David Merritt is a junior majoring in communication. He can be contacted at [email protected].I find it very difficult to feel comfortable about choosing a major, even as a junior. From the looks of it, most people would agree since hardly anyone gets through college without swapping a few times.
I’m sure there are quite a few explanations for this that might include the fact that people aren’t sure what direction their life is taking or are unaware of what a certain field of study encompasses.
After three major changes, I’ve realized something. It seems as if every discipline is very narrow in its studies. For example, if you major in English, you will do an ungodly amount of writing. This is understandable since it’s pretty clear from the beginning what you’re getting into. The problem is that even if you’re the “writing type,” writing isn’t the only thing you’re fascinated with. People tend to have extremely varied interests, and maybe this is what makes it so hard to commit to a certain degree.
So why doesn’t a given field of study take into account this fact? Well, jobs are growing more and more technical, and thus the sort of vocational knowledge one would gain from a college degree would seemingly need to be more specific than in the past.
But the amount of real education someone would get from college comes into question. I feel like I can say this because most people only retain information that is interesting to them. A dedicated student can pass a boring class, but how much of what they really learned and will remember is up for debate.
So isn’t it reasonable to assume that since people are forced to learn a lot about a very narrow field of knowledge, they won’t retain much of this knowledge because it doesn’t appeal to them? That might be stretching it a bit, but I honestly believe that if degrees allowed for more exploration, the average college student would most likely take classes that appealed to them and thus further their education rather than stifle it.
Even if you look at this issue from the perspective of an employer, it’s attractive. If I were looking for a college graduate to fill a position, I would prefer one who, due to a well-rounded and self-fulfilling education, is articulate and able to relate in many different situations. Just because an applicant for a job is very knowledgeable in the constricted slot he is supposed to fill doesn’t necessarily mean they will succeed in the workplace. They might get the job, but eventually they’ll want to move up, deal with bigger issues and have to correspond with people who specialize in areas they’ll inevitably only know a little about. It seems like having a well-rounded education is more helpful to those who hope to succeed and lead.
If you look at any successful person (I’m using this word loosely and only in terms of career success), you’ll notice that they don’t have a particular knowledge in one specific field. And if you look inside of a history book, you’ll also notice that the great minds we remember were men and women of very broad interests. Ben Franklin was a politician and scientist among other things, and Leonardo da Vinci dabbled in nearly every subject imaginable.
So why is it that we value these traits in educated minds but don’t encourage them? Our society hypocritically believes that a technical education is best while a broader education is actually more worthwhile.
My point is to encourage universities to adopt buffet-style degrees in which the student has more freedom to develop his education in a way that suits his own needs and interests. This would not only help students succeed in the workplace but also give students a more fulfilling education.