Journal Entry 5- Specialization

In the discussions of English Studies , one controversial issue has been the problem of specialization. On the one hand, Evan Dewey argues “the effort to arrange a compromise in various courses of study by throwing the entire burden of election upon the student so that he shall make out his own course of study – this problem is only a reflex of the lack of unity in the social activities themselves, and of the necessity of reaching more harmony, more system in our scheme of life”. On the other hand, David Easton contends “to understand the world it has seemed necessary to analyze it by breaking it into many pieces—the disciplines and their own divisions”, he also adds, “but to act in the world, to try to address the issues for which the understanding of highly specialized knowledge was presumably sought, we need somehow to reassemble all the pieces”. Others even maintain “there was no place for a Renaissance man or woman in the newly de(com)partmentalized university. Soon after the turn of the century, however, specialization became more and more accepted as a way to advance knowledge beyond a kind of general application” (John Higham). My own view is that one should be specialized in one field of study. However, well balanced people are better prepared to advance in their field or career because they are more educated or experienced in various subjects than what they are specialized in. Thus, they are better prepared to encounter situations that may require knowledge or skill that you obtain from other fields of study in order to go about the situation. This is an issue scholars care about because it is what we are dealing with on a daily basis in our everyday lives. What’s at stake when debating this is our education and opportunity to become a person who is well knowledgeable in many areas of life that may in fact be critical in getting through our struggles.