President of Williams speaks about LACs

Parent Cafe
1

<p>The president of Williams College, Morton Schapiro, recently spoke at the presidential inauguration of Cappy Hill at Vassar College:</p>

<p>"But if liberal arts colleges are so good at preparing students for today's challenges, why worry about their future? Let me go through some numbers. By the end of World War II, 20 percent of the two million students enrolled at America's colleges and universities were studying at liberal arts colleges. Today, that percentage has fallen to at most four percent, assuming an extremely generous definition of what counts as a liberal arts college. Without much fanfare, many colleges have transformed themselves into small universities with significant graduate programs or into professional schools, with shockingly few of their students majoring in English, physics, political science, and the other disciplines that define the liberal arts. </p>

<p>What many of us picture as the prototype for higher education - a selective, residential, undergraduate college with the majority of students majoring in the liberal arts - still exists, despite what David Starr Jordan predicted. But that's the experience of fewer than 100,000 out of 14 million undergraduates currently enrolled at our nation's colleges and universities - less than one percent. Little more than a rounding error. What's more, a smaller and smaller percentage of students at research universities have been majoring in the liberal arts. Only one in four undergraduates in this country majors in one of the traditional liberal arts disciplines, with the philosophy and history majors of previous generations being replaced by the business and engineering majors of today. </p>

<p>Should we care if our nation's students select a very different type of education? Yes we should. When educators and the general public imagine the ideal education, they imagine us: dedicated faculty, teaching committed undergraduates, sitting around a seminar table, discussing literature. If liberal arts colleges become so marginal that America's most talented high school students don't even consider us among their potential college choices, how long will that gold standard of higher education quality survive? It's the responsibility of the faculty, staff, students, and alumni at our schools to grasp the mantle of leadership in undergraduate education. We have to get our message out - not because we need to expand our applicant pool - the top liberal arts colleges are more selective than ever - but because talented high school students should at least think about our model as well as that of the research university when planning their college careers. And if they do select a large research university, they should surely choose a university that at least tries to emulate us in taking undergraduate education seriously and, once there, they should certainly consider majoring in one of the liberal arts disciplines...."</p>

<p><a href="http://inauguration.vassar.edu/sp_schapiro.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://inauguration.vassar.edu/sp_schapiro.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

2

<p>Thanks for posting this, twinmom. H is a Vassar graduate and S#1 is at a "top" LAC. We believe!</p>

3

<p>Morty went to Hofstra.</p>

4

<p>Very interesting...thanks.</p>

5

<p>Pretty self-serving IMHO. It might be oK for an upper class child going to a highly selective school with ties to jobs that are slotted for their grads. But many of the other slightly lesser LAC grads are left to struggle and take jobs at Starbucks or spend more money on a second degree.</p>

6

<p>I am part of the LAC community, but am sympathetic with 'barrons'. I generally concur with the speech, but many LAC-ers forget that what is meant by 'liberal arts' and 'liberal education' is itself historically specific. Go back one hundred years and you will find many Presidents arguing that such disciplines as Sociology, Psychology, and Economics, and the emerging natural sciences were too applied. I think that it is now legitimate to ask whether what is conventionally meant by LA and LE is outmoded in the 21st century. I am not advocating that LAC's should look to the 'publics', but I think that they now need to critically reflect upon their conventional wisdom.</p>

7

<p>I just had a child graduate from a LAC. While in the top 50, it is hardly a household word and not at all known in our neck of the woods. Yet he had no problem getting an interesting job that pays well in fields not directly related to his major. In fact, he had several offers. Why? Not because he is particularly brilliant nor because he was a stand out in any way at his school. I think it was because he is very articulate, can write well, is thoughtful, has a well rounded background, is self confident and relates well. These are all qualities I believe were fostered by his liberal arts education. In addition, living and learning in a small community with motivated, talented students and dedicated faculty who value not only the intellectual life but also respect for one another and a sense of social responsibility provided an incredibly rich undergraduate experience for him. While students may have similar experiences in universities and may come away with similar results, I believe the idea of a liberal arts education is as relevant now as it was hundreds of years ago - many even more so as globization and our fast changing technology make specific knowledge less important and the ability to adapt, think and get along with others more important.</p>

8

<p>I'm a big fan of liberal arts education, which is one reason I lean to favoring those schools with a strong liberal arts core, whether they are small LAC's or larger research universities. </p>

<p>An interesting article in the Atlantic recently suggests that firms are looking more favorably on student's with degrees in the humanities than in business.</p>

<p>From "The Management Myth"</p>

<p>
[quote]
Most of management theory is inane, writes our correspondent, the founder of a consulting firm. If you want to succeed in business, don’t get an M.B.A. Study philosophy instead.

