There’s a new way to study development: a masters degree in the practice of development.
The MacArthur Foundation announced ten universities to receive funding for the new degree program yesterday, bringing the funding from MacArthur for this project to $16 million. The first students matriculated at Columbia University in 2009, and by 2013 the foundation expects the programs to be producing 400 graduates a year from around the world.
The two-year degree is multidisciplinary—the health sciences, the natural sciences and engineering, the social sciences, and management—with a focus on application and fieldwork.
Since today’s problems—like climate change, poverty and sustainable development—are interconnected, students need to be prepared to think across disciplines, so the argument goes. If ending global hunger (Millennium Development Goal number one) requires technical knowledge of health and nutrition, agronomy, agricultural supply systems, as well as managing organizational change, then this degree proposes to equip graduates with basic knowledge on all those topics.
The idea for the new global program comes from the Earth Institute’s Jeffrey Sachs, an architect of the Millennium Development Goals, and John McArthur, the head of the NGO that supports the Millennium Village Project, who articulated their vision in a 2008 report on education for development professionals.
Here’s what this program assumes the world needs more of:
a new generation of development practitioners who can understand the “languages” and practices of many specialties, and who can work fluidly and flexibly across intellectual and professional disciplines and geographic regions.
This sounds pretty good. In fact, I’m a generalist myself, which is how I ended up in this job, where I write about a global health issue one day and an economics paper the next.
But what if what the world really needs more of something else? What if it needs more specialists, more people with deep knowledge about the regions they study and work in? What if it needs people who are well-versed enough in their own disciplines to be critical of half-baked development ideas cooked up by aid planners who know just enough about every topic to believe they have the answers? What if the world needs more specialists to evaluate the quality of the work in each specialty?
Curriculum and course materials proposed by the central “Secretariat” for development practice are housed in Columbia’s Earth Institute. Will the new programs produce students with a standardized, narrowly-prescribed view of how to approach development problems? Or will the melding of disciplines encourage critical thinking and help straddle the theory-policy divide, making global cooperation run more smoothly and international aid more effective?
I hope it’s the latter. But here’s one discouraging clue: The draft 2009 syllabus for the development practice degree’s required “foundation course,” offered at Columbia and several other universities around the world through web conferencing, reads like a synopsis of the degree itself. And all the readings for the course’s introductory week, the week devoted to foreign aid and policy, and the week on the Millennium Villages Project are authored by either Jeff Sachs, John McArthur, the Millennium Villages Project scientists, or the UN.
Hat tip to Michael Clemens.
10 Comments
As a proud member of the inaugural MDP class at Columbia’s School of Intl & Public Affairs (and a regular reader of Aid Watch), I have a pretty hefty buy in to the idea that the world needs more generalists. I also think they need more specialists and we also need more schools at all levels and access to education for the worlds poor. The MDP program and Secretariat is working both directly and indirectly towards this end.
The foundation course- The Global Classroom- is meant to be interactive with leading experts (most from EI/ CU, but also from other institutions) and international student perspectives on the issues. While in many ways the class was development from EI’s perspective (as any class is from the perspective of the person/ entity that organizes it)- it was also the perspectives of scientists, ethicists, practitioners and most of all students (all from different backgrounds) from around the world.
From that core we are spending these next three semesters delving into these issues. This summer we are going to the Millennium Villages (to fulfil the MDP field experience requirements- each program has developed their own), to learn the perspectives of villagers, MVP staff, UN officials, and anyone on the ground be affected by the project.
We will be blogging our own thoughts and perspectives on the EI website this summer (not launched yet)- so if you are wondering if we are being taught to think critically about what we are seeing, be sure to check that out.
