It’s all Adam Smith’s fault. Smith, of course, is the father of economics, a discipline that has taken a justifiable beating in recent years. But in this case, the fault with Smith lies not with his paternity, but with his ideas about the division of labour. Specifically, Smith suggested in his book Wealth of Nations that people in the labour force – that is to say, us – would together contribute more if each took on a more specialised role and, as a result, built up greater expertise and experience.

Of course, Smith was right. The idea of specialisation was a key force in the industrial revolution and has had a profound impact on the educations we all received and our working lives every day.

But like many great ideas, I’m afraid we have taken Smith’s too far.

Our education system is now overly focused on turning out graduates with professional qualifications, educated in a body of knowledge relevant primarily to the profession the student has chosen. While this approach undoubtedly adds depth of knowledge, it doesn’t deliver real expertise or experience. That can really only happen in a professional setting. Learn-by-doing is still an essential element for entering almost any profession. At the same time, over-specialised learning is inherently limiting.

Academia is a slow, detached world, so curricula evolve at geologic pace. Meanwhile, professions like PR and marketing move swiftly on, changing and adapting continuously. Students in these disciplines are often learning from a body of knowledge that was rendered effectively obsolete before they even entered university.

Meanwhile, the training they do receive is often too narrow, sometimes because the value of kinds of knowledge outside of the curriculum rapidly increases within the profession. For example, the rise of social media and digital communications has caused PR to become much more quantitative in recent years, but too many PROs are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with basic algebra, and studied no maths (not even statistics) in University.

With the pace of change moving so fast in almost every aspect of our lives, we could all do with a broader base of knowledge in order to understand the changes and make the most of them. Professional communicators ought to understand this better than anyone: We often find ourselves adapting our thinking and vocabulary across a wide range of clients and industries in the span of a few meetings.

This requires that we be effective problem solvers, creative thinkers, persuasive in argument, and intellectually curious.

In short, we should follow Smith’s example more closely. Smith was a generalist, whose knowledge across a huge range of areas informed and improved his primary vocation. He was a university professor specializing in moral philosophy, and also managed to find time to be a keen astronomer, historian and lawyer.

Educational curricula that are too specialised tend to crowd out learning in non-specialised subject areas. And often, these areas can be incredibly useful in building up the kinds of skills that PR people need. Courses in philosophy, logic and law can build skills and understanding in persuasion. Computer science and maths can aid problem solving. Arts, music and architecture can contribute to creativity.

Of course, all of this ignores an important practical reality that professional training is viewed as essential for nailing down one’s first job. Too often, that’s because agencies like mine are too narrow in their review of qualifications for grad schemes and internships. This should stop.

The reality is that when I interview candidates at any level, I almost never look at what they studied. I’m much more interested in their enthusiasm, experience, and inquisitiveness. I long for colleagues whose educational attainment focuses on learning to inquire, to think and to argue, rather than a set of skills.

With the former, one can learn the latter.