[/quote]

<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200606/stewart-business%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200606/stewart-business&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

9

<p>But many of the other slightly lesser LAC grads are left to struggle and take jobs at Starbucks or spend more money on a second degree</p>

<p>apparently
I just volunteered at the polls Tuesday with a young woman who has a poly sci degree from NYU and a grad degree from University in Cairo- who was not able to find a job in ( the other Washington) and is working at an espresso shop
good thing she didn't need finaid for NYU</p>

10

<p>A "liberal arts education" is often confused with a "liberal arts school." At the Ivies and some top research universities, you can get a liberal arts education even though you don't attend an LAC.</p>

<p>I'm all for the liberal arts education, whether one gets it at an LAC or elsewhere, but even that is falling out of favor. For instance, I teach at a selective national university where a majority of students are interested in how an education translates into a salary. They rebel against classes that force them to study ideas/disciplines/concepts not directly related to their projected career. They cannot understand how the study of literature or music or history or psychology might help them. And these are kids who may have scored close to 800 on their SATS.</p>

<p>Engineers who can talk about literature, and business people who can talk about history, and doctors who can talk about philosophy are interesting people who can relate to a wide variety of individuals, not just those within their own disciplines. A broad education makes a broad mind.</p>

<p>But liberal arts are falling out of favor because we are a society that expects quantifiable results. Many people simply do not value the intangibles.</p>

11

<p>Most consulting is also inane. 100 pages to tell you to cut 10% of the staff or whatever the flavor of the year is.</p>

12

<p>There are different takes on this.</p>

<p>Long-term what you can accomplish depends on what your capabilities are, as they apply to a job. And the capabilities that matter, down the road, are very likely not directly connected to any particular undergraduate course of study. Because job-specific knowledge is largely taught on the job.</p>

<p>I think study of the liberal arts provides enhancement of verbal and quantitative skills generally,which should put one in good stead for the long haul.</p>

<p>Vocational aspects aside, these may broaden your font of general knowledge and help you become a more interesting and knowledgeable person generally. It enriches your life, forever. Potentially. This may be more important, long term, than immediate vocational considerations.</p>

<p>I say this as someone who has received a great deal of highly technical training over the years, which now is completely useless to me. I regret having wasted so much of my scarce college years on something so narrowly specific, and so likely to become personally obsolete to me down the road. Which it did.</p>

<p>On the other hand, one ought to have a high estimation of their innate capabilities, and possibly finances, to study liberal arts. You either need to be able to get hired despite not knowing anything specific upfront- which means an employer has to think you're worth investing in- or you'll need to go to grad school to get the specific knowledge you didn't get in undergrad.Which means you'll have to be "good" enough to get admitted to grad school. Both are not sure bets.</p>

<p>There are some points to be made on the other side though, as well. For one thing, there are things worth knowing that frequently aren't taught in a traditional liberal arts college. Some might consider these subjects to be at least equally worthy contributors to one's general education in the current age. For another thing, some of the basic skills that can be enhanced via a good liberal arts education can also be developed in other studies, in various measures, and in a manner more tailored to vocational needs. And it is nice to be more assured of getting a decent-paying job right off the bat. Instead of hoping that the shear force of your wisdom and personality will have this ultimate result.</p>

<p>My own prejudice- for those who are highly confident in their own abilities, both intellectual and and interpersonal- is liberal arts, then work for a while, then grad school. Not for everyone certainly, but for many such people. For those less trusting that their own intrinsic wonderfulness will shine through in the end, and those who are sure that their interests lie in a particular narrow field upfront- well then go that way.</p>

<p>Years from now, when you're doing something for a living that's completely different from anything you studied in college, you might find more value to your current life from that psychology course, etc, you took back then than you'd get from that course in advanced fluid mechanics, or Information Management Systems, or [insert name of narrow technical course here]that you would have taken alternatively.</p>

<p>YMMV</p>

13

<p>So do you spend $200k over 4 years for a liberal arts degree, even from a very selective, prestigious school? Is there a cost that just becomes too large a hurdle to justify? Can the "prestige" pay the freight so to speak? Is there a pricetag that warrants a "job/career" degree? For those who are independently wealthy this is not an issue, but most people have to work at the end of the day to put a roof over their heads and food on the table. I'm curious as to your thoughts.</p>

14

<p>Though I have posted this before, I believe it is one of the best arguments for a liberal arts education. <a href="http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0310/features/zen.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://magazine.uchicago.edu/0310/features/zen.shtml&lt;/a>

