3.3 Training with disciplinary focus versus job training
In the past, professors passed on their knowledge to their
students, i.e., the university offered training in a certain
field of science. The fact that today a number of professors
with different fields teach in one curriculum did not bring
about a principal change, because the increasing number of
professors often reflects only the increasing division of
fields and specialization of teachers. By and large, the division
of universities into faculties, and the curricula taught within
a faculty correspondend to scientific fields and subfields.
As long as the graduates from such a curricula work afterwards
as scientists, in their field, no harm is done, but that is
the exception. For the majority, training along fields of
science does not meet job requirements, and there is a gap
between training and and the labour market. The majority of
students go to universities to prepare themselves for high-level
jobs, not to eat from the tree of science. Jobs usually require
more than knowledge in one field of science. For many jobs,
knowledge in two scientific fields is necessary, often in
two faculties. The owner of a food-processing plant, for instance,
requires knowledge in food-processing and food-technology
as well as business management. The animal nutrition advisor
working for the extension service needs training in animal
sciences as well as in extension methods. The cooperative
credit specialist needs agricultural economics as well as
finance and banking knowledge and, perhaps, some training
in law. For the majority of jobs, the best applicant has not
only to be trained in one scientific field but has to gain
sufficient knowledge in at least one other field as well.
This extra knowledge often tends to be management of one kind
or the other.
As meeting job requirements is not only necessary for the
easy placement of students but to make the best possible contribution
to the development of the economy, the modern college needs
flexibility in its curricula so that the student has a chance
to broaden his training beyond the boundaries of a single
field of science or department. The variety of personal interest
and circumstances, the peculiarities of the current labour
market, and the difficulty of predicting the future labour
market makes it difficult to decide on the most suitable mixture
of subjects. In this situation, the decision is best placed
in the hands of the one who has to take the risk, the student,
provided safeguards are taken to prevent chosing the easiest
path and students receive proper councelling.
To summarize, it appears that for all three problem areas,
i.e. practice versus theory-oriented training, broad training
versus specialization, and disciplinary focus versus job training,
there is no definite answer for one or the other choice. In
each case, both are necessary, depending on future career
plans. The modern college of agriculture, therefore, requires
great flexibility in its curriculum requirements so that the
students have a certain choice corresponding to their personal
interests above and beyond certain obligatory courses.
Training students to meet the requirements of our times requires
adjustment not only in the content, but also in the method
of training. The traditional lecture is unavoidable because
it is the most timesaving means of teaching fundamentals of
the field. Therefore they have their place, especially in
introductory courses. However, they need complementary forms
of instruction because of their limitations. The classical
lecture tends to induce memorizing, repeating, and copying.
The university graduate of our times, however, should be capable
of critical thinking. He should question the socalled facts.
We want him trained in the creative use of science to achieve
objectives, not just in memorizing the principles. Most jobs
require daily solving of arising problems, and the solution
often lies in the combination of different pieces of knowledge.
To train students for these requirements, other teaching methods
than lectures are necessary. Exercises, in which students
try to find answers to given problems, are an example. Short
papers on specific topics may be beneficial and give exercise
in one of the day to day requirements of working life: to
compile and write a paper in a precise, comprehensive, short
manner. Bringing students out to the villages and into the
factories means teaching and working in the real world where
problems are not isolated as in laboratory experiments, but
practical aspects like the availability of labour, costs,
and time often play a decisive role in determining the solution.
In working life, due to the complexity of the problems, solutions
are often the result of the co-operation of a team of specialists
of which everybody contributes with his particular knowledge.
While such interdisciplinary work has been discussed very
often in recent years, students training during most formative
years emphasize only individual work and achievement. It might
be worthwhile to consider the value of comprehensive topics
to be dealt with by a group of students. While each deals
with one limited aspect according to his fields, he recognizes
his contribution as part of the whole task and learns to appreciate
the limitations of the individual field towards solving practical
problems.
The university as an instrument in socio-economic development
cannot limit its training activities to the students proper.
The improvement in the level of teaching over the past makes
today's graduates much more qualified than former ones. This
calls for retraining of alumni in order to give the economy
the necessary manpower at the required level. In addition,
sciences are developing so rapidly today that learning cannot
end on the day of graduation. What other institution than
the university is in the position to give in-service training
at the university level, an urgent necessity in an economy
expanding its scope and productivity.
Finally, there are numerous persons playing leading roles
in the development process of the nation who would benefit
from short courses and do afterwards a better job for the
society. Needless to say, the benefit is mutual. Training
not only students, but adults who are in the midst of their
career and have excellent experiences, gives the university
impressions as to ,,where the shoe hurts" and how problems
look to the eyes of a farmer or an engineer. It guarantees
that thinking at the university develops parallel to the needs
and wishes of society and, thus, improves the social significance
of teaching activities.
One final comment on teaching: it belongs to the role of
agricultural colleges to teach other faculties, what modern
agriculture is and what role it plays in the society. The
fewer people are engaged in agriculture, the more important
is it that leading personalities of all professions have a
basic understanding of the problems and conditions of this
shrinking sector of the economy and society.
|