I recently read an interesting article in the Globe and Mail that revealed that the big five research universities (UBC, UofA, UofT, McGill, and Montreal) have requested that governments shift the way they allocate funding for institutions of higher education such that they, the Big Five, can concentrate more on research and the other schools should begin to focus exclusively on undergraduate education. This created the expected furore among the many, many schools left out of this ‘elitist’ proposal. My own alma mater chimed in, as did several other universities who are, undoubtedly, doing fantastic research in their own fields. The complaint seemed to be that size shouldn’t matter. Rather, it should be the quality of work that is rewarded.
I think two things need to be addressed here. First, is the charge of elitism. I think we might as well come out and accept that the world of academia is an elitist one. It starts with where and with whom you did your grad work, then its about where you did your post-doc, then it is about how much you publish and in which journals, and, finally, it is about how many citations your work receives. Even when you are getting references as an undergrad you are meant to, at least so I’ve been told, seek them from established professors; even if this means they may not know you, or your work, as well as, say, a teaching fellow who has taught you in several small seminars over the past three years.
Second, and frankly, size does matter. While there are exceptions to the rule, in both the UK and the US the schools with the highest research intensity also tend to be the larger schools on the respective blocks. Granted, they do specialize and, granted, there remain regional powerhouses that compete against each other. This, however, is more likely a product of the scale of the US population and economy than anything else. The fact is, that when it comes to research there is much that must be conceded to the scale of the institution. It means, perhaps, higher quality colleagues. Or, perhaps, it means more interdisciplinary approaches are possible. Certainly, it will mean that the school can build a better reputation as a leader and innovator in its own field or fields, both at home and abroad, if it is simply big enough to be noticed.
Undergraduate and Professional v. Graduate Degrees
This proposal raises a broader question: what should we look for in undergraduate (and, by extension, professional) education? The answer, at least to me, is simple: knowledge and skills acquisition. The question, then, is how best to go about developing that knowledge and those skills. Is it necessary to learn from the (wo)man who, literally, wrote the book on the subject? Or is it more important to not only read said book, but also have it expounded upon by someone who is both a cogent and engaging lecturer? This is not to say, of course, that those who are at the pinnacle of their field cannot, necessarily, give instructive lectures. Rather, it is to suggest two things. First, that they have other, more important, things to be doing that giving an undergraduate lecture course. Second, their brilliance and, perhaps, even their literary talent (though the latter is far from required it would seem) are no guarantee, contrary to popular opinion, of their ability as a teacher. Make no mistake, they should continue to supervise graduate students, but, as any grad student will tell you, that is a particular kind of relationship.
This brings me to a discussion I saw recently on lawstudents.ca. Now, I’m not forgetting my own advice since I am not going to engage with the debate in question directly. Rather, I want to draw it into the present discussion as an example of both the kind of elitism of which I spoke and of the distinction I want to draw between undergrad and professional degrees on the one hand and graduate degrees on the other. The debate in question hinges on whether or not you will receive the same quality of education outside of UofT and Osgoode. The initial premise is based upon the supposition that in order to receive a quality education one must learn from a leader in the field. This, of course, blatantly disregards not only the fact that other schools also have leading academics, but also that some fields will have more than one leading name.
More over, this position is based upon the idea that in order to receive a quality education at all it must be from such a leader. This, I would submit, is patently false, at least as it pertains to non-graduate degree programs. In fact, some of the best instructors I had during my undergraduate career were only associate professors or, for that matter, teaching fellows who didn’t even have their Ph.D. yet. Did we read the biggest names in the field? Certainly. Did I have a worse appreciation of their positions for not having heard it from the horse’s mouth? I doubt it. Indeed, of the instructors I did have, some of the worst were some of the best known.
What Does This All Mean?
Granted, this is all highly anecdotal, but it does demonstrate that there is no necessary connection between the quantity and quality of published material and the ability to teach. Now, if we accept what I said above, that the purpose of both undergraduate and professional degrees is to impart a certain amount of basic knowledge and skills, then it suggests that the research credentials of the faculty alone will not prove a sufficient indicator of the quality of such degree programs.
This should prove doubly true of professional programs where the end goal is to produce individuals who will then be in a position to join a professional body upon the completion of their program. It will be my ability to understand the law as it is now in the context of the facts of a particular situation and then render some form of actionable advice by which I will be judged as a lawyer. It will not be my ability to discuss the finer points of Rawls’ burdens of judgment as they apply to a piece of legislation currently under debate in Ottawa. This is not to suggest that undergraduate and professional degrees should not provide a rigorous and theoretical understanding of their subject matter. Rather, it is to argue that they should do so in a way that augments, but that does not supplant, their original purpose.
How I Choose My Degree Programs (And How Those Choices Won’t Change)
In choosing both my undergraduate and professional degree programs I want to satisfy two requirements. First, I wanted a program that would provide me with a broad background in the subject. When you start studying any subject for the first time you will necessarily have a shaky grasp of what exactly it entails. For example, when I began Political Studies at Queen’s back in 2005 I was convinced I was going to studying International Relations and go on to do an M.A. at the Norman Paterson School. Instead, I discovered Political Theory, something I was only vaguely familiar with before second year. Had I gone to Glendon at York, like I had been planning on since the start of grade 12, I would have gone straight into an IR program and never looked back. Similarly, when it came time to decide on a law school, I wanted to ensure that my choice would keep my options open. I didn’t want to back myself into a corner, for example, by committing to a school that was well known for its Intellectual Property program, but nothing else.
Second, I wanted a program that would lead to a degree that would be able to stand on its own. I wanted a program that, if I did nothing else afterwards, would stand me in good stead in the job market. It was this reason in particular that made me choose Western Law over some of my other options. As I mentioned before, Western’s articling stats are had to beat. Add to this its ‘national reach’ and it became clear that Western Law was the school to attend if I decided I wanted to practice once this was all over and done with.
If I decide I want to continue my education, either in the law or politics, then it will be at that point I will make an effort to attend the best schools my marks and finances allow. Until then, though, I will be perfectly happy right where I am.
The Point Is…
An undergraduate or professional degree should be an introduction, a grounding, in a subject. If something strikes your fancy, there will be plenty of time and opportunity to study it in depth and with some of the best and brightest. Indeed, the effort to specialize right out of the gate evokes the lamenting tones of Billy Joel’s Vienna. This breadth appears all the more important in the context of a legal education. Granted, you can study for, and pass, the bar exam without ever taking a course in family law, but doing so somewhat cheapens the exercise. You’ll be in a position, once you’re called, where you will be able to hold yourself out as an expert on a topic of which you may only have the most cursory of understandings. In this respect, I think the core curriculum of Ontario’s law schools doesn’t go far enough, but that is a topic for another post.
What I do find objectionable about the Big Five’s suggestion is that they don’t go far enough in divesting themselves of undergraduate and professional programs. Yes, they want less undergrads, but they also want other schools to give up, for all intents and purposes, their post-grad programs entirely. If what we need is the kind of focus, scale, and intensity, in short, a critical mass, of research that only these large schools can provide, then it would seem fair to ask them commit, whole-hog, to that project. If direct instruction by the best and brightest is unnecessary in a first-level program, then why are those leaders wasting their time?
