"Is a university without physics and philosophy a university?" (Leiter)

Obviously not, but Indiana State University proposes to eliminate its Philosophy Department (with four faculty), as well as its Physics Department, while upgrading Insurace and Risk Management; Physical Education; Exercise Science (not to be confused with Phys Ed!); Packaging Technology; and Textiles, Apparel & Merchandise.  As philosopher Steven Hales from Bloomsburg University (who called this story to my attention) pointed out to me:  "All of these are bachelor degrees, not certificates or minors."  So Indiana State will award a B.A. in "Physical Education," but never again in Physics or Philosophy.

Put aside whether anyone, anywhere in the world, ought to receive a college degree for studying "Physical Education," it is very clear that Indiana State must drop the "university" from its name, and choose a more apt name, like "Indiana State Vocational-Technical School."  There is, no doubt, need for such vocational and technical training, but it should not be done under the guise of pretending to be a university or institution of higher learning.  To be the latter, the school simply must offer a systematic course of study, leading to a degree, in central disciplines like Physics and Philosophy.

You may e-mail your comments or a link to this item to Dr. Karen Schmid, the V-P for Academic Affairs at Indiana State. 

Let us also hope the AAUP is monitoring this situation to ensure that faculty in the affected academic programs are being treated fairly.

UPDATE:  Please see in particular the comments below from Professor Gennaro, Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Indiana State.

Comments

[anonymous Indiana philosopher]

(It's not clear that what's being eliminated are those _departments_, or maybe just those _majors_. Losing the former would, I agree, be execrable; losing the latter, regrettable but not ridiculous.)

[Jason Brennan]

It may be of interest to readers that the University of Reading is set to close its physics department as well. Here is a link to the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5399346.stm

[Paul]

Take note of the first comment in the article to which you link. Two excerpts:

"If someone wanted to take away a teaching that required little work and effort — and with no evidence of learning or results — from me, I would also be outraged!"

and

"Sorry — colleges exist for students, not so you can have a job that ends at 3pm everyday with Friday afternoons off."

I am always surprised at the public perception that academics lay around and do nothing. No wonder it is so easy to convince the public that we should be downsized!

[Rocco Gennaro]

Well, my name is Rocco Gennaro, Interim Chair of Philosophy at Indiana State University. As embarrassing as it is, it is good that this is being made more and more public, beyond Terre Haute. I've done what I can to make many aware of it both inside and outside of ISU. It is incredibly aggravating and time consuming. Here are some additional facts. First, there is no question that virtually everyone, outside our administration, understands just how this move to eliminate the PHIL and PHYSICS majors would hurt the reputation of the entire university. Second, the Task Force in question did NOT recommend our elimination; this just came recently from the Provost's office, despite the Task Force recommendation to the contrary. (Karen Schmid was a co-chair of that Task Force.) Third, we're teaching 388 students this semester between the four of us (no adjunct help at all); we have 20 majors right now. (This is for those who don't understand the difference, please get this straight!!) Fourth, this move will save little money unless or until ISU does not replace any faculty member who leaves or retires, which is most certainly the inevitable next move. We do have one pre-tenured faculty and one nearing retirement. Fifth, there are vitually no 4-universities without a philosophy program (i.e.major), or at least some kind of combined philosophy, humanities, and religion. (We ARE alone there, and, if we are not alone, the list is very short and not one that we should want to be on.) We are already short staffed compared to other peer institutions. The Humanities Dept here at ISU (which taught mostly religion courses) has itself been retired out of existence over the past 15 years, also against our objections. We have been trying to continue to offer a couple of Religion courses. Sixth, I find it hard to believe that any external pressure to reduce ISU's number of majors is meant to include Philosophy or Physics, which are the only majors we offer in our current stand alone departments. I have been in direct contact some of the organizations/commissions in question. Seventh, the number of our majors has increased in recent years. Finally, such a move could also be professionally damaging to department members who deserve better treatment after all we have put into our careers here. We publish quite a bit, have good teaching records, etc., though, as most in the profession realize, it is not so easy to move and keep tenure... I will do all in my power to prevent this from happening; I couldn't live with myself or face others in my profession if I didn't. We are willing to combine departments here at ISU, but losing our major (and who knows what else) is entirely different. Any support is appreciated. The Executive Director of the APA has already sent a letter to our Provost. I'll stop there. Rocco Gennaro

[Paul]

Professor Gennaro contacted me and indicated that I gave the impression that I agreed with the public perception. To clear this up (for anyone else I have mislead), I don't believe academics lay around and do nothing. But the public perception can affect the priority that the public places on employing philosophers. If the public thinks they are paying for a 4-day week and a short workday, they will be more likely to treat academics shabbily. If they were aware of the tremendous workload taken on by professors in a 4-person department, the public might be more appreciative (maybe I am being naive). I just thought it was telling that the first comment following the article that Prof. Leiter linked to showed a deep misunderstanding of and disdain for academics.

