<p>Thought I would post it here considering it mentions Yale specifically. I understand what the article is saying, but I think being cultured is very important in order to live with some sense of satisfaction (yeah, ok, that's pretty vague, but you get my point). What's your view? </p>
<p>The article ends:
The essence of a humanities education reading the great literary and philosophical works and coming to grips with the question of what living is for may become a great luxury that many cannot afford.</p>
<p>I read an article in The Atlantic that mentioned something similar to this.
Here is the quote:</p>
<p>“As for the Upper Middles and their betters, what about Tolkin’s formulation of “an unfakable right for their chaotic anxieties and complaints to take up space around them”? That really is financially viable only for the real upper class (to wit, not the millionaire but the ten-millionaire or more). The first tower to fall, for middle-class families, will be that fiduciary meritocratic yoke, the expensive education. Increasingly, college tuitions are outstripping the middle class’s ability to pay them. Although 20-somethings going for “hard” educations in things like medicine (aka “the Koreans,” quipped a professor friend) may still see a return, the high-water days of the $50,000-a-year liberal-arts education are drawing to a close. (I think of the Boomer parents of the Wellesley student recently ■■■■■■■■ all of us—their professional associates—for an “exciting summer job” for their daughter. All I had to offer was babysitting. Inquired the Wellesley girl: “Can you send me a job description?” I wrote back: “BABYSITTING! $12 an hour!” She took it.) By contrast, the life of the High Prole may start to look reliable, and good—have you seen what plumbers make? Can your Ivy League–trained nephew do that?”</p>
<p>I love humanities, but money becomes a huge factor. As the quote mentions, where’s the return?</p>