One thing I believe should change about higher education is:
Publishing standards [in humanities and social sciences vs science and engineering]: Students spend months writing massive documents that almost no one will read. Spending the same amount of time producing publications definitely makes more sense, as having publications would make a stronger case for faculty positions, but simultaneously poses problems for researchers in the humanities and social sciences. The lack of publications by students in these areas, along with the lack of joint authorship, raises the question of whether the humanities and social sciences should approach scholarship in a way similar to science and engineering disciplines. As an advocate of integrating the humanities with science and engineering, I encourage more interaction between researchers in both [humanities and social sciences] and [science and engineering], which hopefully can increase joint authorship. With the emergence of Experimental Philosophy as a new research area, I am hoping that collaboration and joint authorship among researchers in various disciplines (e.g., sociology, psychology, statistics, philosophy) will continue to grow! Such growth could lead to researchers in the humanities and social sciences disseminating their research in a way comparable to the science and engineering disciplines, in terms of graduate students publishing a certain number of articles (usually as second or third author and not first author) per academic year, or presenting at several conferences per calendar year. Any thoughts on the future of Experimental Philosophy, and how it could help (or hinder) changes to make scholarship in humanities and social sciences similar to that of science and engineering?