Undergraduate programmes at our universities should provide considerable breadth and some depth. We've got it the wrong way round, writes University of Limerick president Don Barry.

Educating undergraduates is a core task of Irish universities. The quality of the graduates we produce ultimately determines the quality of third-level education and its role in building a sustainable "knowledge" society and economy. We need to focus on the role of the undergraduate curriculum in meeting the needs of our students, our citizens and our economy in the 21st century - in a new and fast changing world, a world whose future continues to become more rather than less unpredictable.

Undergraduate curricula at the leading US universities today are based on the twin notions of distribution and concentration, a compromise between the theories of the European pioneers in university education, John Henry Newman and Wilhelm von Humboldt. Distribution, favoured by Newman, demands that the curriculum should ensure a broad education for the student. Concentration, proposed by Von Humboldt, demands that the curriculum should encourage the study of one particular subject in depth.

Yale University epitomises this system and is consistently rated among the top five universities in the US. I know it well from my time there as a PhD student, faculty-member and visiting professor. As stated in its prospectus, Yale "does not primarily train students in the particulars of a given career" but, instead, "its main goal is to instil in students the development of skills that they can bring to bear in whatever work they eventually choose".

Breadth of learning is achieved by requiring students to take at least one course in foreign languages and at least two courses from each of the following domains: arts and humanities; sciences; social sciences; quantitative reasoning and writing skills. Thus, at least 11 out of 36 courses in undergraduate programmes facilitate breadth of enquiry, understanding and knowledge. Depth is achieved by requiring students to select a major from among more than 70 available options, typically 12 courses in a single discipline taken predominantly in the final two years.

My own undergraduate education began in 1975 when I enrolled as a science student at UCC. How different is today's undergraduate education experience to the one that I knew and loved in UCC in the 1970s? What has changed in the undergraduate curriculum that we see today - more than 30 years later?

There is now some element of elective choice by students in practically all undergraduate programmes in Ireland, most commonly allowing students to specialise in later years in particular areas of their main discipline. However, elective options allowing students to explore disciplines outside their main area of specialisation are much rarer. There has been a very welcome focus on how we teach, on the need for innovation in teaching and improvement in the learning experience. As regards curriculum structure, we have seen progress across the university sector in terms of the move to modularisation and semesterisation.

But how does the Irish curriculum fare when faced with the criticisms of the European curriculum expressed in the 2005 Communication of the European Commission entitled "Mobilising the Brainpower of Europe"? Have we moved from a curriculum that is organised and often compartmentalised within strict, traditional disciplinary boundaries? Have we implemented the profound revision of the curriculum considered necessary to encompass transferable skills as well as specialist knowledge? Do we see real change in terms of the breadth of student learning so as to develop the interdisciplinary capability required in a world where knowledge creation increasingly falls outside the boundaries of traditional disciplines?

I believe that the answer to all of these questions is almost certainly no. In fact, the curriculum in its fundamental approach and focus has remained virtually unchanged from that which I encountered in the 1970s.

In Ireland we often sacrifice breadth for depth and nowhere in Ireland is there an undergraduate programme with the breadth of experience encountered by students in the most sought-after undergraduate programmes in the US. And the extent of specialisation at undergraduate level is greater now than it was back in the 1970s.

For instance, this year, CAO students could sign up for such career-focused and narrowly-defined programmes as early childhood studies, genetics and cell biology, theoretical physics, forestry, business information systems, finance and venture management, and computer aided engineering and design. These titles reflect specialisation very early in a student's life. Indeed the content of these programmes requires a move towards specialisation at a very early rung on the ladder of educational attainment. Students should not be compelled to make life-determining choices based on narrow, vocational goals at 17 or 18 years of age.

Employers I meet praise Irish graduates as excellent employees. But, they often consider undergraduate curricula too narrow and overly focused on intensive training in technical skills that soon become obsolete. They feel universities fail to cultivate creativity, an ability to think "outside the box", effective communication skills or a commitment to lifelong learning. In many ways employers seem closer to Newman than the universities!

I believe that undergraduate programmes should provide considerable breadth and some depth. With such a foundation, graduates can subsequently apply themselves in more specialised fields, either in the workplace or through further study. The creativity, problem-solving, teamwork and communication skills they develop at university will stand them in good stead whatever profession they choose.

I passionately believe that undergraduate education must be at the very heart of the university mission and is the foundation stone of all great universities.

Frankly, I am amazed it has not been the subject of wider debate. We must challenge the what as well as the how of undergraduate education. Does our current undergraduate curriculum prepare our students for the challenges of today's rapidly changing environment? Does it nurture creativity and develop a capacity for innovation? How good is the fit in terms of long-term employability and the needs of enterprise? How well does our current model compare with that of our competitors? What can we learn from current international trends in curricular reform?

We need to renew the core of our university system for the sake of our undergraduates, our universities, our economy and our country.

Professor Don Barry was appointed president of the University of Limerick in May of this year.