As We May Think

       The future of higher education is always at the limit of our approach, which in turn, is driven by the rapid evolution of information and technology. There is so much information being produced, rewritten, recorded, and digested today that it has become a challenge to effectively communicate this knowledge for tomorrow. To address this challenge, there are individuals that have their own approach to this. Claude Shannon believes that if all symbols could be universally interpreted, it would allow for information to be transmitted without misinterpretation. Michael Joyce’s idea is just the opposite where rich, detailed information will find itself repeating into different areas of knowledge such as math repeating in many fields of science. Vannevar Bush believes that a mixture of universal symbols and complex recordings of information will be the best approach for the future. Out of these approaches, I feel that Bush’s idea will be the way of higher education simply because you cannot have extremes work for everyone. What I mean by this is that Shannon and Joyce both contemplate on opposite sides of the spectrum, specifically the ends of the spectrum when it comes to simple and complex communication. Not all people will have the ability to grasp complex streams of information while, on the other hand, there will be those that are concerned with a lack of information since so much more could be accomplished with a higher frequency of information. As Bush notes: “There is a growing mountain of research. But there is increased evidence that we are being bogged down today as specialization extends. The investigator is staggered by the findings and conclusions of thousands of other workers—conclusions which he cannot find time to grasp, much less to remember, as they appear. Yet specialization becomes increasingly necessary for progress, and the effort to bridge between disciplines is correspondingly superficial.” 

       I have been told by numerous employers that higher education seems to suffer a two to three (or even more) year lag in information when comparing it to the professional world. What a person learns in their college career is of course extremely valuable, yet more often than not, may or may not apply to their career in terms of up-to-date. Naturally, this is subjective to their field but that is not my point. My point is that the future of higher education needs to address this lag in the best way possible while not sacrificing any part of learning information. Bush’s idea of using simple and complex approaches is what I would envision 20 years from now for higher education at least. Yet, I also believe that this avenue can work for essentially any professional, scientific, or academic setting to allow for quicker absorption and more specialization. Bush is very concerned with the amount of time information is written and information is not just read but digested.