Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Monday, December 26, 2005

EO Wilson on liberal arts colleges

Andre Brown sent along a quote from E.O. Wilson I like very much.

I went to the University of Alabama and they pretty much let me do what I wanted to do. I got into the Department of Biology and had some very good, attentive professors. It was the late '40s and they paid close attention to me. I was a gangly 17-year-old when I first went and graduated at 19. They were used to dealing almost entirely with preparing students to go on to medical school. Here they had an authentic embryonic biologist, so I got all sorts of special attention, including my own lab space when I was a freshman—it was great.

I'm not sure you could reproduce that experience today. Science has changed a lot. For parents thinking of encouraging their children to become scientists, and especially biologists and naturalists—if the student has that inclination to start with—I would recommend liberal arts colleges, not major research institutes. Go to a major research university after you've had four years of a liberal arts college that believes in generalized training in biology, including natural history, with heavy emphasis on ecology. In the last several years I've visited a number of really outstanding ones and the difference between them and major research universities, including my own Harvard, is striking, in terms of what it can mean to an individual student.

Most science education takes a boot camp approach or is set up to train acolytes. That's because most scientists are journeymen—they're not masters. That is to say, they're well-versed and if it's a major research university they probably have some accomplishments on a narrow segment of scientific research, but basically they think like journeymen and are there to train journeymen. They don't think particularly laterally about what their field means. There are, of course, in every university and college striking exceptions, but most scientists are recognized for and advanced by the discoveries they make. The gold and silver of science is original discovery. They know they have to be involved in making an original discovery, and to do that you move along a very narrow front.

There's time enough to specialize and dig deep into a field in graduate school. An undergraduate education should emphasize breadth of knowledge and a recognition of the big ideas, not giving a fine focus on one tight little problem.

I think his emphasis on ecology is a product of his personal biases, though. If you ask me, you should emphasize developmental and molecular biology.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/3624/uNVWBtzE/

Comments:
#55174: Joseph ODonnell — 12/26  at  08:09 AM
Personally, I think everyone should know a little microbiology and immunology :D



#55175: — 12/26  at  08:18 AM
I'd like to second E.O. Wilson's call for Ecology and add Evolution to the mix. These two disciplines are highly synthetic. Both of these topics demand a broad knowledge of biology (and other disciplines). In teaching these fields, I have had the opportunity to discuss developmental biology, microbiology, immunobiology, molecular biology and, of course, general natural history. Indeed, in a perfect world, ecology and evolution would be taught in the first year. This class would cover foundational concepts. Then there would be a second class of both taught in the senior year in which the full glory of biology can be applied to highly technical cases of evolution/ecology. But I dream.



#55179: — 12/26  at  09:14 AM
Having attended a major research university (Harvard) and taught in a good liberal arts college (Union)- it's no contest. I will strongly recommend to my daughter that she attend a liberal arts college. Undergraduates should be in a place where their education is the raison d'etre of the institution, and not a somewhat neglected (and not seldom resented, by the faculty) sideline.



#55181: — 12/26  at  09:33 AM
Indeed, in a perfect world, ecology and evolution would be taught in the first year. When I was in college, that's how the intro bio courses at Harvard were arranged- ecology and evolution in Bio 1, organismal biology in Bio 2. And at that time Bio 1 was taught by none other than E.O. Wilson! Unfortunately I didn't take it because I had AP credit for biology. It's been a lot of years, but I still haven't stopped kicking myself. ;)

I also missed by 1 year hearing Watson lecture in Biochem 10, but at least that one wasn't my fault. ;)



#55183: — 12/26  at  09:47 AM
Ecology is a good focus exactly because it cuts across those artificial boundaries call "disciplines". I would say that evolution is a good focus too; I'm a computer scientist and I teach a section in a multi-disciplinary course on evolution (at a liberal arts college, of course!) Another good example is cognitive science.



#55192: — 12/26  at  10:56 AM
I want to agree with the general point, and extend on an earlier thread about UMM's place in this discussion.

Over the last couple of years, I have had reason to get to know the higher education institutions of the US. First I focused on the Pacific NW as my son prepared to attend college. We looked at the major universities (UO, UW, etc) and various liberal arts colleges (Reed,Portland, Lewis-Clark, Gonzaga, Willamette, etc). For my money Whitman in Walla Walla stood out in this group. They get extra points for inviting Gould to give their commencement address the year he died.