[Anonymous Philosopher]

Two comments. From the website, it looks like both Phys. Ed. and Exercise Science are offered by the Dept. of Phys. Ed. So we probably should confuse them if we're talking about departments.

Also, you might want to lay off Phys. Ed. and Exercise Science programmes unless you know the kind of work that they do. While I certainly have no idea what happens at Indiana State University, it seems that part of the problem there is that one group of academics is not taking the work of another group of academics very seriously. I know as much about the science of exercise as I do about the science of chemistry, yet I have no reason to believe that either cannot be pursued academically. Some of the faculty in the Dept. of Phys. Ed. have CVs online and it certainly looks like they engage in serious research. Looks can be deceiving, but it's ignorant to assume that their research is unworthy of academia simply because you imagine the study of exercise to be nothing more than a group of kids playing dodgeball. After all, Professors in the Dept. of Phys. Ed. might think of a man getting high and pondering the meaning of life under a tree when they imagine the study of philosophy.

[Robyn M.]

I would like to point out that ISU is a Ph.D-granting institution. How a University can grant a Doctorate of Philosophy in *any* field while not being able to grant a Bachelor's in Philosophy itself is beyond me.

[Soon to be TA]

This seems to me a yet another step in a positive rationalization process of undergraduate offerings at less than academically stellar institutions. If market and student demand is for preparing undergraduates for careers in elementary or secondary school physical education, then so be it. I am perplexed as to why schools of ISU’s caliber ever opted for esoteric majors along the lines of physics or philosophy in the first place, as opposed to piling their resources into the likes of engineering, business and education. The school has a duty to taxpayers to produce gainfully employed graduates over intellectually spirited ones (if it must make a choice between the two positions, and I believe it does).

[Jordan DeLange]

Soon to be TA:

It may make sense for ISU to concentrate on "the likes of engineering, business and education." However, if your primary mission is training people for competency in specific jobs, then as the OP mentioned you should drop pretensions at being a "university" and refer to the institution as a vocational/technical school.

[D. Jagannathan]

I take issue with the statement that "the school has a duty to taxpayers to produce gainfully employed graduates over intellectually spirited ones". If one believes that the primary duty of a public university is to produce maximally productive members of society (as I assume the commenter does), then encouraging physics and philosophy is only rational. These two majors are in the highest echelon in average GRE and average LSAT scores for a good reason: serious study of these subjects provides the kind of analytical, critical-thinking and problem-solving tools that are crucial for almost any skilled job. (Which is not to say that one might not learn these skills in vocational training, but it seems far less a requirement.)

I also suspect that "intellectually spirited" graduates, who are largely a self-selected group anyway, are not only better for the economy (how would engineers manage without at least a few physicists? or businessmen without lawyers as many philosophy majors become?), but make better, more thoughtful citizens. Even on these crude, quasi-utilitarian terms, the argument falls through.

[Matthew King]

D. Jagannathan: are you sure that philosophy classes don't just (or mostly) attract and reward people who have good analytical, critical-thinking and problem-solving tools in the first place? I'm actually curious whether any empirical research has been done on this. My suspicion has always been that this standard philosophy department advertising line rests, ironically, on a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy.

[praymont]

In support of D. Jagannathan's points, The Univ. of Western Ontario's Philosophy Dept. has a good blurb on their site (http://www.uwo.ca/philosophy/why.htm) about the success of philosophy grads in professional fields. Among the points made there is the following:

"Consider, for example, the GMAT, which is required for admission into MBA programs. Philosophy students score higher on the GMAT than students with an undergraduate degree in business. The reason usually given is that a degree in philosophy develops problem solving skills at a level of abstraction that cannot be achieved through the case-study or profession-specific approach favoured in disciplines geared towards occupational training."

That Western site refers to a short paper on this topic by Tom Hurka, an article that appears in his *Principles: Short Essays on Ethics*.

Here's another relevant site (which also cites Hurka):

http://www.andromeda.rutgers.edu/~philos1/students.html

If you scroll down to near the bottom of that Rutgers site, you'll see a chart showing just how much better philosophy majors fare on the LSAT, GMAT and GRE than students from Management and from Business Admin.

Then again, if all the government wants from its tax-payer funded colleges are uncritical stooges who blindly follow fashion and rah!rah! propaganda, then by all means shut down physics, philosophy, and any other discipline that sharpens up the intellect.

[Paul]

"the school has a duty to taxpayers to produce gainfully employed graduates over intellectually spirited ones".

Is there some reason that you consider this the school's "duty to taxpayers", or is this just a bald assertion? Vocational training is not the sole purpose of a university. So one might assume that if the state chooses to fund a university (as opposed to a vocational school), the duty to the taxpayers would simply be to perform the various functions of a university to the best of its ability.

