Improving the 'how' of education

If you had a magic wand, how would you reform undergraduate education? Princeton professor Stanley Katz posed this offbeat question to 11 academics as part of the online magazine Slate's recent weeklong feature focusing on undergraduate education.

The answers were predictably varied. Several bemoaned the decline of morality in the classroom. Others felt students should be reading more Plato. Two professors thought that general education requirements should involve the disciplines in which they themselves teach, which seems reasonable when that discipline is cognitive science but somewhat bizarre when it is "disability studies."

Penn went through its own real-life version of this debate last year when professors, administrators and students began discussing curriculum reform in the College. Like the overwhelming majority of Slate's academic contributors, much of the debate centered on what students should be learning -- Arts and humanities? Natural science? Cross-cultural awareness?

In the end, consensus and compromise won out, which means that nothing changed substantially, save some tweaking, repackaging and eliminated redundancies.

Does the inclusion or exclusion of any given requirement really matter anyway?

No.

The question of what students should study becomes increasingly difficult to manage as human knowledge rapidly expands, facilitated by advancements in technology. Debates such as those on Slate demonstrate that there is just far too much "important" knowledge to squeeze into four years of undergraduate education. As this trend continues, the value of that education will lie in how we are taught, rather than what we are taught.

The breadth and exposure of our classroom studies is clearly not inconsequential, but real value belongs to the learning environment fostered inside and outside of the classroom. Small classes, strong faculty-student relationships and skilled teaching are key ingredients to a quality learning experience.

The classes I remember best are those which fostered this intellectual and challenging environment regardless of the material. More importantly, those are the classes from which I walked away empowered and eager to learn more.

Unfortunately, Penn's ability to improve this how of undergraduate education is significantly limited by its role as a major research university. This classification conveys that while our academic resources are vast, scholarly research is the top priority of our faculty and the central task of the University. The importance of the undergraduate instruction often becomes secondary.

I just wish I'd known that before applying.

I didn't quite understand what it meant to be at a research university until midway through my freshman year, when I grew frustrated with a large Philosophy lecture and its lackluster recitation conversations where few people seemed to do the reading. Not to mention my Math 114 professor who barely spoke English and wrote incomprehensible formulas on the board the entire lecture. First semester was rough -- not because the classes were challenging, but because they just weren't engaging.

I could never regret my decision to come to Penn, which has afforded me incredible experiences and friendships, but I certainly did not walk into this experience with my eyes wide open.

Sometimes I wonder if I would have had a better educational experience at one of our liberal arts suburban neighbors, like Swarthmore or Haverford. While professors at such institutions also conduct research, teaching is generally their largest priority. Thanks to a lower faculty-to-student ratio and smaller classes, there is a greater opportunity for faculty-student interaction and significant support for undergraduate research.

Ernest Boyer, former director of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, expressed a similar ambivalence: "An undergraduate at an American research university can receive an education as good as or better than anything available anywhere in the world, but that is not the normative experience .... Recruitment materials display proudly the world-famous professors, the splendid facilities, and the ground-breaking research that goes on within them, but thousands of students will graduate without ever seeing the world-famous professors or tasting genuine research."

As a leading research university, Penn has incredible resources, but you have to truly seek them out in order to make the most of your time here. Freshman seminars, the recent emphasis on advising in the College, and preceptorials are examples of laudable efforts to improve the learning environment, but Penn will still always be a large research university.

I just hope this year's group of early decision applicants know what they are getting into.

Shannon Jensen is a senior real estate, business and public policy and urban studies major from Annapolis, Md. Above Board appears on Mondays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.