Move up major declaration

In Monday’s editorial, we argued that there are three general stages in any student’s undergraduate education: pre-major exploration, training in the core language and methodology of a chosen discipline and, finally, the integration of that specialized knowledge with one’s broader interests and its application to real-world problems. While we agreed that integrated learning is a worthy goal, integration must be preceded by specialization if it is to be productive.

Four years of college already seem to whizz by. Given the sanctity of specialization within major, the prospect of fitting in Patton’s desired third stage—integration—seems challenging, raising a practical tradeoff between the third stage and first stage: pre-major exploration. The first stage of pre-major exploration should be shortened so students have adequate time to engage in the latter two stages with proper depth. We do not imply that academic exploration is not important. Rather, academic exploration does not need to end after major declaration. In fact, it only becomes more fruitful with a firm foothold in a particular field—the result of specialization—allowing you to pursue your passions with precise and disciplined methodologies. This notion of post-major exploration—rather than pre-major exploration—is perhaps the trademark of truly integrated learning.

Shortening the pre-major exploration stage will be challenging, but we present a few preliminary suggestions. First and foremost, the University must encourage students to declare and dig into their major earlier than at present. A common complaint about current pre-major advising is that it often matches students with advisers completely unknowledgeable about their advisees’ interests. Individual advisers should not be blamed—systemic changes should be made. Perhaps connecting first-year students with directors of undergraduate studies or faculty members in their self-declared “top three” departments would lead to more specialized guidance at an early stage. Major declaration produces anxiety for many students because it demands serious introspection. A more gradual and persistent reflection process starting in the first year, as we suggest, would help students make better, calmer and earlier decisions about their majors—leaving more time for specialization and integration later.

A first-year “directed studies” program, like that at Yale, could also help undecided students explore their interests while learning core methodologies and canons. While the FOCUS program is a good first step, it is an example of an undisciplined and premature attempt at integration. One semester long and often focused on a smattering of niche topics, FOCUS clusters often fail to help students understand their full academic context. A comprehensive, two-semester program—for example, a rigorous interdisciplinary study of Western civilization spanning crucial concepts in literature, philosophy and political science—would better serve students who want to gain strong academic foundations while still sampling various interests. It is also a much more appealing way of touring different disciplines than current fear-kindling “weed-out” classes.

It is easy to repeat buzzwords like integrative learning and interdisciplinarity ad nauseum. It is harder to think about real implementation and pursue a strategy that ensures Duke students graduate with real integrated knowledge—not a disorganized jumble of facts, ideas and jargon from a dozen fields about which they know nothing.