There is much talk about alternative degree programs that allow students to specialize in an area, while also taking subjects across multiple disciplines where that specialization is relevant. How might this be different from a traditional degree? In several ways:

·     Modern interdisciplinary degrees focus on skills-based outcomes that are continuously iterated and applied throughout the degree program across many courses, regardless of the discipline. For example, is teaching systems theory relevant to science, sustainability, business, innovation, political science, or all of them and more? This is different from focusing on traditional learning objectives where most of the teaching and assessment focus on the lower order thinking like identification and recall of concepts.

·     The pedagogical approach is highly focused on working collaboratively, using a case-based approach and experiential learning, which requires higher order cognitive skills and application in contrast to traditional lectures and exams that are focused on knowledge acquisition. 

·     Students are assessed continuously with focus on mastery, not a one-time passing grade. This, combined with practical and experiential learning improves knowledge retention in the long term.

·     Students can pursue specialization in a given area and get introduced to applications of that area across multiple disciplines thus making them job-ready by the time they graduate with a degree better suited to industry needs. So, how would that make a traditional electronics engineering student different from one that has had an interdisciplinary degree with electronics engineering as a specialization? Whereas the traditional degree will offer focused knowledge, the applicability is often limited to applications and industries dictated by the local context. An interdisciplinary degree by contrast, would introduce emerging areas for application of electronics – IoT, smart cities, biotech, AI development projects - areas where additional skills like user interface and experience, project management, and data analysis are crucial. After all, good evidence of this difference are developments in the semiconductor industry which has seen degree programs in the US unable to keep up with global growth and competition in the industry resulting in shortage of semiconductor engineers in the US.

Still, one might say there is still a place and lots to be gained from a traditional degree program – rigor and depth (over breadth), a clear progression of courses, ability to do cutting-edge research under specialized faculty – and this last point opens a whole new debate on what alternative models might imply for research funding, but more on that another time.

Given the differences and ongoing debate on whether a traditional degree is really worth it – in a 2022 McKinsey Global Survey, 87% of executives say that recent college graduates often lack the required competency level for key skills, while a 2023 report by the Cengage Group in the US found 52% of graduates questioned their job-readiness - why don’t we see more innovation in higher education? There are some interesting developments in this area – globally, partners like the Minerva Project have done a lot to help institutions adopt a blueprint for an interdisciplinary approach to degree programs. Universidad de la Libertad in Mexico, University of Miami, Kentech in S. Korea, and Zayed University in the UAE, with its recently established College of Interdisciplinary Studies, are some examples. Could this be transient or a movement towards a more permanent change? Do you see a future where interdisciplinary education becomes the norm, or do you believe there's still a vital place for traditional degree programs, or perhaps a different model altogether?