Shortly later I had reason to continue this information gathering nationwide as I simultaneously worked on graduate studies in higher education administration, and seeking new employment. This led me to look at several small colleges across the west and midwest. That process led me to discover UM-Morris among others. Of the half dozen places that I seriously considered, many with rather well known names, Morris stood out for it's quality.

So, I strongly agree that liberal arts colleges are the best venue for undergaduate education, and just as strongly think that UM-Morris is one of the best of that excellent group. It is a shame that I knew nothing of UMM before my son entered college.



#55193: — 12/26  at  10:58 AM
I couldn't agree more that liberal arts colleges are the way to go, but I think my fellow biologists are a little too focused on biology as the core of "generalized" scientific training. I was a chemistry major at a small liberal arts college, and while I now wish I had traded the advanced organic and p-chem for genetics classes, I wouldn't trade most of my chemistry classes for anything. Knowing and really understanding kinetcs, equilibrium, organic reactions, and biochemistry is really essential for doing most biology these days.

If I had a kid entering into college wanting to study biology as a career, I would advise them to take fewer electives withing their major and more chemistry, physics/math/computer science. As the sciences become more integrated, you really want a broad amount of training in the sciences to go forward. (I would also advise the physics/math/CS people to take a lot of biogogy and chemistry). You can pick up most of the required specilization in grad school (assuming you pick one that has a sensible coursework requirement).

Just Curious PZ- What courses outside of biology are your majors required to take?

Ivan



#55198: — 12/26  at  11:21 AM
Is the liberal arts experience limited to a liberal arts college? At my school (Missouri-Columbia), all first-year students have the opportunity to take a seminar with fewer than 20 students taught by a ranked faculty member, the Honors college offers a number of small-enrollment courses, and the residential halls are organized in great part to put students with similar interests together (including women in engineering and science, etc.) And virtually all of our ~300 majors can work on a research project for one or more semesters. There's more, but you get the idea...

I speak with the perspective of having a son who went to a small college, and a nephew who went to a humongous one, both majoring in science. Both got good educations and are on the way to successful careers. Neither could have had the experiences he did at the others' institutions.

I think Wilson is unaware of many things that are going on at large universities outside of Harvard, and I wouldn't expect him to be. Stereotypes may be comforting but ultimately they are limiting.



#55201: The Chemist — 12/26  at  11:35 AM
I agree with everyone who's said that the liberal arts colleges are better. I went to a large school for two years (majoring in biochemistry), and after my first organic chemistry class in a 300-seat lecture hall, decided I was out of there. I transferred to a small liberal arts college and got a much better education and much better experiences than I would have had I not transferred.



#55202: — 12/26  at  11:36 AM
For the benifit of us non-Americans, could someone try to explain the US system?

As an comparision, I can explain how the Danish system works.
After high school (grade 10 to 12), you start at university where you have one major subject and one minor subject, or just one subject.
After three years you have a bachelors degree, which can be extended into what is called a Candidate degree by studying the same subject two more years. There are also a few options for getting a masters degree, but those are considered inferior to the Candidate degree.
After a Candidate degree, it's possible to try to make a ph.d. with two or three more years.

There is of course a little more to it, but it's a brief summery of how the Danish system works.

For example, I am majoring in Computer science, with a minor in Computer science (yes, I am majoring and minoring in the same subject, but instead I could be minoring in math), and expect to hold a bachelors degree by this summer. After that I expect to study (at least) two more years to get my Cand. Scient. Comp.
I am certainly not going the Ph.D. route.



#55205: dread pirate roberts — 12/26  at  11:51 AM
as one of the non-scientists in the crowd (c'mon, there must be more of you), i agree with the recommendation. i can't imagine that gould, to take an example, could write as he did without knowing some history and politics and literature. i think it is the "liberal arts" part that is valuable. i do know that the gen ed requirements at UCSC provide only the skimpiest of an "education" for science majors.



#55208: Leah — 12/26  at  12:16 PM
thanks for this great quote. I look up to E.O. Wilson (what biologist doesn't?), and I'm glad he reinforces my decision to go to a liberal arts school. I'm applying to grad school right now, and I was worried that my liberal arts background might be a hinderance, since I was not able to take a lot of specialized electives (tho I did take a lot of broad electives). Rather, I've found that everywhere appreciates my broad background and all the independent research experience I have, because I now have the foundation to move in a more specialized direction and have passed part of the research learning curve.

go liberal arts grin I will continue to advocate liberal arts schools to all the high school students I meet.



