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