Allison Greenberg
MDP Candidate 2011
Columbia University
Alli, Thanks very much for adding your informed perspective from within the program. I’ll look forward to reading the blog from you and the other MDP candidates this summer. Regards, Laura
A very well known university in Edinburgh
has a Masters course in Development/Env that is based around the MDG goals. I knew a student who took it and I was astounded at what was being passed off as lecturing (ideology more like). It was about as uncritical as you can get. I absolutely do Not think dev needs Any more generalists. For dev work there needs to be people with core skills. ‘General’ knowledge in development (theory/practice) is already a given for many of the degrees (int relations, anth, dev economics.) – and in any case, depending on area/context etc (!) what’s needed, in terms of expertise, will differ. I think the fact that Columbia (natch) has a degree course in MDGs is ridiculous. It will certainly help out Columbia – but anyone else? I am doubtful. The thing is, really valuable general knowledge (e.g. practical, nuanced, ability to see where links should be) is only going to come with experience – it is absurd to assume someone with a more specific background won’t quite ‘get it’ and “quick! better draft in the person from Columbia with the generalist masters degree!”. Seriously?
Students taking the course are, of Course, going to be wide-eyed and optimistic about it (that glow tends to disappear with time
But, I hardly think a current student on the course is, no offence, going to be able to see pros and cons with it (or indeed development) critically – if the very Point of the course is, it would appear, to be a generalist/pro MDGs (a truly valuable course would have no pre-determined bias).
It’s also fundamentally flawed… “a new generation of development practitioners who can understand the “languages” and practices of many specialties, and who can work fluidly and flexibly across intellectual and professional disciplines and geographic regions.” (who wrote this? A management consultant?). Yes, being able to work across disciplines is important, but if one is a generalist the reality of them being able to truly understand (and therefore critically appraise etc) a specialist discipline ( e.g. economics, engineering, anthropology, medicine – to conflict issues or say, mapping – etc.) is highly doubtful. The fact that these disciplines Are specialised points to the specific nature of the knowledge needed to fully understand it from the outset (and therefore work as a specialist in said discipline, understand where change could be beneficial etc.)
I’ll eat my hat if Anyone can prove there is a need for more generalists in development (esp with a focus on the MDGs). Easterly, like many academics might research/talk about various subjects but ultimately this is based on a strong academic record in a specific area, as well as country experience.
fyi – completely unrelated, has anyone seen this?
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article7117538.ece
btw – regarding my comment above, I realise it doesn’t specifically say a focus on the MDG’s is a part of the course (apart from visiting the villages) – but clearly it’s an underlying theme.
Re: “And all the readings for the course’s introductory week, the week devoted to foreign aid and policy, and the week on the Millennium Villages Project are authored by either Jeff Sachs, John McArthur, the Millennium Villages Project scientists, or the UN.” – This says it all. For a masters level degree at a world-class university that is truly shameful. Although, I guess some universities will always have no problem prioritising the cash over the content.
Well you’re a generalist, and here pretty critical, so I’m going to assume that being a generalist and being critical of half-baked development ideas aren’t mutually exclusive.
In fact, I don’t think it’s all as binary as you make it. The world needs specialists and generalists. In my general experience, generalists know they need specialists. I’ve found in my academic experience that specialists tend to protect specialism by arguing that generalists can never get it and are destined to do it, whatever it is, wrong. In my journalistic experience, fortunately, specialists have willingly shared their knowledge with me, and that makes my own (generalist’s) journalism better.
Also, I’ve seen the “standardized” Columbia MIA education first hand, and while we all assumed while we were chatting in classrooms on Amsterdam Avenue that so much of what we were reading was passe — obviously aid orgs should be culturally sensitive, hire local staff, ask beneficiaries what they think would benefit them instead of marching in and building a school in a town that needs a market — I found out in three years of covering aid in Africa that the aid practice is anything but standard. If the ‘good’ aid lessons didn’t get internalized and uniformly applied, I tend to think that the “standardized, narrowly-prescribed view of how to approach development problems” will hardly rule the day. In fact, I’d say the jury is out about whether this indeed such a standard (and inferring from your tone, standardly sub-standard) view. But I’m just an observer.
I wonder if what the world needs most is more smart, educated, young people who want to make a difference; people who are willing work for little or no pay; travel often (economy class); expose themselves to every microbe from malaria to HIV; risk Fly By Night airlines over conflict territories for in-country jaunts; break their hearts over and over in situations where everything they can possibly do is just too little too late (or at best a drop in the bucket), and generally just give a shit.
