Abstract
Universities, dating back to the 8th century, have come a long way from merely hosting religious scholars, to being secular institutions investigating a variety of topics. Knowledge generated by universities helped create the modern world, pushing us through three industrial revolutions in the span of 1300 years. Despite their momentous role in shaping human lives, the reputations of universities’ are now at stake, with concerns over the usefulness of some courses, politicalised governance and commercialisation of the degrees due to running universities like businesses. Therefore, alarm bells ring when universities lose profit, since businesses are expected to infinitely grow in a neoliberal capitalist society.
Aside the recent issues in higher education, perhaps due to its infancy, lighting education has already been facing challenges in recent decades1–3 and is still trying to find its feet within engineering, architecture and built environment. Lighting research and design (aka illumination engineering) is a multidisciplinary field that spans a variety of fields, ranging from human factors to computer science, from photonics to interior design. Despite its vital importance to life on earth for many species, applied lighting research and education have been on the fringes, practised by some, hailed by few.
History tells us that ideas do not die but change form. In that spirit, lighting education has gradually shifted from vocational training to formal higher education in the last century. Considering the growth of knowledge, it is clear that we need formal lighting education in universities to systematically educate students rather than solely depend on tacit knowledge of a practitioner. Universities provide a space for individuals to grow and prepare to contribute to the society as lighting designer, engineers or researchers. Graduates maintain and improve systems that society depends on or become educators themselves to transfer knowledge to the next generation, while in return earning their place in society.
However, one might ask if we still need universities in the age of information, where countless digital sources are in the tip of our fingers, most infamously, generative artificial intelligence. It is critical to remember that universities do not only teach a set of facts and techniques but also critically evaluate these facts 4 because universities generate knowledge through res-earch. This is a fundamental difference between universities and other educational institutions. Universities are also ‘nudges’ that provide motivation to students to learn and study further, despite the challenges that students are facing (e.g. balancing social life, assignments and indulging on instant ramen). This equips students with much-needed discipline to maintain professionalism, character and integrity. Of course, a few can gain expertise by themselves (notable autodidacts include Michael Faraday who greatly contributed to electricity and optics) but not everyone has the motivation or discipline to become an expert by themselves. Studies show that individuals are better at staying on task when faced by external factors (e.g. study groups or friends), and even highly touted ``self-directed learning'' technique benefits from the presence of a teacher. 5 Simply put, if the society had to solely depend on lone geniuses to function, things would fall apart.
A course in a university program often provides projects with organised goals to help students learn more effectively compared to a self-paced study that has no specific direction. Professors are experts in their fields, who can introduce a (research) topic to their students, guide them through the vast literature that contains many different ways of solving a specific (research) problem. This is critically important because it is almost impossible for a new student to know where to start to solve a (research) problem, let alone read all the relevant literature. Having said that, being an expert should not lead to gatekeeping knowledge, as experts can be wrong or too confident in their knowledge, which leads to poor observations, as Claude Bernard quipped famously.
Social realities only have value as long as we communally agree that they do. If the society decides that we do not need universities, then they will indeed cease to exist. So, what to do now? First and foremost, universities should not be treated like for-profit businesses. Freed from the burden of making money, scholars may not turn into ‘career academics’ who obsess over grants and citations, and students may not be attracted to empty credentials over much-needed skills. This does not mean universities will be exempt from justifying the resources they consume – unless of course we transcend into a post-monetary society or a communal economy. 6
Universities need to focus on regaining public’s confidence in scholars and science. Public relations are important, but if your product is not high quality, no amount of branding can help. Finally, instead of overemphasising grades and obsessively focusing on achievement at the expense of personal growth, creativity and well-being, we should prioritise holistic learning experiences that nurture critical thinking and emotional intelligence.
