Abstract:

Universities have lasted so long (longer than most institutions) because of the enduring value of what we do. Yet it is worth remembering that longevity in itself is no virtue and that institutions and their influence can change. Are changing, in fact. Given technology's omnipresence, the long shadow of student debt, and the challenges of an under-prepared, confused student body, we have to renew that basic question at university. “Why should we do this?” The 21st century answer is totally inappropriate; “because it will make learning more efficient and more interesting” does not answer the question. It only argues for efficiency and interest, which are a means, but they are not ends. Technology has imperiously commandeered our most important methodologies and has created, in the words of Harold Innis “knowledge monopolies”. In this paper, I will examine (by example) how technology always creates new conceptions of what is real and, in the process, undermines (usually in an unpredictable manner) older conceptions of reality. This is a history of science and philosophy paper that looks at a role not popular in universities today, that of providing an education that stresses history, the scientific mode of thinking, the disciplined use of language, a comprehensive knowledge or the arts and literature, and the continuity of human enterprise. The great problem of in our universities is not the suggested opposition of art and science; it is between technologists and everyone else. What seems peculiar is that no one seems to find this peculiar.

Keywords:

Education, technology, university, knowledge monopoly, art and science.