Interaction

May 17, 2006

Making practice perfect

L.A. Cicero

"The idea of the professional as neutral problem solver, above the fray, which was launched with great
expectations a century ago, is now obsolete," says William Sullivan, one of the scholars undertaking a
nationwide study of a series of professions, among them law.

When President John Hennessy appointed the Commission on Graduate Education in 2004, he asked the group to address a wide range of issues concerning Stanford's existing graduate and professional programs and to formulate a vision for the future. The idea was to focus on graduate education in the same way that the landmark Commission on Undergraduate Education had focused on undergraduate studies a decade earlier.

Each school and department has its own challenges, of course, but, nationwide as well as at Stanford, professional programs face similar problems. Almost by definition, they can be institutions that look inward, which is only logical given the task of imparting a large amount of often proprietary, technical knowledge in just two or three years. And they have to ensure that their students gain rigorous disciplinary training while at the same time learning to take on complex, multidisciplinary, real-life problems over the course of a career.

The commission's recommendations were issued in late 2005 (http://www.stanford.edu/dept/president/CGE2005.pdf). They include more cross-disciplinary training for students and faculty; more joint and dual degrees; new seminars and programs; enhanced funding and fellowships; and the removal of unnecessary administrative barriers and complexity.

This issue of InterAction will look at just three of Stanford's professional schools—business, education and law—and how they are responding both to larger professional challenges and to Hennessy's call for transformation. Faculty and administrators at the three schools are talking to one another and to colleagues in the other schools. They have established innovative research and practice centers, launched joint and dual degrees, and sponsored faculty forums and speakers series together, and they are participating in the larger multidisciplinary initiatives.

Leaders at all three schools are emphatic, as was the commission, that disciplinary excellence cannot be sacrificed; indeed, many researchers have very good reasons for remaining within the confines of their discipline. But more adventurous faculty members are impatient. There are projects begging to be undertaken, they say, and too few hardy souls willing to take the chance to do research or sponsor projects or experiment with methods that don't quite fit into traditional molds.

Yet these same scholars, straining at the leash, say they'd rather be at Stanford than anywhere else. It's hard everywhere, they said; it's less hard here.

The call for a new style of professional education is not unique to Stanford. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (which has its offices on the campus) is undertaking a nationwide study of a series of professions, among them law. One of the lead scholars in that venture is William Sullivan, author of Work and Integrity: The Crisis and Promise of Professionalism in America (1995). In a recent article on the Carnegie Foundation's website, he argued that professionals must be moral agents.

"The idea of the professional as neutral problem solver, above the fray, which was launched with great expectations a century ago, is now obsolete," he wrote. "A new ideal of a more engaged, civic professionalism must take its place...

"Today's professional schools will not serve their students well unless they foster forms of practice that open possibilities of trust and partnership with those the professions serve."

The tension between theory and practice has been part of the learning dynamic since people started learning. The moral engagement Sullivan calls for entails a renewed commitment to practice, not simply as a means of applying theoretical principles in a narrow framework but as a statement and manifestation of the worth of ideas. It means engaging in the broadest consequences of theory.

"Validly, schools want to focus on the technical aspects," Sullivan said in an interview, referring to legal education but suggesting the principle could be generalized. "That requires stripping down, cleaning away, so students are learning what aspects of situations are legally relevant. The complaint we heard, and it's valid, is that there's no point in the curriculum at which these things are brought back together."

Bringing knowledge back together again, responding effectively and imaginatively to the world's most intractable problems and providing leadership are the objectives Stanford hopes to accomplish over the next few years with its graduate programs. Nobody thinks it will be easy. One member of the commission worried aloud that the report might understate the true dimension of the obstacles ahead.

Robert Joss, dean of the Graduate School of Business, has a sunnier perspective: "Stanford has incomparable breadth and depth, all seven schools are first-rate, and the good weather makes it easier for people to visit," he said.

He disagrees that professional schools are insular. "Stanford is very decentralized, very cooperative, very entrepreneurial," he said. "Each person is doing their own thing, but there's also an approachability.

"Every person is a real expert in something. Yes, the pressure to want to be the best in the world in one's specialization keeps people in silos, but it's also human nature to want to collaborate."