His questions brought the first objection, from Constantin Behler, one of a six-member panel that started the discussion. Behler, a professor of interdisciplinary studies at the UW-Bothell, said he didn’t like the first question because of its emphasis on knowledge. “Education involves not just the dissemination of knowledge,” he said. “What’s worth knowing is how to ask significant questions. We want our students to explore ideas from different angles, to think critically. We want them to learn how to learn.”

The panelists were off from there, with what Campbell described as a re-creation of a discussion they’d had among themselves the week before, “except that then, we were all talking at once.”

Speech Communication Professor Leah Ceccarelli supported the “oratorical perspective” of Michael Leff, an earlier speaker in the Conversation series. This perspective argues that education should focus on what we want students to become, which is good citizens. And what is a good citizen? Ceccarelli listed three qualities: perspective - the ability to take multiple points of view; communication - the ability to not only express oneself but also to listen; and prudence - the ability to make good judgments.

Nicole Kovite, a student and member of ASUW’s Board of Control, added that a good citizen has to function in a diverse, dynamic society, “so we should have a diverse group of students here.”

Arthur Nowell, dean of ocean and fishery sciences, spoke for an emphasis on what we don’t know, arguing that this would have two desirable results: “If you are aware of your own ignorance you’re more accepting of others,” he said, “and it leads you to ask questions that will increase our knowledge.”

After the panelists had had their say, Campbell asked the audience to break up into small groups and to discuss the first question among themselves, after which they were to make a report to the larger group. Here’s a sampling of some of their thoughts:

When all the groups had reported, the panel tackled the second question, about what conditions would make optimum learning possible.

Law Professor Lea Vaughn, explaining that she was now wearing her “lawyer as problem-solver” hat, brought out a series of ideas. She recommended abolishing the rule that grades must be submitted 48 hours after a test, arguing that this discouraged essay tests. She suggested instituting a public service requirement, and a requirement that freshmen live on campus as a “community of learners.” Citing the experience of other universities that have done this, she explained that faculty could be assigned to groups of these students, serving as mentors.

Debra Friedman, associate provost for academic planning, mused that perhaps establishing requirements is in one sense an admission of failure. “If we had a community that was compelling,” she said, “students would clamor to be here. It’s when we don’t make the case that we find it necessary to introduce requirements.”

Picking up on the idea of a community of learners, Campbell noted that liberal education thrives in community but community has largely been lost among professors because of specialization. “If we don’t have it among ourselves,” he said, “how can we expect our students to have it? We must find a way to re-establish community among ourselves.”

Campbell also recommended shifting from an emphasis on the discipline being taught to an emphasis on the student. “We should teach to empower and enrich the student,” he said.

Once again, the audience was asked to break up into groups and report on their discussions. A sampling of their ideas is listed below:

Campbell concluded the forum with a promise that comments from it would be recorded on the Conversation Web site, http://depts.washington.edu/uwfuture/about.html. Readers are invited to add their own comments on this site. ¶

Nancy Wick