Benson and Newell: cognitive science and human problem solving

Benson and Newell - Critique

Which of Benson's arguments was most convincing? Why? Benson's 4th argument ("Interdisciplinary courses are shallow") has some merit albeit he cheapens it by dipping too deeply into his love of exaggeration. Probably the 2nd objection Benson presents has the most value because students who would probably receive the most benefits from interdisciplinary studies are those students who are high achievers already. Clearly Benson is on the right track when he asserts that a student needs to have a "firm hold" on one particular discipline before he or she can enjoy and profit from an interdisciplinary course. Much of the potential success for a student taking interdisciplinary classes depends of course on the academic skills and scholarly experience of the student (freshmen are often too green and undisciplined to expect them to excel in a course well outside their chosen major). But on the other hand, Newell is also correct in his response to Benson when he says that students should be asked to take interdisciplinary studies "alongside the disciplines," for example. Benson suggests (wisely) that a freshman could take perhaps three or four courses in his or her chosen discipline, and take an interdisciplinary course "…that builds on those disciplines"

Have I ever had a course that Benson would describe as "shallow" (no intellectual value)? No, I can honestly say I haven't had any elective classes that were shallow, although I had to take a math class in a community college that strained my abilities. I am a social studies and English kind of student, and I seriously struggle with any math-related courses. There was one elective course I took in the field of anthropology, which some of my friends thought was shallow because it was a bare-bones-type of review of anthropological research into the origins of man. But I found it fascinating because the instructor offered "extra credit" and my interest in conducting outside reading (of the Leaky discoveries in Africa) came in handy. In fact, I learned a lot about human evolution and it gave me background to enter into a discussion with a close friend who is an evangelical and believes that God put the Earth together about 16,000 years ago. How do you argue against carbon dating in fossils?

Which of Newell's responses do you find the most convincing? Why? I think Newell's response to Benson's third point is quite well taken. First of all Benson has a point when he suggests that the time that a student has to spend tackling an elective that is far outside the discipline of his own major could be thought of as not a good use of time. But Newell has an answer for that: "…many, if not a majority of jobs in our society bear scant correspondence to any one liberal arts discipline." Newell goes on to point out that more and more careers require knowledge of a variety of disciplines -- and hence a broad-based background in several subjects and disciplines can work to the advantage of the alert and bright student. If a student learns how to solve problems while in university or college, he or she has gained a kind of knowledge that isn't found in a specific course or major. So, solving problems that are presented to the student in an elective is taking a step in the right direction vis-a-vis the skill of problem solving per se.

Newell is right on the money when he writes that "increasing numbers of careers require specialized backgrounds that are interdisciplinary"; a student should be knowledgeable about the environment (think global climate change), about urban and energy issues, since no matter what job he or she gets upon graduation, a well-rounded knowledge base is certain to be beneficial.