Criticisms of Jaspers
Jaspers: Criticism
Curriculum
- Jaspers emphasises curriculum in great detail but gives no specific suggestions.
- The reader is left in the dark about what form university education should take or what a programme of study for a typical student might be.
Intellectual aristocracy
- Critics object that Jaspers’s conception of a university is too aristocratic.
- Jaspers only allows the very best to become part of the university.
- The university becomes a domain of special privilege, which is anti-democratic.
Unification of teaching and research
- Critics disapprove of Jaspers’s belief that teaching and research are inseparable and that a good teacher must be a good researcher.
- Those who separate teaching and research tend to view teaching as the transmission of basic information about a subject matter; teaching becomes equated with scholastic instruction.
A philosophical account as demanding as Jaspers’s invites equally demanding criticism. The article works through the three standard charges against his educational philosophy: that the curriculum is vague, that the university is too aristocratic, and that the link between teaching and research is overstated. Each charge points to something a thoughtful reader has to address.
The vague curriculum
The first criticism is methodological. Jaspers spends a great deal of effort on the philosophy of education and the principles a university should embody. He does not give the corresponding details about what an actual curriculum at a Jaspers-style university would look like. The reader who finishes The Idea of the University knows what kind of institution Jaspers wants but does not know what kind of programme of study a student at that institution would follow.
This is a genuine gap. A teacher trying to apply Jaspers’s principles in their own work finds them inspiring at the level of vision and frustrating at the level of practical decision-making. The principles say seek truth in a comprehensive intellectual life; the principles do not say and here is how to organise the first-year curriculum to do that. The reader has to do the practical work themselves with whatever guidance the principles can offer.
There are two ways to read the gap. One way is to treat it as a failure: Jaspers should have given more concrete guidance, and his refusal to do so leaves his philosophy under-specified. The other way is to treat it as a feature: Jaspers’s principles are deliberately general because the right curriculum will depend on the particular university, the particular students, and the particular historical moment. A single curriculum-template would betray the very principles the philosophy defends.
Neither reading is entirely satisfying. The first reading misses that some general principles should remain general. The second reading underplays how hard it is to apply a general principle without any concrete examples. A reader interested in Jaspers should probably acknowledge the gap, hold both readings in mind, and accept that the practical work of working out what the principles mean for any given situation is part of what taking Jaspers seriously involves.
Jaspers gives clear principles for what a university should be but no concrete suggestions for what its curriculum should look like
The reader knows what kind of institution Jaspers wants but not what kind of programme of study a student at that institution would follow. A teacher trying to apply the principles in their own work finds them inspiring at the level of vision and frustrating at the level of practical decision-making. The gap can be read as a failure or as a feature; either way, taking Jaspers seriously involves doing the practical work of applying the principles oneself.
The aristocratic charge
The second criticism is political. Critics have argued that Jaspers’s conception of a university is too aristocratic. He only allows the very best students to become part of the university, and the university therefore becomes a domain of special privilege, which is anti-democratic.
The charge is partly fair. Jaspers wrote with a clear picture of the university as a place where the most intellectually capable students come together to pursue serious work. He did not advocate the university opening its doors to every applicant; he wanted high standards maintained at the entry point. In a democratic age, this can look elitist.
The defence has two parts. First, Jaspers was clear that universal education should reach the entire people; that is the role of primary and secondary schools, and his democratic commitment is real at this level. The university is a specialised institution for a particular kind of work, not the primary site of universal education. A specialised institution can reasonably select for the capacities the specialised work requires, just as a music conservatory can select for musical capacity, without thereby becoming undemocratic.
Second, the selection Jaspers had in mind was for genuine intellectual capacity, not for inherited social position. A bright student from any background should, on his account, be welcomed at the university if they demonstrate the capacity. The criticism that calls this aristocratic is sometimes confusing intellectual selection (which Jaspers defends) with class-based selection (which he opposed).
The honest middle position is that Jaspers’s defence of intellectual selection at the university level is defensible, but the gap between the ideal and the reality is large. In practice, university entry has historically tracked class and wealth as much as it has tracked intellectual capacity. A defender of Jaspers’s position has to address the practical question of how to make the intellectual selection actually work for students from different backgrounds, not just defend the principle in the abstract.
Jaspers only allows the very best students into the university, making it a domain of special privilege that is anti-democratic
The charge is partly fair: Jaspers wanted high entry standards maintained. The defence is that universal education reaches the entire people through primary and secondary schools (where Jaspers’s democratic commitment is real); the university is a specialised institution for particular work. The selection Jaspers wanted was for genuine intellectual capacity, not for inherited social position, but the practical gap between the ideal and the reality remains large.
The teaching-research link
The third criticism takes aim at one of Jaspers’s most distinctive claims: that teaching and research are inseparable and that a good teacher must be a good researcher. Critics have argued that this claim ties the two activities too tightly together.
The case against the link is straightforward. Some excellent teachers are not active researchers. Some excellent researchers are poor teachers. A school or university that insists on combining the two roles in every person may fail to retain talented teachers who do not enjoy research, or talented researchers who do not enjoy teaching. The two activities have different rewards, different rhythms, and different demands; not everyone is well suited to both.
The case Jaspers makes for the link is the case from the previous chapter: a teacher who is not researching is conveying second-hand material, and the substance of the teaching suffers. Even a brilliantly skilled non-researching teacher will, on his account, gradually lose the substantive depth that makes teaching educational in the strong sense.
The critic’s response is that what counts as research can be relaxed. A teacher who keeps reading seriously in their subject, who attends conferences when possible, who maintains intellectual contact with the field, is doing a kind of research, even if they are not producing publications. Jaspers’s link is defensible if research is understood broadly. The link is harder to defend if research is understood narrowly (as the production of new published findings in peer-reviewed venues).
The deeper criticism is institutional. Modern university systems treat research and teaching as separately rewarded activities, with research generally winning the rewards. A teacher who is told to do both equally well, in an institution that only rewards one of them, is in an impossible position. The institution’s incentive structures will pull them toward research and away from teaching, and the official aim of doing both well becomes an unfunded mandate. Jaspers’s principle remains correct, but the institutions have made it hard to live by.
A working teacher who takes Jaspers seriously will probably end up doing modest research alongside teaching, in whatever form their position makes possible, while pushing back against institutional structures that treat the two as separable. The principle stands; the application requires institutional change that has not yet happened in most places.
Some excellent teachers are not active researchers; tying the two together may fail to retain talented people in either role
The two activities have different rewards, rhythms, and demands. Modern institutions treat them as separately rewarded, with research generally winning the rewards; a teacher told to do both equally well in such an institution is in an impossible position. Jaspers’s principle is defensible if research is understood broadly (serious reading, intellectual contact with the field) rather than narrowly (peer-reviewed publications), but the institutional structures make the principle hard to live by.
How was this article?