BREAKING THE SILOS: REIMAGINING UNIVERSITIES WITHOUT SUBJECTS (PART I)

Education 2047 #Blog 39 (15 MAY 2025)

 

1. Introduction: The Obsolescence of Subjects

The architecture of modern education has long been scaffolded on disciplinary boundaries—mathematics, physics, literature, economics— each treated as a siloed domain of knowledge. This structure evolved from an era when access to information was limited, and memorization was an indispensable tool for survival in intellectual and professional spaces. Teaching through subjects enabled a “just-in-case” education model: learners accumulated a reservoir of knowledge, just in case they might need to retrieve and apply it in the future.

This system was functional— perhaps even optimal— for the industrial age, when professions required predetermined knowledge and skills. But the cognitive ecosystem of the 21st century is fundamentally different. We are now surrounded by a profusion of real-time, context-specific information available at the click of a button or the prompt of a voice assistant. The role of memory has been radically recalibrated, and with it, the role of subjects.

Clay Shirky, a leading thinker on the social and economic effects of internet technologies, has asserted: “It’s not information overload. It’s filter failure.” In the era of instant knowledge, what learners need is not encyclopedic recall of subject matter, but the capacity to filter, contextualize, and apply knowledge in dynamic, interdisciplinary settings.

Recent studies highlight this shift. A 2022 World Economic Forum report on future job skills identifies critical thinking, problem-solving, self-management, and working with people as top competencies, none of which are inherently tied to traditional subject knowledge. Rather, they demand cognitive flexibility, systems thinking, and real-world application— skills that emerge not from subjects, but from learning experiences that mirror the world’s complexity.

In light of this transformation, the rationale for subject-based teaching in higher education appears increasingly tenuous. What was once a necessity for survival in an information-scarce world is now an impediment in a world overflowing with knowledge. It is not that the content of subjects is irrelevant, but that their compartmentalized delivery no longer corresponds to how we engage with knowledge in real life.

 

2. The Paradigm Shift: From Memorization to Real-Time Learning

The traditional pedagogical model, centered on memorization, once served as the backbone of higher education. It was predicated on the assumption that knowledge was a scarce commodity, codified in textbooks, journals, and the minds of subject experts. Students were thus conditioned to memorize facts and principles, which would then be retrieved and applied when needed— often long after graduation. This model mirrored the “assembly-line” metaphor of education: a sequential process culminating in job readiness, shaped by the logic of the industrial age.

However, this paradigm has been profoundly disrupted by the digital age. In today's world, where access to knowledge is instantaneous, the emphasis is no longer on what one remembers, but on what one does with the knowledge one can retrieve in real time. In other words, cognition now begins not with content, but with context.

Educational psychologist John Seely Brown explains:

“The half-life of a learned skill is shrinking. What matters is not so much what you know, but how quickly you can learn something new.”

This insight captures the essence of a monumental shift. The starting point of learning is no longer the subject matter, but the problem encountered. Learners today encounter complex real-world situations first—be it in a work setting, in a civic issue, or even in personal pursuits—and only then embark on the journey of acquiring and applying relevant knowledge. This is a just-in-time model of learning, driven by situational needs and supported by ubiquitous technology.

For instance, a student involved in developing a social enterprise addressing menstrual hygiene in rural India doesn’t begin by taking a course in biology or public health. Instead, she begins with the problem, and from there, learns biology to understand the female reproductive system, data analysis to assess prevalence, behavioral science to design interventions, and communication to spread awareness. This is reverse engineering the learning process, rooted in relevance and immediate application.

Evidence from global higher education also suggests that students value learning experiences that are authentic, situated, and interdisciplinary. A 2020 survey conducted by the Institute for the Future of Work (UK) revealed that 78% of students preferred problem-centered and project-based learning over traditional lecture-based instruction. The ability to access, evaluate, and synthesize information—rather than memorizing it—was identified as the most crucial skill for future success.

The new paradigm does not negate the importance of knowledge; rather, it repositions knowledge as a means, not an end. It recognizes that in a volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) world, learning must be dynamic, learner-led, and deeply contextual. This transformation demands a corresponding shift in how we design and deliver higher education.

 

3. The Flaws of Subject-Based Higher Education Today

Subject-based instruction, while once a rational response to the challenge of organizing and transmitting knowledge, now functions as a constraint rather than a catalyst for learning in higher education. Its continued dominance reflects inertia in educational design rather than alignment with contemporary epistemological or occupational realities.

