[Response to Clive Keen from Debra Lindsay:]
If Mr Keen is correct in his assessment of the wants and needs of today’s students, namely that they are more concerned with training for the job market than with an education, then what twist of logic facilitates his claim that universities must offer applied programs to satisfy requirements for job training? Is it not the case that our community colleges fill that need?
If job training is the goal, and a certificate or diploma in an applied field of study will provide access to a job, then there is no need for a B.A. or B.Sc.
Or is there?
Perhaps today’s students do want a degree. Perhaps they are not as instrumentalist as employers (in particular) would have us believe. Perhaps they are interested in Shakespeare.
Being an enrolment manager does not qualify Mr Keen as an expert on what students want. When they arrive at university, many students are themselves uncertain as to what they want—and that is as it should be. Most of them are 18 or 19 years of age. They are embarking on a journey of intellectual discovery—in which the university is the vehicle and they are in the driver’s seat.
Moreover, Mr Keen suggests that if we just follow his suggestion to offer more applied programs the universities will thrive. When did the argument become about the survival of the bricks and mortar? By definition, the university refers to the relationship between faculty and students. The classrooms, labs and offices, as well as the administration and staff are there to facilitate the educational process—that is, learning.
When Keen states: “Because so many people desire to go to university, and the economy is becoming increasingly reliant on knowledge, there’s great hope for universities if they can appeal to more people” he betrays himself. His concern is not with the students—or with faculty who are students first, last, and always—but with ensuring that the underpinnings of our current economic regime are preserved.
Now Keen is someone in favour of the status quo.
Debra Lindsay
[This letter was printed in The Daily Gleaner.]