Higher education is said to be the preeminent engine of society that produces innovation, creativity and inventiveness. Inspires imagination, invention and ingenuity. In the words of Robert E. Franken, an expert in the psychology of motivation, graduates “have the potential to help them solve problems, communicate with others, and entertain themselves and others.” Be ready to generate or recognize some idea, alternative, or possibility.

Good, if true.

But what if this trust in the creative power of the university is exaggerated? A growing body of literature claims that the university’s triumph did not bring the expected burst of creativity and invention.

Also, these discussions new york times Columnist Ross Dousat said, decadent society He claims that American society continues to spout the same arguments over and over again.

Leading economists such as Robert Gordon and technology historians such as Vaclav Smir argue that after the extraordinary explosion of creativity between 1870 and 1914, innovation across multiple domains stagnated. increase.

At first glance, such arguments certainly seem irrelevant. After all, we are going through a series of revolutions in medicine, technology, communications, and analytics that, at least on the surface, seem more radical than ever. The artificial intelligence revolution, the ICT (Information and Communication Technology) revolution, the big data revolution, the precision medicine revolution, and more.

Some of the most recent innovations in medical science include CRISPR, which allows scientists to modify DNA; mRNA technology, which enables the rapid development of novel nucleotide-based vaccines and drugs; and minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery. Simply enumerated, the examples of ingenuity that have the potential to greatly improve human health are overwhelming.

And, of course, there are the technologies that have transformed our daily lives, such as the Internet, email, smartphones and apps, streaming media, and search engines.

But perhaps a little skepticism is needed before techno-utopianism overwhelms us with visions of constant progress and improvement.

In a series of thought-provoking essays, including one entitled “Is Technological Progress Stalling?”, highly insightful journalist Tanner Greer wrote: new york times, diplomatic issueand the los angeles book reviewargues that many fantasies of progress and innovation are misleading.

For example, it is hard to think of any aesthetic, artistic, literary, psychological, scientific or technical achievement of the last 40 years as groundbreaking as what happened in the last decade of the 19th century. Can you do it?^th century and early twenties^th?

Dostoyevsky, George Eliot, T., Manet, Monet, Picasso, Van Gogh, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Heinrich Hertz, James Clerk Maxwell, Max Planck, Wilhelm Roentgen, Ernest Rutherford, or Marx , Darwin, Nietzsche, Freud, Boas?

Or, technologically, the breakthroughs in “steam turbines, internal combustion engines, electric motors, alternators, transformers and rectifiers, incandescent lights, electromagnetic waves, recorded sound, linotype machines, sulfate pulp, photographic film.” Have you ever really witnessed an invention comparable in importance?, aluminum smelting, dephosphorization steel and steel alloys, reinforced concrete, nitroglycerin, and synthetic ammonia”?

Greer’s argument is not that improvement has stopped, but that innovation is occurring within the paradigms, norms and formulas largely established in the late 1919s.^th and early 20’s^th Centuries.

Clearly, the arguments in favor of the theory of stagnation are often highly selective and ethnocentric. It reflects a growing awareness of genres outside the classical canon, such as ragtime and hip-hop. The same is true for literature. It would be a mistake not to mention innovators such as Langston Hughes, Richard Wright, Ralph Ellison, and Toni Morrison, not to mention the many non-Western writers who pioneered new themes and styles.

Yet, wasn’t the growth of the Academy supposed to foster constant innovation not only in technology and science, but also in the cultural sphere? Instead of working as a post office inspector, an insurance clerk like Franz Kafka, a banker like T.S. Elliott, or an insurance company executive, he could now earn a regular salary from college. A doctor like Wallace Stevens or Charles Ives or like William Carlos Williams?

Critics of creative writing programs tend to make a series of disturbing arguments.

