Arguement for IDST

1. Interdisciplinary studies rest upon serious conceptual confusion (Benson).
As Newell says, this statement comes the closest to being an argument against Interdisciplinary Studies. I feel that each person has a different definition of what Interdisciplinary Studies is to them, which makes it hard for other people to understand. Each person makes their own connections, and one person may see a different connection than another person does. So I feel that this make it clear “what it means to connect the disciplines” as Benson asks.

2. Interdisciplinary studies students lack a mature base in any discipline (Benson).
I feel that as an interdisciplinary studies student, I have a firm and mature base in both my discipline minors. By choosing this route to become a teacher, I have been able to take courses in many different disciplines, which I feel is something that every teacher needs to experience. Not only will this make me a better teacher, I feel that this major has helped me to understand how to teach somewhat better. I have been able to connect aspects of human development and psychology with core disciplines such as Math and English. I feel that by majoring in interdisciplinary studies has helped me to gain a mature base in my disciplines.

3. The commitment to undergraduate interdisciplinary studies programs impedes students’ development of disciplinary competence (Benson).
I feel that the commitment to interdisciplinary studies has not impeded my development of disciplinary competence, but it has helped me understand my discipline more. I think that being able to study more than one discipline has only helped my college experience. I am a person that will only learn things that interest them, and by having the option to study more than one discipline, I am able to have a more enjoyable and interesting learning experience.

4. Interdisciplinary studies is a dumping ground for the less than disciplinary competent (Petrie).
I find this argument offensive. I do not think that it is okay for someone to call an Interdisciplinary Studies major basically incompetent. I think that people criticize what they do not understand, and I feel that this is Petrie’s problem. I do not feel that IDST is a place for people that can not handle a single discipline, but for the people that get bored studying only one. I feel that IDST majors are very competent in disciplines; as well as more well rounded than some of the single disciplinary majors.

5. Interdisciplinary studies courses are shallow and lack intellectual rigor (Benson).
I feel that this argument has no truth to it what so ever. This being my third IDST course and having other disciplinary courses, I feel that the IDST courses are the most challenging. I think this because, many other courses deal with memorizing facts but IDST makes you think. I feel that I have to place more effort into my IDST courses, because they ask you to go beyond memorizing and spiting back facts. The courses ask you to use those facts to challenge yourself and gain something more.

6. The level of scholarship seldom exceeds that of a “glorified bull session” (Petrie).
The understanding I have of a “bull session,” is a lot of talking but no real action. I think that it is true that IDST majors discuss things in a lot of detail and it may seem that all we do is sit around and talk. However, the discussions that we have help to advance our learning. I think that IDST can be compared to “Salon” discussions in our history; the only difference is we are able to major in it. Some of the great ideas and discussions came from those Salons, so I feel that if our scholarship is nothing more than a “glorified bull session,” then the Salons of our history were nothing more as well.