I thought I might chime in here with the observation that "general
education" is something of an oxymoron when the folks who are charged to
provide it are specialists in their own fields. Education, in order to
provide rigor, depth, and quality (good things, IMO), has been forced to
hire specialists who operate in relative ignorance of, and with some
discomfort with, the operational assumptions of those working in other
fields.
There is no "common view," which makes governance by consensus difficult
and governance through "democracy" nearly impossible. It would seem hard,
I think, to develop a learning organization under such conditions.
This said, there may be room to develop a rigorous general education if
such education focuses on the structure of general information and on the
linkages of such information both to and between the various specialities.
This has yet to be done successfully. Initial steps have been taken, here
and there, to help those of us who run libraries find people who can link
a seeker's need to the available information but have failed because
libraries, in general, prefer to deal with books rather than "knowledges."
It may also be that this problem is not restricted to universities but is
also a general problem for all those who wish to develop learning
organizations -- how does one deliver "generalized learning" when those
who control/contribute to the process are specialists?
Bob Watson
Executive Director
Franklin Park Public Library District
10311 Grand Avenue
Franklin Park, IL 60131
847-455-6016
--Bob Watson <bwatson@linc.lib.il.us>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>