's avatar #55209: Raven — 12/26  at  12:18 PM
I agree with you on the liberal arts education, PZ, but really, it's anatomy that everyone should study as the foundation of all the biological disciplines. :D



#55212: — 12/26  at  12:43 PM
An undergraduate education should emphasize breadth of knowledge and a recognition of the big ideas, not giving a fine focus on one tight little problem.

In a prefect world all undergraduate education would be like this, not job training. And I wish mine had been. Mine was as wide as political science to sociology to econ; what a wide swath... not.

And I'm the poorer for it, it's a lot of work to broaden your world after your undergraduate years. (Enjoyable, but with a lot more slippage than there would have been when I was an undergraduate.)



#55213: — 12/26  at  12:44 PM
For 34 years I've been associated with one of the colleges Wilson mentioned that he visited -- he was here a couple of years ago and got a warm reception.

In the last decade or so, though, I've noticed a less attractive tendency, a tendency on the part of new faculty to regard the college as a sort of mini-university, and they want to emulate their graduate advisors. It takes some time and conscious effort to select new faculty carefully and acculturate them to the notion that their primary role is teaching undergraduates, not doing their own research.

It's a bind for junior faculty, of course, because should they fail of retention/tenure after five or six years at the college, their chance for another academic job, especially one at a large university, depends substantially on their research productivity during their time here. So there's a difficult tension for them: the college expects emphasis on teaching, but their own career prospects argue for a strong focus on their research. While we tell stories about how the two aren't antithetical, time and energy aren't unlimited. So it can be tough for them.

RBH



#55215: Kagehi — 12/26  at  01:28 PM
Unfortunately, I would suspect that Liberal Arts colleges are the most likely to fall prey to overblown PC-ness, some of the serious nuts in the so called "diversity" movement, which is about anything but that, and are more likely to run into post modernists and other crazies. Its often the case that you have to look at the larger picture of what is going on, even if, in a specific criteria, one part of the colleges courses tends to have serious benefits. Sadly, most of the people I see that complain a lot about how everyone else doesn't know how to think, but can't even present better alternatives, usually have a Liberal Arts degree, at least in my experience on various forums. :p

While the concept of a more diverse understanding, *then* specialization, is wonderful, the reality is that too many of these places are turning out Jack of All Trades types that can't think critically enough *to* specialize, but have been convinced by other aspects of their education there that their general lack of focus, and the subsequent tendency to simply complain about how no one else knows anything, are actually good things. I am sure this isn't true for everyone (or maybe even half) of those going to such places, but show me someone with both a degree and no clue and they will 90% of the time be from a Liberal Arts college.

Any priest or shaman must be presumed guilty until proved innocent - Robert A. Heinlein



#55219: jim — 12/26  at  01:59 PM
It's all very well to say that it's better to go to a liberal arts college than a research-oriented university for an undergraduate education. The problem is that to a first approximation there aren't any. The very strongly modal undergraduate experience is a large state university where the faculty emphasise research. There are few exceptions to that model. The Ivy League is a famous, if statistically insignificant, exception. Liberal Arts Colleges are another, nearly as statistically insignificant. There are less than three hundred institutions listed as liberal arts colleges in the USN&WR simplification of the Carnegie classification. They're all small. Only half a dozen or so of them are state-sponsored (Morris is one of the half-dozen), so the bulk are expensive. Most undergraduates wouldn't want to go to such places; the schools don't have the capacity to take them even if they wanted to.



#55224: — 12/26  at  04:14 PM
One of the points that E.O. Wilson raised was how preparation for medical school was a major product of biology departments at large research universities, which almost always have an associated medical school. I did my PhD at a top-notch large midwestern university (in fact, there is a slim chance I could have been one of Orac's TA's!) and where the undergraduate biology major was designed to weed out premeds, not foster important critical thinking skills. As an undergrad, I majored in botany, so I was peripherally exposed to the intensity of a premed curriculum. Finally, I taught at a Research II university, and again the biology major was geared around premed requirements. Thus, some of the problems teaching biology at large research universities are correlated with premeds, but I do not know what caused what.

