We at Georgetown are engaged in a series of meetings and other activities that focus on the future of the university — “Designing the Future(s) of the University.” The effort consists of speakers from both inside and outside Georgetown and dialogue about some ideas for new educational degree programs.
Some of the ongoing discussion appears to have a consistent theme — the rethinking of boundaries traditional to educational institutions. Georgetown’s key focus, like that of many research universities, is to provide education certification at different levels. We have programs that end in a BA/BS degree; we have MA/MS programs; and we have PhD programs. We also have professional schools, giving JD, LLM, MBA, MD, and other terminal degrees.
Even within that very traditional structure, however, Georgetown offerings are evolving. The Business School has built a thriving family of programs in executive education; the McCourt School and the School of Foreign Service are moving in a similar direction. The School of Continuing Studies offers programs that are shaped by emerging new occupations. These moves attempt to teach new approaches to real-world problems among working professionals (and their employers). The programs are “boundary breakers” in the sense that they reflect modern societies’ need for ongoing education throughout life not just in one’s early years.
As we examine new educational degree program structures, many of them have boundary breaking features. That is, they force us to question basic assumptions about a) when, in the life of a person, the university should offer educational programs and b) how those programs might interface with other institutions in the society.
First, let’s talk about the temporal dimension. Most students begin at Georgetown no earlier than the completion of their high school degree, at age 18 or 19. In a way, Advance Placement classes are minor challenges to this. Some universities are questioning this boundary more aggressively (viz., Stanford’s online high school). Could Georgetown attract the strongest students in the country by offering some coursework to them while they are still in high school?
On the top end of the temporal dimension, most of our degree programs are designed for concentrated learning in a fixed time period — a four-year bachelor’s program or a two-year Master’s program. At that time, a degree certifying successful learning is conferred and the student departs Georgetown. That model works perfectly if the knowledge absorbed during the degree program is of permanent value. However, in today’s world many knowledge bases are changing rapidly; we can teach what we know now, but we can’t teach what has yet to be discovered. A metaphor works here. Early software systems were designed to be one-time solutions, of permanent value. We all know now that every week, we get software updates, correcting errors, adding new features. Should Georgetown think of building educational programs that have a designed update feature? Would our graduates be interested in “downloading” new knowledge in their fields, organized by us? Would they pay fees to acquire it? Would their employers value the updates?
The other dimension of “boundary breaking” involves the relationship between Georgetown educational programs and other institutions. One of the great attractions that Georgetown offers to a student is Washington, DC, itself. Every day, Georgetown students leave the Hilltop to intern in international organizations, Federal government agencies, nonprofit advocacy groups, and research institutes. While the students seek these internships to learn practical lessons related to their career aspirations, only a few academic courses formally integrate these experiences into a degree program. Could Georgetown expand its attraction to the best students in the world by rethinking that boundary, formally integrating work experiences and classroom experiences? Is this a logical extension of our use of “professors of the practice” who teach in classrooms but attempt to bring the real world into their pedagogy? Could Georgetown mount alliances with such employers that they would view as beneficial to them as well as to Georgetown?
Another example of this “boundary breaking” thinking arose in a meeting I attended last week. The boundary breaking nature concerns sequential degree programs. Take the case of a young person clearly aimed at a PhD program in some field. Such a person is headed for a life of research and invention. Depending on the field, that person now experiences 4 years of undergraduate foundation, sometimes a two-year Master’s degree, and then a 4-6 year PhD program. (A post-doctoral 2-year appointment might follow.) Is that compartmentalization necessary? Could a university produce PhD scholars of equal or stronger intellectual power by rethinking the nature and relationships among the bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees?
Similarly, large percentages of Georgetown bachelor’s degree recipients pursue graduate degrees at some point in their lives. If we offered them more programs that made it easier for them to do this, would this be attractive to them? (Note: we already have a set of 5-year BA/MA programs.) What are the features of such programs that they might value (e.g., programs that intersperse work experiences with classroom experiences)?
The visioning process at Georgetown is allowing us to think such thoughts and ask such questions. The future of Georgetown will be defined by the faculty, students, and alumni of Georgetown working together to answer these questions. It’s up to us.
An interesting by product of the work on the Protection of Minors policy was the realization that in any given year there are more minors than undergraduates participating in programs on Campus (not all of them run by the University, of course, but using Georgetown facilities).