• Such programs tend to make writers sound alike, resulting in a kind of homogenous, unconventional approach to writing.
• Rather than examining the rich complexities of real life, these programs lead writers to narcissistically turn navels and focus on various sociopolitical grievances.
• Creative writing programs focus more on theory and discourse than on the challenges of creating compelling plots, original language, and rich character.

Similar criticisms have been directed at MFA programs in the visual arts. These are nothing more than Ponzi schemes that place graduates in heavy debt, teach little craftsmanship and technology, and encourage some kind of conceptual and theory-based art. Few encourage sophisticated works of true originality and evocative power.
Do the critics of these programs have a point far beyond MFA? Maybe.

1. An academic approach can be the enemy of creativity and novelty.
   Why, with very few exceptions, have academic institutions failed to develop COVID vaccines? Is it just money, or is the problem deeper? Fragmentation of faculty, Is it due to over-specialization, lack of effective coordination, lack of incentives to respond to real crises with applied solutions?
2. Innovation challenges existing interests, existing processes, and existing arrangements.
   Can highly selective institutions admit more students? Sure. Can we scale online learning by reducing the need for new physical facilities, expanding access, and mitigating rising costs? Can accreditation bodies do more to assess program-level quality and cost-effectiveness? Absolutely.

   So why aren’t these things happening? Because these challenge business as usual, threaten vested interests, and require innovation that is sometimes financially and sometimes politically costly.

3. Many pressing social issues are becoming increasingly difficult to address, and universities are ill-positioned to solve implementation challenges.
   The Academy is overflowing with exciting ideas about how best to meet today’s most pressing challenges. However, legal, political, and social barriers to implementation are high, and universities are typically not directly involved in implementing solutions. Many, in part reflecting reforms designed to foster democratic participation in decision-making, whether the issue is housing, transport, crime, income and health inequalities, or climate change. systemic barriers impeding change.

To ensure that universities do a better job of promoting creativity, innovation, and out-of-the-box thinking, given the fact that universities are the main venues for basic research and professional training in this society. What can we do?

1. Empower students to understand the creative process in a richer and more authentic way.
   I feel that many of today’s vocational or professional-focused students would greatly benefit from what the humanities have to teach about creativity, imagination, ingenuity, and artistry. , which reflects a rather narrow and poor definition of professionalism.

   Many existing courses on the creative process tend to reduce creativity to a seven or eight point process involving investigation, inspiration, intuition, insight, improvisation, incubation, and more. But such an approach is grossly misleading. Instead, creativity is generally the product of real-world experience, the result of deep immersion in a particular field of study, experimentation, trial-and-error, and technical or applied problem-solving.

2. Uncover systemic barriers to innovation.
   Universities are well placed to identify a variety of reasons for innovation failure, including legal, political, and sociological. Once identified, policy solutions can be envisioned.
3. Blurring the boundaries between the university and the “real world”.
   Expand students’ opportunities to apply academic knowledge, theory, and skills to real-life contexts. There are many ways to do this. Integrate real-life problems into coursework. Increase access to internships and other applied and experiential learning experiences. Connect academic learning with workplace, service, or community-based learning.

In his most widely-watched TED talk ever, arts educator Sir Ken Robinson said creativity is just as important as literacy, and that K-12 education is now structured to encourage creative thinking and expression. claimed to suppress Whether or not you agree with his point, the fact is that our university can and should do more to encourage creativity.

Why? What steps can universities take?

• Reduces rigid core requirements that make it difficult for students in technical, vocational and pre-professional fields to set aside time to devote to other learning opportunities.
• Create a space where innovation, entrepreneurship and creative freedom flourish.
• Reward effort and experimentation in addition to traditional quantitative measures of success.
• Appreciate new ideas and approaches.
• Encourage initiatives that involve interdisciplinary collaboration or have impact outside the university.

Today, while our society in general, and universities in particular, celebrate and reward so-called creative classes, they fail to take steps to promote creativity to the fullest. we can certainly do better.

Steven Mintz is Professor of History at the University of Texas at Austin.