I’ve been thinking of this today; which is to say, the thought occurred to me suddenly although the general need has been in my mind for years.

I have never been a fan of the liberal education system we have in the U.S. which stresses the importance of a study of “core subjects” before one can move on to serious study within the discipline of one’s choosing.  In elementary studies, yes, broad introduction of core subjects will be necessary, because younger children have little idea of the options available to them.  (Although even there, certain predispositions, or strengths, may be discerned.)  Higher education, imo, requires more freedom to specialize.

However, specialization may lead to hyper-vertical thinking which limits innovation.  While the argument that vertical discipline may serve as a good base for later horizontal thinking has merit (and is an old argument), too much time is wasted in the top-down establishmentarian principle of liberal education, in which a certain set of core subjects have at some point in the past been deemed necessary for a “well-rounded education” — at least, in our modern application within higher education.  Oddly, the establishment may have thought a service could be rendered to the generally ignorant lower and middle classes who had dispersed during the colonization and later western homesteading that defined America’s early growth:  To upset the vertical thinking that may have kept children locked into the kin-based economic system (following in Father’s footsteps), a better-rounded education would lead to innovation and greater freedom for the blue-collar classes.  Options would be opened.  The process of modernizing America has been a long process, but we have finally moved beyond the homesteading era.

While I would argue for the ability to specialize freely, I would not eliminate cross-disciplinary studies, far from it.  In my ideal “free specialization”, students would have more mobility:  “cognitive mobility”.  That is, each would be able to choose a path, a field of primary interest which he would entirely pursue from the first day of entrance into a university, and whenever his field of study intersected with other fields, or even merely appeared to do so (for the student) he would be able to choose small modules within that other field which are focused upon that intersection.

To illustrate:  Suppose I am studying modern diplomacy and plan to be a professional diplomat, especially with an eye on joining a future SysAdmin force.  I may have absolutely no need to study biology or genetics at any time in my university experience; a full class in either subject would be an extraordinary waste of time.  Suppose, however, that during courses on international relations, trade disputes concerning the exportation and importation of genetically modified agricultural products are discussed.  Wouldn’t I benefit from a short module lasting, say, a week or two, which explored the hazards and benefits of genetic modification of agricultural products, and moreover one which explored the various reasons (including cultural reasons) why the issue is sometimes volatile?  Upon studying the potential benefits, and considering the fact that I plan to join the SysAdmin which will be operating in areas where the agricultural industry may be quite devastated, would I benefit from adding several more weeks to my study with a module on specifically engineered products and those most likely to be made available in the next few years?

Alternatively, if I am focusing on studying modern diplomacy, planning to join the SysAdmin, I may take no modules relating to genetic engineering.  Rather, I might take modules concerning the technological advances soon due to appear in the world ($50 laptops — an optimist, heh — or nanotechnology), perhaps a module which looks at the intersection of high-technology with various cultural values that may inhibit the introduction of technology.

For this modularity to work, the interdisciplinary connections would need to be mapped out in advance, to allow for the creation of the modules, making them available, with the potential for quick implementation of new modules as the need arises.  Of course, a full university education within the field of modern diplomacy may also include full-term classes on “trade and genetically modified agriculture” or “technology vs culture”, etc.; but these would not be required for the student, merely made available to those who choose to focus exclusively on a limited set of sub-domains.

The accrual of credits on the basis of modules studied would replace the current system of credits given for full classes, although not entirely.  A student would map out a course of study with required full classes, within a top-level field, but credits exclusively from those would not be enough for earning a degree.  Indeed, those credits would not even be half-enough.  Mechanisms could also be in place for allowing the importation of learning acquired through modules into the core classes for a given field, allowing even those to become specialized according to the student’s chosen career path. Perhaps a truly “interdisciplinary degree” self-defined by the student could be made an option, in which case nearly all the credits would be earned from modules of varying length and credit-weights.