nmap--
With respect, I disagree with a couple of points in your post. At the heart of our differing views are differing assessments of the nature of the problem. These differences should not overshadow the fact that you and I are in basic agreement: the American university needs reform.
First, I don't see universities as monolithic institutions. In my view, that statement is akin to saying that all the armed services can be accurately described as "the military."
Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, politicians and journalists commentated on ‘the Culture Wars’, a heated debate over value systems. In my estimation, this conflict was an outgrowth of debates that had been underway on college and university campuses since the 1960s. This fight could not have persisted for so long or been marked by such bitterness were it not for a diversity of views within the Ivory Tower.* Indeed, by the 1990s, historians were increasingly concerned that the craft had become overly specialized. "Balkanization" was a term bandied about in many a discussion (inappropriately as far as I'm concerned).
Second, I differ with your interpretation of the role writing a dissertation plays in the training of graduate students. From comparing notes with classmates who sought advanced degrees in English, economics, political science, and urban planning, there's a bit more of a cradle to grave approach in the training of an academic historian. (That is, you often cry like a baby and at times wish you were dead.
) At some institutions, earning a B.A. in history requires a thesis. Or two, if one is especially masochistic.
In history, the purpose of a dissertation is to advance the profession's understanding of a topic. That is a dissertation in history creates new knowledge. As a history department's reputation is in no small part earned by the achievements of its graduate students, there's a degree of motivation to make sure a dissertation is a credible work. (Readable, well, that's a different story.) For this reason, dissertations must be approved by committees, not just the graduate student's adviser.
To me, the problem of today's university is not a matter of a monolithic world view. What I see is a diverse range of views, methods, and practices that suffers from a lack of professionalism when it comes to teaching.
My preferred approach is to find those individuals, regardless of bias (because everyone has bias of one sort or another--the pendulum will balance itself, eventually), who believe that the role of a teacher is to educate, not indoctrinate, and then show how this approach benefits everyone by producing students who can think independently and critically what ever that student may choose to think. The reward comes in the answers to two key questions that used to matter in ways different than they matter today: "Where did you go to school? What did you study?"
And grade inflation. IMNSHO, something needs to be done about grade inflation before anything else; it, more than any other factor, is what is devaluing the undergraduate experience.
___________________________________________
* In 1985, I witnessed a flare up in the long running rivalry between cultural and physical anthropologists. In front of several hundred graduates, Nancy Scheper-Hughes lost her temper--but not her composure--turned on Vincent Sarich, and in a few crisp sentences, crushed him.
Professional, not exactly; instructive, yes.
Among Americanists (historians specializing in American history) the brawls over the fundamental nature of American slavery, the causes and origins of the Cold War, the decision to use the atomic bomb, and 'the power of culture' debate,' are all cautionary tales that too few have heeded.