One effect of the 'expertise' justification for academia is to separate its teaching and research functions. The fact this separation is so often taken for granted is a symptom of the same problem. Yet both functions are, separately, subordinated to the scheme of 'expertise', or (for undergraduates) 'skills': we do research in order provide expert opinions; we teach students because it gives them skills to do their future jobs. The tasks themselves are separate but the tendency is one.
A genuine justification of academia must address both sides of the question: why should we really do research, and why should we really teach students? I think the most satisfactory answer will address both together, and in that way also mend the rift between these functions, which is a huge weak-spot in the expertise-based defence of the university. After all, if academics are policy experts, why should they teach students at all? If we want to teach skills to students, why would policy experts be appropriate teachers?
Obviously I don't think the purpose of academia is to teach skills to students, or to provide expert opinions. Robin Hanson makes convincing comments on the actual function of the university. But I'm more interested in what its function should be. In short, it should be the framework and the hub of thought. In teaching and research alike, it should act as a platform from which we ask: what should the world be like, and how can we get there? It should be a perpetual and reiterating social movement, and it should be moving somewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment