the putatively state supported institutions to devalue the humanities in favor of science supported by donors, corporations, and private foundations. Without the objective freedom allowed by public dollars, the academy will continue to be progressively beholding to vested interests who are willing to pay for programs and targeted research, especially those likely to result in patents and copyrights. Increasingly, state lawmakers acquiesce to, or even champion, the politically popular notion that universities should be able to pay their own way. In the end this will result generations of graduates without the capacity to think critically about their values.