Final answer:
The debate centers around the benefits of interdisciplinary knowledge versus specialized expertise. Evidence from class discussion shows interdisciplinary approaches can lead to innovative solutions, whereas assignment evidence supports the idea that specialization leads to in-depth expertise and job market advantages.
Step-by-step explanation:
When considering whether undergraduate degrees should include two closely related areas of study, there are compelling arguments for both integration and specialization. A major argument for having two related areas is the depth and breadth of knowledge that students can attain. For example, a political science and economics double major could draw upon combined insights to analyze policy decisions more effectively. This argument is supported by evidence from a class discussion where it was highlighted that interdisciplinary approaches often lead to more innovative solutions since they consider various perspectives.
Conversely, an argument against this notion could be that specialization allows for a more focused expertise in a single field, potentially making graduates more attractive to employers seeking deep knowledge in a specific area. Evidence from a recent assignment shows that deep specialization can lead to significant breakthroughs within a field. For example, a student majoring solely in molecular biology might develop specialized skills that are highly sought after in their specific sector. This specificity can provide competitive advantage in the job market. In conclusion, the debate on whether having two closely related areas of study is beneficial depends on the balance between interdisciplinary understanding and focused specialization. Both approaches have their merits and potential drawbacks, with classroom evidence suggesting that interdisciplinary studies encourage innovation while specialization offers in-depth expertise.