Restructuring the University

Michael S. Gazzaniga's proposal (Editorial, 9 Oct., p. [237][1]) to encourage universities to reconfigure themselves along whatever lines faculty members see fit bears serious attention. Missing from his analysis, however, is any mention of students, degrees, majors, and accreditation processes that ensure minimal orderliness. The traditional organization of universities into schools and departments has not entirely thwarted creativity within and among disciplines, and it has provided advantages in terms of reasonable sizes of units for governance and common interest. There must always be a mix of chaos and order to promote creative achievement and learning among faculty and students. Whether the faculty free-for-all suggested by Gazzaniga would bear fruit or merely create confusion and bewilder students remains to be seen, but I suggest a dry-run pilot test before any university cashes in its current structure wholesale. With some ground rules governing feasible size of groupings, facilities, finance, and academic expectations for curriculum and research productivity, it could be a fascinating experiment. Certainly most of us have shaken our heads from time to time about some existing departments but, just as armies require platoons, some organizational unit of manageable size seems necessary, if sometimes frustrating. Experience with centers and institutes has shown that these interdisciplinary entities are no more fallible than departments. Human interactions in groups of highly creative people are bound to bring both opportunities and challenges regardless of structural groupings, although any reconfiguration that improves the total organization is worth considering. Thankfully, discovery and learning usually manage to emerge regardless of framework. ![Figure][2] Will universities be able to reconfigure themselves in the future so as to maximize learning and discovery?CREDIT: TOM SOBOLIK/BLACK STAR/PNI A somewhat more structured version of Gazzaniga's proposal would ask faculty, students, and administrators to work together to design an organization that perhaps includes seven or so major units, based on major intellectual threads that the university community already represents and wants to pursue in a sustaining way. My guess is that within such groupings something like departments would emerge in practice before long, just as big departments at large state universities have individual programs with major authority within them. What Gazzaniga cites at Rockefeller University works well because the faculty do not need to align their research groups with degree programs that serve students. But at most universities, more structure with greater continuity is needed for the sake of students and degree programs, yet with flexibility enough to promote creative synergy within and among units. While I do not subscribe to Gazzaniga's particular proposal, I applaud it as a stimulus as we work to create university environments that minimize administrative burden and maximize learning and discovery. # Response {#article-title-2} Cooper's insightful remarks flesh out some of the pesky details and issues that would accompany consideration of my proposal. I am aware of these issues and agree that the devil is in the details. However, I strongly feel that, if we are faced with a challenge to change, solutions would follow by academics of goodwill and vitality. I applaud Cooper's response, and I hope all of us are ready to work on the needed restructuring of the university. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.282.5387.237 [2]: pending:yes