As a not so young, but determined and driven nonprofit ICT manager working on a grad degree in technology management, reading everything he can get his hands on and reaching out to anyone who might share a bit of wisdom in the area of development I have to say I seem to be either completely amazed and overjoyed at the kindness and generosity bestowed on me by genuine folks in the know – or I’m nearly as deeply *baffled* by the bickering, infighting, small minded, bitter snarkiness coming from the mouths of those I thought were humanitarians.
I understand bogus aid – aid that can do more harm than good. I was hip to that phenomenon early on in my quest for self edification on the subject of development and looking for the best way I might be able to make a difference. There’s lots of folks talking about that kind of aid. Its old news. You can stop shouting.
Surely that isn’t what we are talking about here. Maybe I’m naive but I fail to see why anything about educating people on Millennium Goals and development at Columbia University is a bad thing.
Why does it seem so many folks in this community need to take it upon themselves to preach nothing but negativity, insults and doubt?
I don’t get it.
Jina, I’m a follower and fan of your work- Thanks for your comment. Of course the world needs both generalists and specialists; you make a very fair point there. The post was meant to question the assumption (now validated by MacArthur funding) that producing more generalist aid practitioners is a the best way to improve how we address global problems and encourage sustainable, equitable growth and development. Michael Clemens raised a similar question more skillfully than I have when he asked, “Will [MDP graduates] succeed in making [aid] projects substantially more effective, suggesting that a lack of the right kind of professional has indeed been a major constraint on project work, or do the principal constraints to project effectiveness lie elsewhere?”
And, if a program to train a new generation of international development policy makers and practitioners in 20 schools around the world is going to exist, it would be pretty egregious if it didn’t expose them to the full spectrum of the lively, ongoing debate around how best to approach development problems and how to make aid more effective. That full spectrum does not seem to be fairly represented in the syllabus of the foundation course, but may well be covered in other courses (as some MDP students have argued) and at other universities that will now receive the MacArthur funding.
Finally, I just want to be clear here that my comments were not meant to include any Columbia program other than the new masters in development practice.
Laura, thanks for writing about our program, though that’s quite a dramatic title. My friend posted Darth Vader’s theme song on my facebook wall.
My name is Jane Han, and I’m just about to finish my first year in Columbia’s MDP program. I hope you will entertain the thoughts and comments of a student, as long and unedited as they may be:
To ease your discouragement about the Integrated Approaches class, most of the sessions were led by sector/industry experts from around the world, not necessarily by the EI/MP/Columbia folks. Additionally, I don’t think any of us would claim to have “completed” our education in all of those sectors listed in the syllabus. The real value of that class was the process we learned. In this particular community, why are children dying? What is the prevalence of undernutrition? Is child undernutrition actually an intersection of poor maternal health, poor access to clean water and sanitation, gender issues, lack of quality education, geography and climate, lack of safe roads and infrastructure and reliable energy source, lack of reliable clinics and qualified health workers….? If so, how do we go about addressing those problems?
Two other classes this term were very practical: global food systems and global health practice. Learned about soil types, land and water resources, nutrition, major causes of child deaths, rapid diagnostics of major illnesses, etc. Technical knowledge, valuable and applicable to various locations. Similar classes in infrastructure and education next year. The process-learning applies throughout, as there are differences between sectors.
We’re in agreement about the need for both specialists and generalists so won’t belabor that point.
“Will the new programs produce students with a standardized, narrowly-prescribed view of how to approach development problems?” So far, no. At least not in the negative way the question is implied. But I guess we’ll have to wait and see. Some of the standard messages we do get: listen to people, programs have to be community-based—intuitive and, as Jina says, passé, but not occurring in practice, as she also observes. Neither is swift action from international partners. Hence, another uninteresting but well-received message: be persistent. These multi-sectoral, location-specific solutions that work long-term take time, money, and more time for measurable success. And that means resistance from key partners.
I’m not suggesting that a generalist degree is a panacea, just as anyone suggesting this program is a waste of money would benefit from thinking twice. The program arose from the field—what practitioners, communities, people “on the ground” saw lacking (many of us have worked in the field, which is what drew us to a program like this). For those critically questioning the validity of the program, I encourage you to get the perspective of more people: practitioners in various sectors, people in communities we’re purporting to help, the MDP Secretariat and students. We can share with you the flaws that we see in the degree program, as well as good things. Who doesn’t want development programs to be managed better so they are multi-sectoral and contextualized, bottom-up and top-down, integrated, so that they will actually…just benefit the poor.
