At present, the Penn State College of Information Science and Technology (IST) does not have any academic departments for students to choose from, only a set number of subject tracks that are not supposed to be constraining but purely supportive with additional power to gently guide students towards the right academic path. I concur that the track system provide students with unprecedented flexibility in designing their own programs of study, especially if they have sufficient information and advanced understanding of their future career goals. And yet I'll argue that having a flexible system is not always a good idea, since it might be somewhat similar to having too many choices in a retail outlet: you get overwhelmed and indecisive. Flexibility implies maturity which could be quite elusive among students, especially among the undergrads.
As we discussed in class, IST will soon have a BA program in addition to BS. I am not at all certain that given choices to avoid disciplines they know very little about (e.g. Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, or American History and Political Science) those students would be much better off than the ones without any choices. Given the flexible choices students may easily take the path of the least effort, and choose the courses with the least amount of work to do at present, and the least academic value for them in the long run.
I believe in promoting structure when it can benefit the cause, but no structure should be rigid. Certain flexibility is a must to make the structure work. For instance, I like the concept of having mandatory core classes in the IST Ph.D. program; at the same time, I like the built-in element of flexibility when each category of core classes has a pair of alternatives to choose from.
As we discussed in class, IST will soon have a BA program in addition to BS. I am not at all certain that given choices to avoid disciplines they know very little about (e.g. Physics, Mathematics, Chemistry, or American History and Political Science) those students would be much better off than the ones without any choices. Given the flexible choices students may easily take the path of the least effort, and choose the courses with the least amount of work to do at present, and the least academic value for them in the long run.
I believe in promoting structure when it can benefit the cause, but no structure should be rigid. Certain flexibility is a must to make the structure work. For instance, I like the concept of having mandatory core classes in the IST Ph.D. program; at the same time, I like the built-in element of flexibility when each category of core classes has a pair of alternatives to choose from.
Leave a comment