The prompt claims that colleges and universities should require all faculty to spend
time outside their academic world in professions relevant to the courses they teach.
I mostly agree with this statement, as academic work can often be disconnected
from the real world, especially in abstract fields such as mathematics. For the
following two reasons I believe that encouraging faculty to step out of their
comfort zone and into the real world may have many benefits if done correctly.
Work done in post-secondary settings is often isolated from relevant professions.
Not only are many colleges and universities located in small towns, but faculty
very often contain themselves to the locations of post secondary institutions. This,
in turn, reduces their exposure to the going-ons and recent advacements of the
world outside academic settings, as well as the consequences of the work they do.
Take, for example, the development of nucleur weapons at Los Alamos. Many of
the physicists and engineers working on atomic bombs and related technology look
back at their work with regret and guilt. Through their isolation from the reality of
war and society, they failed to recognize the consequences of their work and
became so engrossed in the low level details of the science that they lost sight of
the human lives success would cost. By requiring these scientists to spend time in,
for example, military sectors relevant to their work, perhaps they would have been
more grounded in the realities of their research.
In addition to providing a grounding in reality, time spent outside the academic
world can be an inspiriation to work done within it. Turning to different field, take
for example English and literature. Writer's block is a very real problem for many
professionals and academics. Research has shown that a lack of novelty and a
mundane routine can contribute to writer's block, and thus novelty and new
experiences can alleviate it. New experiences are often the source of new ideas.
Requiring academics to pursue novel experiences in the form of work in
professions relevent to their fields would expose them to ample opportunity to seek
out new inspiration and avoid issues related to a lack of novely, such as writer's
block. In conclusion, I believe that encouraging, but not requiring, faculty to pursue new
experiences is highly beneficial. I would like to emphasize the point that the
exposure of faculty to work outside the academic world is only beneficial if done in
a flexible and balanced manner. Academics often face demanding work, and so
their research and classes should take priority. However, time allowed, the
grounding in real life and inspiration provided by time spent in professional fields
The prompt claims that colleges and universities should require all faculty to spend
time
outside
their
academic
world
in professions relevant to the courses they teach.
I
mostly
agree
with this statement, as
academic
work
can
often
be disconnected
from the
real
world
,
especially
in abstract
fields
such as mathematics. For the
following two reasons I believe that encouraging faculty to step out of their
comfort zone and into the
real
world
may have
many
benefits if done
correctly
.
Work done in post-secondary settings is
often
isolated from relevant professions.
Not
only
are
many
colleges and universities located in
small
towns,
but
faculty
very
often
contain themselves to the locations of post secondary institutions. This,
in turn,
reduces
their exposure to the
going-ons
and recent
advacements
of the
world
outside
academic
settings,
as well
as the consequences of the
work
they do.
Take,
for example
, the development of
nucleur
weapons at Los Alamos.
Many
of
the physicists and engineers working on atomic bombs and related technology look
back at their
work
with regret and guilt. Through their isolation from the reality of
war and society, they failed to recognize the consequences of their
work
and
became
so
engrossed in the low level
details
of the science that they lost sight of
the human
lives
success would cost. By requiring these scientists to spend
time
in,
for example
, military sectors relevant to their
work
, perhaps they would have been
more grounded in the realities of their research.
In addition
to providing a grounding in reality,
time
spent
outside
the academic
world can be an
inspiriation
to
work
done within it. Turning to
different
field
, take
for example
English and literature. Writer's block is a
very
real
problem for
many
professionals and
academics
. Research has shown that a lack of novelty and a
mundane routine can contribute to writer's block, and
thus
novelty and new
experiences can alleviate it. New experiences are
often
the source of new
ideas
.
Requiring
academics
to pursue novel experiences in the form of
work
in
professions
relevent
to their
fields
would expose them to ample opportunity to seek
out new inspiration and avoid issues related to a lack of
novely
, such as writer's
block.
In conclusion
, I believe that encouraging,
but
not requiring, faculty to pursue new
experiences is
highly
beneficial. I would like to emphasize the point that the
exposure of faculty to
work
outside
the
academic
world
is
only
beneficial if done in
a flexible and balanced manner.
Academics
often
face demanding
work
, and
so
their research and classes should take priority.
However
,
time
allowed
, the
grounding in
real
life and inspiration provided by
time
spent in professional
fields