On the Shortcomings of Reductionism in Education

Reductionism is necessary in science and in education, but we are beginning to see the limits of it, especially in education. Too often education consists of naming all the parts, and seeing what parts are in a system, but leaving things there. It would be as though I were trying to teach you abut car engines, and I taught you the theory behind the engine, and math behind the engine, and then brought in all the parts of an engine -- or even brought in an engine and showed you how to take it apart, naming each part as I went along and explaining what each did -- and then left it at that. I would give you a test where you visually identified each part and, when you passed, gave you a degree saying you knew how to build and repair engines. But wait, you say, you never told us how to put an engine together! Yet colleges graduate engineers whose knowledge consists of the above kind of knowledge, and engineering firms and other corporations have to finish their education by showing them how the real world works versus theory and math. To have a full understanding, you have to integrate, to put the parts together to make a working engine. Education needs to bridge theory/math and the parts -- and this is one of the places where our universities fail us. But only when companies stop putting up with getting engineers educated this way will the universities change how they educate their students. A few years of engineering students unable to find work would change the universities' approach rather quickly.