Thanks for this dialogue space.
Respectfully,
Jane
PS: Beyond the rhetoric? http://www.weforum.org/en/media/Latest%20News%20Releases/NR_WEFA10_Agriculture
PPS: Charley, we’ve also been learning about the transformative role of ICT in development. Mobile health, banking, ChildCount+, whether it can benefit farmers and the agriculture sector. Interested in learning about your nonprofit if you could direct me to a website.
Thanks, Laura. I didn’t mean to imply I don’t think it’s worth a close watch. I do, and I’m glad you and others will be watching. But it strikes me as too early to judge, and too easy along the lines you delineated.
Still, I’m also skeptical that even the most perfect of all professional programs won’t result in the most perfect of all aid programs. Mistakes seem to repeat. Is it that someone didn’t get the right master’s education? Seems unlikely.
I guess I sound a lot like Michael now…
I hesitate to post another comment on here, but wanted to question a few responses: Re Jane: “Who doesn’t want development programs to be managed better so they are multi-sectoral and contextualized, bottom-up and top-down, integrated, so that they will actually…just benefit the poor” – of course, this is the hope for all development projects . But, to my mind it still fails to address concerns regarding the reading list cited in the original post. To see an issue clearly all research (whether or not they jive with the current ideology in place) must be looked at – in the case of international development, there are core texts/readings that are certainly not summed up by just those authored by Sachs et al.
Re Jina, in many ways I would agree with you re “Mistakes seem to repeat. Is it that someone didn’t get the right master’s education? Seems unlikely.” As mentioned in the piece by Michael Clemens there are clearly going to be other factors which determine the success of aid/development projects. On the other hand, with regard to the student I knew at Edinburgh (and this is not to denigrate the university in any way – it is an extremely good university – and like the Columbia programme, just a criticism of that one course) – they most certainly did not receive the information necessary to even begin to know what question to ask or not to ask. There was no reading list of any substance and the references allowed for essays was shocking. But isn’t that ultimately the point of a good masters programme? Not to assume said students will even necessarily find jobs (let alone good ones, or ones were they might be able to affect change) but that they are able to view the issues critically and understand the entire debate. Surely the point is to educate – not to try and create job titles from the outset?
Re the whole idea of generalists vs specialists. My issue is not so much that generalists are not needed, (both specialist and generalists clearly are) but that the current courses on int development offered at many universities already cover these issues, and to start a new one seemed to me (based on the reading list mentioned and course information) to be less about maintaining current general knowledge than, in fact, to be veering dangerously into ideological territory.
Re Charley “I have to say I seem to be either completely amazed and overjoyed at the kindness and generosity bestowed on me by genuine folks in the know – or I’m nearly as deeply *baffled* by the bickering, infighting, small minded, bitter snarkiness coming from the mouths of those I thought were humanitarians”. I think you’ll find depending on topic etc they are one and the same. Anyone who cares enough and works in development will usually have an opinion – and the reality is this will not always be a positive statement on whatever is being debated. To be “overjoyed by kindness” is all well and good but just because someone makes a statement that benefits you or sits well with what you already believe doesn’t mean their opinions are necessarily the right ones or the whole truth.
“There’s lots of folks talking about that kind of aid. Its old news. You can stop shouting” – so because some people have an opinion all other voices should be silenced? If there’s one thing that’s obvious about development debates it’s that the arena is so large, in many respects we need as many voices as possible to even come close to being representative.
2 Trackbacks
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by William Easterly, William Easterly, Mitch Nauffts, craig lefebvre, Dustyn Winder and others. Dustyn Winder said: I sense disdain RT @bill_easterly: Laura analyzes the MacArthur's new funding to expand Jeff Sachs' intellectual empire http://bit.ly/bTWx80 [...]
[...] our friends at Aid Watch (which happens more than I would like to admit). But the overall tone of this post is spot on: Curriculum and course materials proposed by the central “Secretariat” for [...]