I'm going to have to put off a full response until later, but I have a few preliminary comments and suggestions about this topic.
1) Some friends and I are already working on a similar project which focuses exclusively on the topic of historical processes. The model we're using right now is along the lines of the Santa Fe Institute, (but I have some personal reservations about this, re. administration & the accreditation process) and it looks pretty promising so far.2) Several schools already use an evaluation system similar to the Learning Record program, including the University of California, Santa Cruz (my UGI), Evergreen in Washington State, and Reed College in Oregon. The program seems to work, although some students who move on to other Universities for graduate work may experience difficulties in transferring their UG record to a system where number/letter grades are the norm.
3) although I am in perfect agreement about the difficulties you described in teaching traditionally trained students (e.g. students who have no idea what education is actually about, or how to go about getting one) and in even greater agreement concerning the ineffectiveness of department, college, and university guidelines and assistance in "teaching how to teach," in my own experience, I've found these particular problems relatively easy to overcome in all but the most egregious cases. These are the simple problems that ultimately come down to experience. A good instructor is part entertainer, part guru, part psychologist, and so forth, all in addition to being a good researcher and author. It's not easy for most people, I admit, and part of the problem is that "educator" is a profession with very low social status, at least in the states. However, I'll admit to some hesitation about the creation of a "Department of Ideological Deprogramming." If I could be certain that SDF, personally, was going to be the perpetual director/facilitator of this department, I don't think I'd be too worried, but "deprogramming" is often the term used for "alternate programming," and the ideology of the programmer is ultimately inseperable from the result. If we could come up with a technology or philosophy that resulted in "self-programming," I'd feel more comfortable, I suspect. The best of all possible ideologies for today is most likely not the best possible for tomorrow, given the inevitability of change.
Concerning the
: Department of Ethnographic Studies
: As Deirdre McCloskey pointed out in THE RHETORIC OF ECONOMICS, many writers in the field have taken to using statistical analysis as a substitute for substantive argument. I would argue that the trend McCloskey cites is true of the social sciences as a whole, and that what's happened is that thin analyses of real-life situations are being "legitimized" in academic contexts by a common academic obsession with the mathematical organization of data.
Again, I can see your point, but in several disciplines, (e.g. population biology, genetics, demography, paleontology, and most importantly archaeology ;-) deterministic causation is rare or absent and probablistic analysis is the only form of rigorous explanation possible. I'd hesitate to completely discard statistical analysis from the social sciences, since it can offer a highly effective predictive system. Nevertheless, I tend to agree that it's often been used to disguise poor thought in exactly the way you describe. I'll have to think in much more detail about the creation of a separate Ethnographic Studies Department. Hmmm...
Concerning the
: Department of Critical Social Theory
: ...On the other hand, critical theory, argued Horkheimer, is concerned that theory point the way to a better society.
Again, I've seen a tendency for even the most well conceived, beneficient plans turn to rigidified dogmatism or, more often, simple irrelevance, in less than a generation. The theory that pointed the way to social improvement in the 1960s can't possibly remain the best possible set of goals for tomorrow. I realize that you aren't suggesting this at all, but radicals can turn into reactionaries very quickly, simply by remaining the same as the world changes around them. I fear that any institutionalization of ideological goals will tend to suffer the same fate, and I would tend to suspect that a formalized Dept. of Crit. Theo. would be no exception.
I do think that the "team teaching" approach is often effective for some (but not all) subjects, although I've seen some dreadful exceptions to this, (mainly dealing with individual ego problems) but it takes a lot more concentration and communication than most individually taught classes. The fact that it's harder to do doesn't discourage me at all. Just the opposite, in fact (and now you have a little insight into my own psychological problems! ;-). I'm also a strong supporter of narrative evaluations, which I've found can offer the student much more insight than letters or numbers into what s/he is doing effectively and what s/he needs to focus on more.
In short, I'm in general agreement with the big picture of a "new academe," but I think some of the details will need more discussion (maybe you'll visit Seattle some day?.
Thanks, again, for your (always) stimulating and intriguing ideas. I'll definitely be thinking about them as I work on our educational project up here.
-Floyd