The fundamental flaw lies in its artificial compartmentalization of knowledge. Disciplines, by definition, impose boundaries—defining what is included, what is excluded, and who gets to speak authoritatively. While useful for specialization, such boundaries often produce cognitive fragmentation and inhibit the kind of integrated thinking required to solve real-world problems. This disciplinary tunnel vision is what David Perkins calls “fragile knowledge”— information that is inert outside the context in which it was taught.

In my blog, Indiscipline in Disciplines for Multidisciplinary Education!, I have observed: 

“Disciplines have emerged as tools for convenience of teaching, not for relevance of learning. They do not prepare students for life’s problems, which are never subject-bound.”

This critique echoes across global academic discourse. As early as 1972, the Faure Report by UNESCO warned against the rigidity of subject-based curricula, advocating instead for lifelong learning anchored in personal relevance and adaptability. More recently, the OECD’s Future of Education and Skills 2030 framework recommends moving beyond disciplinary knowledge towards transformative competencies— creating new value, reconciling tensions, and taking responsibility.

The consequences of clinging to subject silos are manifold:

- Superficial Expertise

- Reduced Creativity

- Employability Gap

- Institutional Redundancy

 

Furthermore, the subject-based model is structurally resistant to interdisciplinary teaching, often due to legacy issues such as departmental turf wars, rigid credit systems, and faculty appraisal norms tied to discipline-specific metrics.

In sum, the flaws of subject-based higher education today are not simply pedagogical— they are philosophical. The world does not present itself in subject categories; it presents itself in problems, patterns, and possibilities. And yet, we persist in training learners to think in boxes.

 

4. Real World ≠ Subjects: A Mismatch

The world we inhabit does not present itself in neatly packaged disciplinary fragments. Social challenges, technological disruptions, ecological crises, and even individual career trajectories unfold as complex, interconnected systems—not isolated subject matters. This fundamental misalignment between how knowledge is organized in higher education and how knowledge operates in the real world has created a significant learning deficit.

Consider the following scenarios:

- Climate change

- Artificial Intelligence in healthcare

- Financial planning or mental wellness

 

And yet, higher education remains trapped in disciplinary silos, offering degrees that imply mastery of a subject, even as industries and societies increasingly demand T-shaped individuals—those with deep expertise in one area but broad exposure to others.

A telling example comes from Stanford University’s pioneering initiative called "Design Your Own Major". Similarly, Finland’s K-12 education system eliminated traditional subject divisions for part of the school year through a method called "phenomenon-based learning".

Despite these promising global practices, many Indian universities remain anchored in outdated disciplinary constructs. The result is a curriculum detached from context, and graduates who struggle to translate what they’ve learned into societal or professional relevance.

In a world increasingly defined by wicked problems—those that are ill-structured, multi-causal, and without clear solutions—subject-based education offers at best a partial view. What we need instead is an education system that equips learners to tackle such problems through integrated thinking, collaborative inquiry, and purposeful action.

 

5. A New Vision: Learning Without Curriculum, Classes, or Exams

In response to the growing inadequacy of subject-based, curriculum-driven models of higher education, an alternative vision must be articulated—one that aligns with the cognitive, technological, and social realities of the present age. The proposition is simple yet radical: to dismiss the trinity of curriculum, classes, and exams, and instead foster a learner-driven, inquiry-based ecosystem of higher education.

This model— detailed in my earlier blog Learning Without Curriculum,Classes, nor Exams—is grounded in the principles of heutagogy, or self-determined learning.

In this envisioned system:

- There is no fixed curriculum

- There are no formal classes

- There are no conventional exams

 

This model is not without precedent. The Minerva Schools at KGI and Olin College of Engineering illustrate the success of such models. Theoretical support comes from constructivist and connectivist learning theories.

In this light, the proposed model champions learning as a living process, where learners engage not with a textbook or a teacher’s notes, but with the world itself.

 

6. The Role of the Educator in the New Model

In a learning ecosystem devoid of rigid curricula, scheduled classes, and high-stakes examinations, the educator is reimagined as a facilitator of inquiry, mentor of reflection, and designer of context-rich learning environments. The educator transitions from being the “sage on the stage” to the “guide on the side”— or more accurately, the co-learner and learning architect.

This reconceptualization aligns with Paulo Freire's dialogical education. Educators are tasked with:

- Curating Learning Ecosystems

- Mentoring Inquiry and Reflection

- Enabling Self-Assessment

- Connecting Learners to Networks

 

This vision is reflected in institutional innovations such as the d.school at Stanford University and Aalto University (Finland).

Faculty in heutagogical institutions must be trained in design thinking, facilitation, systems thinking, and mentoring. In this new paradigm, the educator is not diminished—they are elevated.

