334 Global Ethics for Leadership
initiatives for global citizenship and development. The robust implemen-
tation of this target will, however, ensure that students are prepared for
‘one world,’ understanding internal and external, intrinsic and extrinsic,
endogenous and exogenous conditions and factors affecting communal,
national and global well-being. The need to re-engage with teaching and
learning practices in higher education is critical at this juncture of global
awareness and development. The re-orientation of universities, under-
standing their 21st century function will require a deep reformulation of
the current discipline–focussed graduate specialisation approach.
Referring pertinently to this re-routing process, Schwenkler^262 is ad-
amant that the inherent function of the university:
is not in any kind of production—of discoveries, degrees, or
books and articles. That a university typically does produce these
things is incidental to its true work, which is the pursuit and at-
tainment of truth, goodness, and beauty through intellectual ex-
change and the expressive power of art.
Harkavy^263 agrees, although taking a less Platoist view—he urges
that universities should ‘return to their core mission—effectively educat-
ing students to be democratic, creative, caring, constructive citizens of a
democratic society [geared] for the real world problem-solving, action-
orientated proposition [...] to change it for the better.’ [my emphasis]
Notwithstanding a clear focus in higher education policy to develop
the skills of analytical thinking and critical reasoning amongst students,
anecdotal engagement with teaching staff and employers repeats the
concern that graduates of the twenty-first century often do not present
with such skills. Students today appear to graduate with a discipline spe-
cialisation and qualification but little else by way of ability to apply their
knowledge in the workplace, in their professions, and in life. Sledge and
262
263 2016: 3^
2006a: 1– 2