A new service-learning promotional advertisement suggests that, if you wish to engage in service-learning, you must be “tired of the traditional classroom model.” The ad further challenges the idea that one could “ignite a passion” in a normal classroom.
Service-learning has long been a worthwhile supplement to traditional class work, but the poster hints at a different—and more problematic—trend in Duke’s campus discourse: framing non-traditional college activities, most notably "startups," and schoolwork as mutually exclusive. Recently, senior Tito Bohrt credited his startup success to Duke, donating $10,000 to the Duke Forward campaign. While Bohrt attributes his accomplishments to Duke, he draws a clear distinction between his success in the entrepreneurial world and his relative failure in Duke’s academic scene. "I decided not to play that game," he declared, referring to traditional models of collegiate success. This distinction reflects a tendency to frame startups as conflicting with scholastic or intellectual pursuits. And this framing implies a trade-off between an entrepreneurial spirit and academic vigor.
Framing the issue in this way, although likely unintentional, is implicitly denigrating to traditional forms of inquiry. We may not intend to imply that startups are more valuable, but by framing the issue as an either-or debate, we tend to make this conjecture.
Instead, we should remember that learning in a traditional classroom setting is crucial in order to applying that knowledge outside of the classroom. Duke should encourage both classroom learning and entrepreneurial activities, casting them as partners in a powerful team. Colleges are designed to teach people how to think and how to learn, not simply how to produce their own company. By overemphasizing the latter, we risk de-emphasizing the former.
Duke should recognize that, although it would be very difficult to produce the startup culture of a school like Stanford given our location, it would also be tough to attain the hyperintellectual culture of a school like University of Chicago given our history and current path. Instead of carving out new arenas in which to compete, Duke should capitalize on a recent strength: interdisciplinarity in and out of the classroom.
Through programs like Bass Connections, Duke has the opportunity to blend academic rigor with practical applications and to fuse classroom studies and the startup spirit in a way that has not been done before. Interdisciplinarity is Duke’s pivot point; it allows us to lean towards either academics or entrepreneurship. Balancing these interests in a collaborative environment that fosters both activities will be a challenge for interdisciplinarity going forward.
Duke may be able to carve a niche for itself by harnessing our commitment to “knowledge in the service of society” and applying it to the startup world. Social entrepreneurship stemming from in-class learning is a concept that has great potential to be a central tenet of a Duke education.
It is important to remember, however, that the traditional function of a university is to teach students. While teaching and entrepreneurship do not have to be incompatible, it is important that Duke focuses on its teaching mission while searching for ways to incorporate a startup culture into its already robust academic offerings. Many of the recent framing follies suggest that these goals are at odds. This ought to change.Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.