 

7. Systemic Transformation: What Needs to Change?

For the post-disciplinary, heutagogical model to take root, a transformation of individual practice is necessary—but not sufficient. Systemic change is imperative across the institutional, regulatory, and policy layers of higher education.

Reforms include:

- Curriculum and Program Structure

- Assessment and Credentialing

- Faculty Recruitment and Development

- Institutional Structures and Governance

- Policy and Accreditation

 

The systems that govern higher education must trust learners, empower educators, and dismantle the rigidities that no longer serve a knowledge society.

 

8. A Call for Courageous Disruption

The call to dismiss subject-based teaching in higher education is not a rejection of knowledge—it is a rejection of how knowledge is arbitrarily fragmented, rigidly delivered, and narrowly assessed. In a world of instant information, adaptive intelligence, and complex realities, the future of learning must look fundamentally different from its past.

By moving beyond subjects, we begin to move beyond academic tribalism, rote-based competition, and credential inflation. But such a shift demands courage—from faculty, institutions, and policymakers.

India, with its ancient traditions of holistic inquiry, is uniquely positioned to lead this disruption. Let us, then, imagine a university without subjects, where the only curriculum is life itself.

This is not utopia. This is urgency.

 (To be concluded in Part 2)

                                                                * * *

About the Author

Drawing from an extensive career bridging education policy and technological foresight, the author currently serves as Pro-Chancellor at JIS University in Kolkata. The professional journey includes significant roles as an Adviser to the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and as a Scientist at the Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council (TIFAC).

With decades of experience analyzing technological evolution and its educational implications, the author contributed significantly to the groundbreaking "Technology Vision 2035: Roadmap for Education" report, which outlined how emerging technologies would reshape India's educational landscape.

The perspectives shared in this blog represent the author's personal viewpoints rather than institutional positions.

We value your engagement—please share your reactions and insights in the comments section below.

 

 

Previous blogs 

§  Designed to Label, Doomed to Lose: Rethinking a System that Fails its Learners

§  The Missing Catalyst: Peer Learning as the Core of Educational Transformation

§  The Great Educational Reversal: Responding to AI's New Role in Learning

§  Architects of Viksit Bharat: Why Universities must Recognize Achievement over Graduation

§  Liquidating Cognitive Stagnation in UG Education- The 'SPRINT' Model Blueprint for Change

§  Architects of Viksit Bharat: Why Universities must Recognize Achievement over Graduation

§  The Digital Macaulay: A Modern Threat to Indian Higher Education

§  Why Instant Information Demands a Fundamental Rethink of Education Systems?

§  From Pedagogy to AI-Driven Heutagogy: Redefining Leadership in Universities 

§  NEP 2020: Can India’s Education Policy Keep Pace with the FLEXPER Revolution?

§  The Liberating Manifesto: Empowering Faculty to Break Traditional Boundaries 

§  From Memory to Creativity: Rejigging  Grading & Assessment for 21st Century Higher Education

§  Accreditation and Ranking in Indian Academia: Adapting to New Learning Paradigms

§  Reimagining Education: FLEXPER Learning as a Path beyond Age-based Classrooms

§  Broken by Design: The Worrying State of Secondary Education in India

§  Rethinking Learning: A World Without Curriculum, Classes, Nor Exams

§  Empowering Learners: Heutagogical Strategies for Indian Higher Education

§  Heutagogy: The Future of Learning, Rendering Traditional Education Obsolete

§  The Forgotten Half: Learning from Fallen Ideas through the Metaphor of Dakshinayana

§  3+1 Mistakes in the Indian Higher Education System

§  Weathering the Technological Storm: The Impact of Internet and AI on Education

§  The High Cost of Success: Examining the Dark Side of India's Coaching Culture

§  Navigating the Flaws: A Journey into the Depths of India's Educational Framework

§  FromKnowledge to Experience: Transforming Credentialing to Future-Proof Careers

§  Futuristic Frameworks- Rethinking Teacher Training For Learner-Centric Education

§  Unveiling New Markers of India's Education-2047

§  Redefining Doctoral Education with Independent Research Paths

§  Elevating Teachers for India's Amrit Kaal

§  Re-engineering Educational Systems for Maximizing Learning

§  'Rubricating' Education for Better Learning Outcomes

§  Indiscipline in Disciplines for Multidisciplinary Education!

§  Re'class'ification of Learning for the New Normal

§  Reconfiguring Education as 'APP' Learning

§  Rejigging Universities with a COVID moment

§  Reimagining Engineering Education for 'Techcelerating' Times

§  Uprighting STEM Education with 7x24 Lab

§  Dismantling Macaulay's Schools with 'Online' Support

§  Moving Towards Education Without Examinations

§  Disruptive Technologies in Education and Challenges in its Governance