Trans-discipline

Mac 'n' Cheese

So a small confession... I sometimes watch Food TV competition shows late at night. And last night it was mac 'n' cheese. Five chefs competed, first with a classic version, second with a so-called 'signature' dish. The first round was essentially a draw, and the differences played out in the second round. And I actually learned two things from the show: keep to your judging criteria, and the simpler the better.

First, one of judges, rather than deciding on the stated criteria: taste, presentation, creativity, etc., judhed the contestants on process and affect: how confident did they look in preparing their dish, how much did they seem to enjoy the work, etc. It through the chefs for a loop, since they had no idea that looking earnest and jovial were judging criteria. Kind of like bonus points for 'effort' given out when there is no mention of effort points in the syllabus. The frustration on the chefs faces was lesson enough to avoid unexpected evaluation criteria.

Second, two of the chefs went for complex, three-part variations on the subject, literally thinking that the way to win a challenge was to attempt something challenging, that is complex and difficult to pull off. Another contestant, who eventually won, tried simply elbow macaroni, a beurre blanc, mascarpone cheese, and lobster [recipe}. Perfect simplicity beat out quality complexity.

It won out over the others, not because they were poorly done (they were in fact judged to be well done), but because keeping it simple meant that each element had to be perfectly executed. One false step, which in a more complex presentation could be overlooked, would stand out dramatically, ruining the entire effort. It was riskier, and as I mentioned last time, risk is an essential part of excellence. It's more of a challenge to do something simple perfectly that to do something complex well. It's a lesson many of us have yet to learn.

The Pursuit of Excellence

Seems like the watchword of the moment is excellence (google 'pursuit' and 'excellence' and you'll get more than 1.8 million hits). Everyone strives for it; nothing less is acceptable. Forget the banal observation that if everyone is excellent no one is (excellence being a comparative quality by nature); the issue is how can a person, an organization, a product, or a process be excellent in a particular fashion or in a specific dimension.

We were asked this question at a Greater Expectations workshop last week in the context of campus diversity initiatives. I was sitting with colleagues from Ramapo College, Marquette University and Virginia Tech, and we tried to come up with a definition of excellence that would transcend any specific situation within at least an educational context. We batted around ideas related to the cultivation of talents, the question of significance, the relationship between the individual and the social, and the affective side of accomplishment. We finished with the observation that unless there is a challenge and unless one takes a risk, there is no excellence per se. Above all, excellence is dynamic, contextual and transcendent.

Herewith then is our definition; try your hand at another if you wish:

"Excellence is the development and refinement of individual and communal talents and abilities creatively performed in socially significant ways that meet a challenge, involve risk, exceed expectations, and provide a sense of completeness and satisfaction."

Omakase

I had a discussion about general education with several of our new SPAs: they are SOAR (Student Orientation, Advising and Registration) Peer Advisors (don't ya just love the acronym within an acronym). They were asking how to advise students who wanted to know why they had to take certain required courses and why they simply could not take Whatever they wanted to fulfill distribution requirements. My inspiration was last night's sushi dinner:

When you go to a good sushi bar, sit down and order "omakase" you are trusting the sushi chef to serve you the finest and freshest ingredients in the house. You are not in control; you are trusting the judgment of the chef. If you knew what was best and freshest that day, or how to make great sushi yourself, you wouldn't be at the sushi bar; you'd be making it yourself.

Such is general education. It may look like a restaurant menu where you order what you want, but it's really all omakase: you are trusting the faculty, the sushi chef, to serve what they think is best and freshest for you. If you knew what you needed and how to get it, you wouldn't be at the university, the sushi bar, you'd be learning on your own.

Now, if you order omakase and get stale fish and rice, you'd have a right to complain; if you left the sushi bar unfulfilled and not wanting just a bit more, you'd be right to be upset. Same with education: we faculty should deliver fresh and exciting variations, not the same old stuff, ideas and abilities that leave you wanting a bit more, but you need to trust us to do so. And if we don't, go to another sushi bar uh, university.

Oh, and just because you're paying doesn't mean you get to order whatever you want. Even if the sushi isn't the best when you order omakase, you still have to pay the bill.