Curriculum and creativity

Across the country, the campuses of higher learning have recently opened up their doors, as they do every year, to the next generation of students. The excitement is palpable and hopes are high for a bright future. I, too, have high hopes from this generation that it will be able to do what my generation failed to do. But I am also concerned, very concerned, about the rigidity that stifles creativity in our curriculum and takes away the sense of wonder and experiment that defines learning and knowledge.



Recently, I looked at a bunch of engineering curricula from both public and private institutions across the country. I was amazed and disappointed at the rigidity of the structure that is supposed to give students the tools to face the real world. I want to make it clear that I have nothing against the content of the individual courses that are offered. My problem lies in the flexibility that seems to be sorely missing. For example, if a bright student wants to study engineering and international relations, or perhaps, focus on engineering and economics, or better yet, wants to double major in two engineering majors, what options does he or she have? I was told: exactly zero!

Now, there may be an institution here and there that allows for some flexibility, but that option does not exist in most cases. I understand that while most of our students would not be interested in majoring in International Relations and Electrical Engineering, what about the ones who can or who really want to? Frankly, it does not even have to be about a double major, but the ability to fulfil the course requirements with a variety of courses that enable you to think, to be excited, to wonder what is out there that is missing and desperately needed.

October 5 was the death anniversary of Steve Jobs. While we may like or dislike Apple products, we cannot deny that his vision made a substantial impact on our lives. The design feature of Apple products enabled them to stand out and speak to our inner aesthetics. He, like many others, is a product of a system that encourages creativity in a myriad of ways. He made it very clear, in his writings and his interviews, including his commencement address at Stanford, that his ability to develop aesthetically pleasing products was tied directly to his experience in taking calligraphy courses at Reed College. The openness of the education system allowed him to be creative and shaped who he was. Our education system is not designed to foster, cultivate or sustain that kind of creativity. Our system is not even designed for the students taking a chance and going out in the world to do an internship or a co-op that takes longer than the summer months. What if there was a remarkable opportunity for a student to see real world engineering, but the co-op required him or her to spend six months at a company (as is common in many US co-op programmes) instead of three? Would the ‘pre-destiny’ of our higher education system allow that? Can students graduate in four and a half years instead of four? Can they take their common core electives out of the prescribed formula? Unfortunately, for most institutions, the answer is a resounding no.

Pakistanis, like any other nation, are creative, entrepreneurial and innovative. Just like any other nation, we have our challenges and complex socioeconomic problems. Our ability to innovate, create and solve our challenges rests squarely on coming up with unique solutions to our unique problems. Higher education has to play a role in creating a just, inclusive and forward-looking society. Yet, if the very core of our higher education stifles out-of-the-box thinking and does not allow for charting our own course, there is little chance that society as a whole will be able to chart its own course.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 14^th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.