[Derek Bowman]

In response to Matthew King:

Even if your suspicion is right, that only those who are already analytically inclined choose philosophy departments, that doesn't show that the 'standard philosophy advertising line' is bogus. It's probably also true that it is mostly people with certain predispositions who are attracted to computer related fields, whether it be engineering and design, or a more directly vocationally directed network management or service technician training. From that fact no one would conclude that such training wasn't valuable.

I was certainly already predisposed to ; analytic thinking before I started taking philosophy classes, but it was through taking those philosophy classes that I developed those skills.

So even if philosophy classes were only helpful to those who are already analytically inclined, they would still provide those people with training that is as useful in law and in other business environments as in a university setting.

---

I do think it's valuable to have this discussion. It's of no use gnashing our teeth or pedantically insisting that the Ph. in Ph.D. stands for 'philosophy.' And it's probably only of little use to remind people that philosophy (and physics) have traditionally been part of a university education.

What we need to be able to do is to explain why it should continue to be part of a university education. I think there are good answers to that question, but we shouldn't expect those outside of academia (and sometimes just outside of philosophy) to automatically know what those are.

[Anthony D'Amato]

There is only one issue here: misrepresentation. A vocational school without Physics or Philosophy is fine if that is what the market can bear. But it is sheer misrepresentation to call it a "university" without core disciplines like Philosophy and Physics. It cheapens the name "university" for all the genuine universities in the country, and is parasitical upon that name for the vocational departments remaining at ISU.

[Rob Logan]

I think Derek Bowman makes a good point, and one worth thinking about.

I was a physics major who took many philosophy courses, and am now ABD in a philosophy program, and share the feeling that a university without physics and philosophy wouldn't be a university at all.

But, it seems to me that now that everyone must go to college, to get any type of job, what kinds of departments should share in a limited pot of money becomes a trickier question.

More importantly, we can keep calling departments outside of the trivium and quadrivium "vocational" (though if I'm not mistaken gymnastics made it into the classic education) we aren't recognizing that one of the reasons why everyone must go to college today is because today's low-skilled jobs are not low skilled at all.

A gym teacher or a personal trainer used to just tell you to do a bunch of push-ups, now they need to know food science, body chemistry, latest research on muscle growth, etc.

It's clear to me that there should be a physics and a philosophy department at every school. But, in the end, it is the students who decide. Derek makes a good point. And before we get too angry at the administration of ISU, ask yourself: How many of your students in Intro to Philosophy would be there if it wasn't satisfying a humanities requirement?

[Nick Treanor]

Regarding the liberal use of the term 'university': I have the impression that there is no shortage of vocational schools that call themselves universities. For instance, Johnson and Wales University [tuition: $20,000+ per year] "offers students the resources to pursue a practical career education in business, culinary, hospitality, technology, and education." It is missing a lot more than physics and philosophy. See here: http://www.jwu.edu/

Of special interest: The John Hazen White School of Arts and Science at Johnson and Wales (Providence Campus) lets students concentrate in any of applied math, biological science, career writing, environmental science, global perspectives, history, leadership studies, literature, political science, psychology, sociology or world languages by taking just three courses in the chosen field of studies. For instance, a history concentration at Johnson and Wales might involve a student taking HIST2001 (World History to 1500), HIST 2002 (World History since 1500), and HIST 3001 (United States History Since 1877).

The irony is that J & W is actually accredited to offer doctoral degrees -- in "Educational Leadership"!

[praymont]

Rob asks, "How many of your students in Intro to Philosophy would be there if it wasn't satisfying a humanities requirement?"

If I'm interpreting it correctly, your question assumes a cynical view of such requirements and puts the student in the position of a fully knowledgable consumer -- someone who should make her own choices without being burdened by these requirements. But we find this kind of requirement in many legitimate educational endeavours. E.g., in med school, engineering and law, students aren't left determine all of their course selections but are required to take certain courses. This makes sense simply because, as students, they might not know how much they don't know, or of those areas of study in which they need to develop.

The same applies outside the context of professional programs. It makes good sense to require that in order to get a BA, a student must take a course that is designed to sharpen one's critical thinking abilities. In that connection, I note that the English Dept. at Indiana State is trying to corner that market niche. Their website includes this:

"From my standpoint, a background in English literature is a very valuable commodity. Contrary to the emphasis on technology that pervades media accounts of business, what actually happens in the business world happens through clear, logical thinking, speaking, and writing." Paul Saxton, President and CEO , General Housewares Corp.

So Indiana State sees the need for teaching 'clear, logical thinking,' but (mysteriously) takes this to fall within the purview of English.

It's a real mystery why the study of English lit (or any body of fiction), still relatively new in English-speaking universities, is so often considered a safe, core subject while Philosophy Departments are more often called upon to defend their existence.

It must be because English is a high-school subject throughout North America while Philosophy seldom is; which suggests that one way to protect Philosophy in universities is to lobby for its introduction at the secondary level.