On April 20, Dean Jefferson Singer sent out a message alerting students that a survey would be sent out to gauge student interest in a possible Business major/minor. With an Economics major and minor, Finance minor, and the Entrepreneurship pathway all available, however, business-minded students, in particular, have a variety of options to pursue their interests. This begs the question: what would a Business major/minor add that any combination of these available courses of study do not? Does the proposal of a Business major/minor in addition to these many other opportunities reveal an underappreciated, underlying purpose of the Connections program?
I want to start by saying how stimulating I have personally found Connections to be. Through it I have been able to study a nexus of subjects and disciplines in a way that was only made possible by the structure of this academic program. Although I officially am majoring in History and minoring in Educational Studies, through the Power/Knowledge pathway and the analytical tools it provided me I have been able to study unequal power dynamics (on micro and macro scales), and to study the politics of my two disciplines more centrally than I would have been able to do otherwise. Connections also ensured that I will leave college with a clear sense of what exactly I studied and did over the course of my four years, giving me a sense of groundedness and purpose that I think I would feel very lost without. Given how much I have enjoyed learning through this academic program, it is with disappointment and reluctance that I explore below some of the ways the program may be negatively shaping learning at Conn.
In the beginning of the program, many criticized the conspicuous unwillingness of the college to make commitments concerning what it stands for and what it is trying to produce in the world through this academic program. In a May 2017 article for The Voice, Aparna Gopalan ’17 argued that Connections seemed to prioritize the transfer of a set of priorities and mindsets (marketed as “skills”) to first and foremost prepare students to enter the workforce as obedient, sufficiently-credentialed workers. Gopalan goes on to say, “Instead of taking the whole institution to task by establishing a clarity about what kind of learning should happen and why, Connections once again lets the College get away with tough unanswered questions – what does Connecticut College stand for, what is it trying to produce in the world, and why does it exist at all?”
Zachary LaRock ‘16 expands on this criticism by pointing out how the budding Connections program seemed to deepen “the marriage of collegiate academia with career services departments that aims to facilitate a student’s absorption into the labor market.” The Connections program seems to fit into a larger, troubling trend at liberal arts institutions such as Conn: the favoring of vocational training and career services over critical, complex study that might disrupt many of the desires and aspirations students come into college wanting to pursue.
The proposal of a new Business major/minor is the latest occurrence in a deepening of this pairing of collegiate academia with career services departments. What makes this trend so concerning is that it conflicts with the college’s mission to “encourage effective citizenship,” because citizenship is much more than getting a job. From the very beginning, some of the people most heavily involved in the design and implementation of the Connections program linked it to the development of effective citizens. Despite being an academic program, faculty seemed to be on the sidelines of the development of Connections. As LaRock reports, faculty involvement in development of Connections was dwarfed by the heavy involvement of Deans and the Career Services Office. The Academic Resource Center, Career Services Office, and the Dean of the College office have been heavily involved in the development of the program—not the Dean of Faculty office as one might expect.
As reported by LaRock, in an interview, Dean Singer himself proposed that part of the purpose of the Connections program was to “encourage effective citizenship”. As LaRock argues, “this categorization situates students in an inevitably political framework. A citizen is someone who, along with having certain responsibilities to society, is also confronted by the demand to make critical decisions that will impact its future.” This is precisely why the continued emphasis on job preparation and vocation-oriented studies is so concerning. Citizenship is much more than “personal branding” or “marketing oneself” to get a job. Essential to producing effective, responsible, critical citizens is a nuanced education that rejects claims to neutrality. Something which at its core is “a story of rupture, discontinuity, and political reorientation,” not one of unquestioned, neutral accumulation of skills and professional networks to secure the right job after graduation.
With ever-rising tuition costs and corresponding debts it is more than understandable that students and parents feel the pressure to be able to find immediate work that pays enough to live comfortably. The pursuit of this, however, should not be increased investment in vocational tracks—something which a Business major/minor would be a part of. This would be a disservice to a more critical, complex, disruptive education.
Moreover, further investment in career-oriented studies deepens the misconception that the immense pressures students feel to get a well-paying job immediately after college is a solely individual problem, as opposed to a much larger-scale trend that is political in nature and thus requires politically-informed solutions. Wages for college graduates in the US have been steadily declining over the past two decades, and according to some calculations, were the minimum wage to be adjusted for inflation and increases in productivity it would now be $21.16. At this point in the pandemic, many of us are feeling burnt out and at wits end with the increased workloads and pressures that the pandemic has put on us. A Business major/minor, and the long-standing trend of which it is a part, is only likely to worsen the overwhelming sensation that most students are feeling by continuing to individualize job concerns and financial fears.
I hope it is clear, though, that Connections does have the potential to be transformative. Its emphasis on interdisciplinarity and on enabling students to pursue whatever mesh of their interests they may desire could be a wonderful way to instill in all students an understanding that unequal power relations shape all disciplines and areas of work. As Gopalan puts it, however, the pursuit of many interests should not be a story without conflict. Students’ “interests, if pursued deeply, contain each other’s undoings,” and this is an unavoidable truth that the college seems unwilling to accept.
Given the explicit emphasis of the Connections program on preparing students for employment post-college, it may be safe to assume that its commitment to developing effective citizens comes second. However, in order to live up to its transformative potential Connections cannot continue to fall short of achieving political awakening in all students. The program should centrally encourage political engagement, and prepare students to responsibly engage in civic life via critical, power-and-social-difference-focused learning. The college’s unwillingness to take a clear stance on what it stands for and for what purpose it educates students weakens its academic rigor, and squanders its opportunity to foster a civic sensibility in all students.
As a quick clarification, the term “political awakening” can be a scary term, but what I refer to here is a question of purpose. What kind of purpose are we preparing students to commit themselves to? What are the outcomes of this purpose, and how are they different for people in different social groups? What tools are we giving students to determine their own purpose in alignment with their values (assuming they can identify what their values are, which seems a bold assumption)?
I have attempted to explore here the larger trends of which a new Business major/minor would be part. Trends including the “careerifying” of collegiate academia and prioritizing the production of docile workers over effective citizens. Connections has so far allowed students to pursue their many interests, but this is not, nor should it be, wholly apolitical. As it stands now Connections fails to live up to its transformative potential by falling short of providing a disruptive, politically orienting education. Let’s not dig ourselves deeper into this hole by adding a Business specialization.
If you share any of the concerns expressed here or if you feel motivated to learn more about how a Business major/minor might affect education at the college, please reach out to me at aacheson@conncoll.edu.
