<p>According to this new congressional report, they are. </p>
<p>A commission put together by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences explored the place of liberal arts in higher education:</p>
<p>"The subsequent congressional report, released today, acknowledges the critical importance of technical training, but also asserts without equivocation that the study of the humanities and social sciences must remain central components of America’s educational system at all levels. Both areas are critical to producing citizens who can participate effectively in our democratic society, become innovative leaders, and benefit from the spiritual enrichment that the contemplation of ethics, morals, aesthetics, and the great ideas over time can provide."</p>
<p>Wow! Who would have thought that professional academicians consider academics important?</p>
<p>Painfully absent from the article is any mention of a Cost/Benefit analysis. Is the world really better off when a bright young mind has spent four (or more) years and a quarter million dollars on a Romance Languages degree? What is the opportunity cost of this degree?</p>
<p>I think that one of the broader points of the report might just be that not everything important in this world or beneficial to society can be easily monetized or subject to the (imperfect) process of cost-benefit analysis.</p>
<p>Hmmmm, I’m sitting across the table from a very bright young mind who spent 4 years getting a Romance Language degree, and shortly will be getting a graduate degree in–oh the horror!–journalism.</p>
<p>I think that if you were able to engage him in conversation, or read some of his writing, you would agree that he has much to contribute to world society, and is very likely to do so. He certainly is more than capable of studying any subject, at least if his 5s on AP exams in sciences are any proof. He just wasn’t interested in dong so. I think that it is best if everyone, including extremely able people, engage in the intellectual pursuits that interest them most. That is how human knowledge is ultimately expanded.</p>
<p>I will say that one of the things that I believe is most important for students who are studying disciplines like Classics, French, Art History, etc., is to make sure that they are reflective about not just the courses they take for their major, but for electives and minor courses (if applicable) as well. Students in sequenced disciplines can more easily talk about why they took the courses they took, the skills they developed in those courses, and how those courses built on each other because the prerequisites make good sense. </p>
<p>Prerequisites in fields like mine kind of make sense, but not entirely, which means that there are generally no clear sequences, and no obvious set of specific skills that students cultivate. I have had plenty of students perform very well in my upper-level courses without having the prerequisite. Indeed, what should be a prerequisite for a course in Renaissance art history? Should it be a survey of art history? A semester of French or Latin? A period-appropriate history survey? A period-appropriate religion survey? All of these could serve as an appropriate gateway to an upper-level Renaissance art history class, assuming that the professor wasn’t insisting on a very narrow disciplinary lens. Now, the students would all get very different things out of the course, but all good LAC professors are easily able to create a coherent core for the class that still allows students to explore the subject matter from their preferred angle.</p>
<p>This sort of disciplinary blending might lead an average student to have transcript full of semesters like this:</p>
<p>Renaissance Art
Confucian Philosophy
Introductory Biology
Victorian Literature</p>
<p>Without context, this looks like the jumbled transcript of someone who may or may not have picked up some vague writing and critical thinking skills while being exposed to multiple disciplines. However if the student is being properly taught and advised, s/he should be able to talk about how all these classes fit together with each other AND with his/her leadership, travel, and internship experiences. </p>
<p>IME, students with stereotypical “unemployable” majors who are able to talk about their entire educational experience in this sort of integrated way are doing just fine in a variety of careers and callings.</p>
<p>I’m glad Consolation’s son has achieved success with his liberal arts degree. I extend my congratulations to him. I am not arguing that there is no place in the world for such studies, whose value is admittedly difficult to quantify.</p>
<p>I am arguing that the subject articles are hopelessly rigged to overstate the importance of liberal arts majors.</p>
<p>I am also arguing that too many students choose these majors and do not make the world a better place the way Consolation’s son does. I have known many baristas who were liberal arts majors, but have not yet met an engineering graduate working at Starbucks.</p>
<p>A) I didn’t say my son was “successful” in the sense you mean.
B) IMHO it is perfectly possible that an individual barista could contribute more to the sum of human existence than an individual engineer.</p>
That’s highly unlikely in the capacity of their duties (no offense intended to the barista - I’m just being realistic). Speaking personally, a ‘barista’ adds nothing whatsoever to my own existence. However, I think many people with no degrees at all could - paramedics, plumbers, etc. and since one never knows what the romance languages major will really end up doing as a profession, there’s no way to determine how they might contribute via their professional duties based simply on the degree.</p>
<p>Not everything can be measured by a “return on investment” perspective. When we take our kids to museums, or to Europe, or to musical performances, we shell out a lot of money over a lifetime of those activities but don’t necessarily see a dollar value result. But there is an inherent value in having an educated citizenry.</p>
<p>And I believe that Consolation’s entire point is that the barista (or the engineer or the doctor) is infinitely more than a drone that executes the duties of his/her paid job and that those things that the barista does outside of work might contribute greatly to human society. </p>
<p>Reducing people’s contribution to society to whatever labor output they can create in whatever job they can find in our economic system brings to mind warnings about minds of metal and wheels.</p>
<p>Without people who major in fields like sociology, we wouldn’t have books such as <em>The Chosen</em> and thus those on College Confidential who want a purely ‘stats’-driven admissions process as opposed to a holistic one would have less support for their arguments. </p>
<p>So as much as you want everyone to major in STEM, we can agree, at least for College Confidential purposes, there is a need for sociology majors, and a big one.</p>
<p>Why denigrate the work of people in service industries, GGD? Maybe you didn’t intend to do so, but it sure sounds like it. You never go to a restaurant or grocery store, gas station, cleaners, or other retail establishment where people wait on you? Seriously, these folks are working and trying to get by just like folks who are in STEM fields or people who are driving buses or fixing your toilets. Personally, I think there are lots of ways that we all help make the world a better place–not everyone is Mother Theresa–but we all contribute in our own individual ways.</p>
<p>What may be overlooked is that while widespread knowledge of the liberal arts (which includes sciences as well as humanities and social studies) is generally a good thing, the benefits are often external ones with respect to the person seeking education. An example would be that better informed decision makers can avoid making various kinds of mistakes in decision making (including voters with respect to voting).</p>
<p>But having more of the benefits being external, in an environment where higher education costs are high and rising, lowers the incentive to “get a well rounded education” versus the incentive to choose education mainly aimed at pre-professional goals.</p>
<p>Are the liberal arts valuable to society: yes. Are they an important component of education: yes. Are they marketable in today’s world…</p>
<p>The fact is that in today’s job market the most valuable degrees for getting high paying jobs tend to be in STEM fields, particularly in engineering and technology. For the record I do NOT think that arts funding should be cut and if everyone switched into engineering degrees we would definitely see the value of those degrees drop. However I think it is a good idea for students and their parents to have a good look at what they can expect a degree in a certain subject will get them when the are picking out a major.</p>
<p>It doesn’t need to be STEM OR Liberal Arts. The beauty of the American college is that it’s very flexible. I personally know quite a few students who made the choice to study the field they loved - it included Romance Languages, Art, Religious Studies, Philosophy, and a few others - but added a CS minor. They also helped with tech on campus and had CS-related jobs during the summer, studied abroad but kept a link to something tech, etc. They all found jobs thanks to their minor but did not sacrifice their passion and often managed to find something where it came handy (work for a transnational tech company, work on IT for a charity, etc). And they were not exceptions, their choice was seen as pretty normal, both at a large flagship and the LACs they attended.</p>