My student Marvin Sy (left) and I had one of those regular conversations over merienda yesterday. The topic of our debate was whether all students in the University ought to be there.
I immediately answered, "No." For I believe that only those with certain skills--abstraction, articulation, and the pursuit of ideas in books, according to Jacques Barzun (The Intellectual Life)--are fit for University work. This does not preclude the fact that there are brilliant people who should not be in University but, instead, would do better to enter specialized schools, because their talents are in practical matters and not in the abstract work peculiar to the University.
The distinction between abstract and practical may be more refined if we group jobs in this world under three general kinds based on the three transcendentals, namely, truth, good, and beauty.
The "truth" professions--if we can even call them professions--include the thinkers whose job is to contemplate and to research the truth. Liberal artists like philosophers and historians, many kinds of scientists, medical doctors (before residency), and lawyers are traditionally trained in Universities.
The "good" professions are those that deal with making things or making things happen. These include the engineers, managers, farmers, soldiers, and manual laborers. Their training consists not in abstractions but in the application of techniques. These are trained in special schools that offer heavy practical apprenticeships.
The "beauty" professions are those that deal with art of all sorts, that is, musicians, painters, architects, actors, and chefs. Again, they are offered many apprenticeships, with the difference that aesthetic talent is more important than practical talent.
The distinction of professions into three areas does not mean the categories are mutually exclusive. What is important, however, is that the way students are trained is matched to their dominant talents and the demands of their chosen profession, be it abstraction, practicality or aesthetics. The specificity of the training argues for a difference in the educational systems designed to implement that training.
Thus, management as a practical subject should not be a University major, concerned as the latter is with the "truth" professions (i.e., the liberal arts, cf. John Henry Newman, Idea of a University). The case of the HEC (Hautes Etudes Commerciales) school in France illustrates the point. This very prestigious school attracts some of the brightest students in the country, but it is not part of the University system. The same may be said of some business schools identified as separate institutions from their mother universities.
In the case of the University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P), where Marvin studies and where I work, something similar has been done in the case of the Entrepreneurial Management program (EMP).
The EMP exists side by side with a regular business program (MScM), which in its first two years is a liberal arts program and, therefore, part of the University. MScM students move to the more practical School of Management by their third year. In contrast, from day one, EMP students, although they take some liberal arts, are still taught somewhat differently from their MScM cousins. The students are presumed to be different. EMP students are admitted on the basis of criteria that are not applied to MScM students: EM character traits best described as street smarts, intellectual traits best adapted to concrete rather than abstract problems, and pockets deep enough to finance a new business venture as part of the course requirements. Many students now in the liberal arts program may, on the basis of these criteria, be better in EM.
Thus, future MScM students must spend two years in the liberal arts, which in some cases will not match the students' talents. Is this practice counterproductive?
A special school with many business subjects and few liberal arts subjects would turn out great businessmen but weaker humanists. A heavy dose of liberal arts is motivated by a desire to form great humanists as well. But those subjects take away time from business subjects. For a practical man, this might prove boring or repulsive in the short term. In the long term, however, the liberal arts might be an asset, since business nowadays involves abstraction skills taught in the liberal arts; but whether they will, in fact, be an asset depends on whether the man learns those skills, and THAT depends on whether the subject is taught to match his talents.
Thus, if we must teach the liberal arts, we should not teach them in the same way to all students. Perhaps, we should not give them the same teachers. Separating special schools from the University is one way to make this happen.
The question remains: if there is a mismatch now, what do we do? Live with it. I argued that should his liberal arts subjects prove to be always above his head (Marvin being a practical man), he should do his best to fill the deficiencies by some practical exercise, like challenging his teachers to a debate.
And when he debates with me, better over some merienda or beer.
No comments:
Post a Comment