Over 75 years ago, a British report on education commented on the confusion of aims in English language teaching, citing the quality of teaching, unsuitable textbooks, and lack of a coherent sense of purpose. Experience has shown that undergraduate linguistics has not come far since then. In the experimental, interdisciplinary program at the State University of New York, College at Old Westbury, students were found to be unprepared to cope with the curriculum because they lacked appropriate skills in hierarchical organization, generalization, and categorization, and did not know how to structure a problem to solve it. This suggests that the aims of the undergraduate linguistics course should be different from those of the graduate curriculum, with the greatest barrier to be overcome being the students' resistance to the challenges and responsibilities of thinking for themselves. In addition, the theoretical and technical aspects of the discipline, following the Bloomfieldian emphasis on methodology and analytical technique, may be unsuitable for undergraduate study. Linguists' bias toward the theoretical should not be allowed to control the curriculum to the exclusion of other valuable approaches to integrating other disciplines such as psychology and sociology, which may be more appropriate for the undergraduate level. (MSE)