On the other hand, the non-major's biology intro course where I taught started with ecology/evolution, which shows that others think this is good for teaching. With these experiences, my son is attending a liberal arts college. An excellent public liberal arts college is St. Mary's College of Maryland.



#55225: — 12/26  at  04:30 PM
With that, EO Wilson almost makes up for beginning The Future of Life with a wank-fest to that whiny punk Thoreau, who's approach to environmentalism is as ineffective as it is popular.



#55226: — 12/26  at  04:31 PM
With that, EO Wilson almost makes up for beginning The Future of Life with a wank-fest to that whiny punk Thoreau, whose approach to environmentalism is as ineffective as it is popular.



#55231: — 12/26  at  06:05 PM
Jamie -- if you'd care to add some intellectual content to your lame post, I'll explain to you how full of shit you are.



#55234: Alon Levy — 12/26  at  06:57 PM
I think his emphasis on ecology is a product of his personal biases, though. If you ask me, you should emphasize developmental and molecular biology.

Actually, I suspect most of this discussion is a product of your personal biases toward biology, which seems to be very different from most other majors in that it's crucial to a professional school (I think economics should be similar to it because of business schools). I presume that a small class size is an advantage of liberal arts colleges, but only compared to large state universities; if you compare, say, UMM to Princeton, I don't think you'll find a difference in class size.

In addition, the two American big-university systems I know, Harvard and Cal State, both emphasize a very broad undergraduate education. Cal State has very specific general studies requirements, such as three science courses of which at least one has regular lab sessions, three humanities courses, etc. Harvard divides all classes into eleven categories and requires you to take at least one in each of the seven furthest from your major. Neither sysem goes to particularly large depth, but you can't delve deeply into ten different subjects and still graduate in four years.



#55241: Rob Ellis — 12/26  at  08:52 PM
I have to disagree on this one. In physics, anyway, the competition is so intense, I think the way to go is the most prestigious sounding university you can find. Undergraduate courses generally use the same textbooks, more or less, and everyone seems to have roughly the same mixture of brilliant, mentally absent, and sadistic profs. The quality of education probably depends more on the people surrounding you than anything else, and for grad school admissions, I don't think there's any question of the best way to go.

Maybe biology's different.



#55242: kstrna — 12/26  at  08:54 PM
It is not just small class sizes that provides the quality of undergraduate education in the sciences at a small liberal arts college. It is the fact that faculty are selected for their ability to actually teach. At research universities, professors are primarily selected for their ability to get grants. Teaching is seen as a burden in that pursuit. Not all faculty see it that way, but many do and many do not want to teach. Usually SLAC professors teach more classes letting them refine their craft to a greater extent as well.



#55244: — 12/26  at  09:17 PM
As always in this great country, it's possible to find people going overboard the other way.

One of my editors has a daughter who wants to be a physician. She choose as undergraduate school UMass-Amherst, which forbids its premeds to take ANY science courses.

I learned this when she took a summer job in the newsroom. I spotted her using her free time to read an organic chemistry text (not before seen in any newsroom) and asked about it. She was sneaking around the rules so when she gets to med school she might have some sort of a clue about science.

For what it's worth, the rationale between the scienceless lib arts course for premeds is that ordinary clinical training turns out mechanics instead of empathetic doctors.

Top flight research universities (the ones I know about are MIT and Caltech) give their undergrads a big dose of liberal arts. My friend the Caltech physics major actually had to read more English lit. to get his physics degree than I had to read to get my English degree at Cow College.

My oldest started out at one of the finest (and most expensive) lib. arts colleges in the country -- and in the country was the operative word. She soon fled the sticks for a multiversity.

The second child, who has dyslexia, went to a public 'arts' (not lib. arts) university, where he was able to invent his own course. He ended up running an IBM mainframe (this was a while ago) that some professor had ordered and then left in its crate when he changed employers, and created a slot for himself that has generated a very successful international career in a field he more or less invented as an undergrad. I doubt that any of the nation's small liberal arts colleges would have left $2M pieces of equipment lying around for dyslexic kids to fool around with, and -- as a taxpayer -- it was probably a bad idea for the public university to do so, though it worked out well for my son.

The youngest is following her military husband around and attending whatever college is nearby. She feels she's learning what she wants to learn.

Their experience reinforces the one thing I learned at Cow College: all education is self-education.



Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Next entry: Post-Christmas slump

Previous entry: Narnia blarnia

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college