Comments on: frye on disciplinarity

By: Jacqueline

Jacqueline — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Hm. That’s an interesting quote. It brings to mind this idea I’ve been mulling over (and which Sam and I have discussed in passing from time to time) about whether it’s better to have a “well-rounded” education, as is provided by most decent US universities, or something with a very precise focus, as with Sam’s education at Cambridge in the UK. There are benefits to both, I think, and I’m still undecided as to which is better. I love the idea of completely and totally embracing one subject, but I got that as a graduate student and adored the ability to really branch out as an undergrad and study all the things that interested me. I suppose, for this reason, I think it’s best to have that focus, but perhaps not until later in your education.

Okay, I’m done rambling now.

By: vika

vika — Tue, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I agree, Jacq – with the caveat that what Americans perceive as “well-rounded” is really not. :)

To explain: I find that, here, I’ve taken classes that have given me the same information that my peers back in the Old Country got through self-education. The workings of political systems would be one example: sure, there’re courses on that in Russia, but the basic level of knowledge is also much higher. Same goes for mathematics, chemistry, physics, foreign languages, literature. All of that is studied much more in depth in secondary school, during one’s formation as a person, and teenagers tend to pursue their subjects of interest outside school as well. In some crowds, it becomes kind of gauche if you don’t know certain things that people here only learn in college, if that.