[quote]
... there is no strong relation between what you study and your occupation. Here is some data on a 10 percent random sample of Chicago alumni from the last 20 years. Take the mathematics concentrators: 20 percent software development and support, 14 percent college professors, 10 percent in banking and finance, 7 percent secondary or elementary teachers, and 7 percent in nonacademic research; the rest are scattered. All the science concentrations lead to professorships and nonacademic research. And biology and chemistry often lead to medicine. But there are many diversions from those pathways. A biology concentrator is now a writer, another is now a musician. Two mathematicians are lawyers, and a physics concentrator is a psychotherapist.</p>

<p>Take the social sciences. Economics concentrators—this is today identified as the most careerist major—are 24 percent in banking and finance, 15 percent in business consulting, 14 percent lawyers, 10 percent in business administration or sales, 7 percent in computers, and the other 30 percent scattered. Historians are often lawyers (24 percent) and secondary teachers (15 percent), but the other 60 percent are all over the map. Psychologists, surprisingly, are also about 20 percent in the various business occupations, 11 percent lawyers, and 10 percent professors; the rest are scattered. And there are the usual unusuals: the sociology major who is an actuary, the two psychologists in government administration, the political science concentrator now in computers.</p>

<p>As for the humanities, the English majors have scattered to the four winds: 11 percent to elementary and secondary teaching, 10 percent to business occupations, 9 percent to communications, 9 percent to lawyering, 5 percent to advertising. Of the philosophers, 30 percent are lawyers and 18 percent software people. Two English majors are artists and one is an architect. A philosophy major is a farmer and two are doctors.</p>

<p>With the exception of those planning to become professors in the natural sciences, there is no career that is ruled out for any undergraduate major.

[/quote]
</p>

15

<p>I agree that this culture is geared to tangible results - and that encourages many students to choose to study business or engineering. My son is one of those students. He has always had a very analytical and pragmatic approach to things - and he decided to select business as his UG major. But he also really enjoys history and psychology courses and is a very good creative writer. He signed up for a course on Roman History (among other non-major selections) next semester and he's very excited about it. So, I think that students can achieve a balance. You don't have to have a liberal arts degree to get good exposure to humanities.
I also agree that many students (except those with parents at top income levels) are concerned about making a living when they graduate. They have seen their parents go through downsizing, and struggle with healthcare and living expenses. Many of these students are taking significant loans. Can you blame them for taking a more practical approach to education? I was a pscychogy major many years ago and I remember loading up on business courses in my junior and senior year - I was scared about my job prospects. Turned out to be a good move. The accounting and finance courses really helped me with my future roles in business. I wonder if anyone has ever done a study to see if a students choice of major is correlated to family income...</p>

16

<p>LACs are geared to the upper-middle/wealthier classes for whom 'job prospects' may not be the most important factor in choosing a school. Most students at LACs -- and their parents paying LACs tution -- don't necessarily expect their children to be immediately employable after graduation. They're comfortable with those expensive 'intangibles' because they and their kids expect that graduate school will be in the picture, a grad school likely geared to a specific career: the classics student may end up going to law school; the english major into business; the history major into an academic career. By the very nature of these expectations -- it's OK to pay a small fortune for intangibles since the practical education will be later & at an extra cost -- the LAC appeals to those for whom money is not as much of an issue as for, say, the kid studying accounting at the State U who needs/wants to earn decent money right after graduation, if not during their schooling. It's as simple as that, and it's just another educational option among many offered in the US. The problem the LACs will face is not the perceived value of their education, but the sheer number of people able to pay for it.</p>

17

<p>I tend to agree Katliamom, but then the Lib Arts education and the trend away from it as mourned by Shapiro in his speech is somewhat a self fulfilling prophesy. The fewer people that can afford the UG school followed by 2 more years of G school the fewer that will pursue it. By lowering the cost of the UG LA degree, allowing for some educational dollars to be saved for grad school would probably increase the pusuit. But lower cost with a smaller student body which is one of the basis of a LA education is a sort of oxymoron in itself. So hence, it falls a little bit into that "the rich get richer" platitude.</p>

<p>I think back to all those movies I saw as a kid in black and white of the French Revolution and Victorian Era and how the gentry would sit around and sound important in their large castles and estates and always wondered how they got those castles.</p>

18

<p>1) Looking solely from a financial perspective:
For some students a liberal arts degree may ultimately enhance their likely long-term earnings. For example, if this training leads to enhanced communications skills and helps make someone develop into a more interesting person this can have positive vocational consequences down the road. I would assume most lawyers were liberal arts majors, and their communications skills probably contribute to their performance in these jobs. Probably most doctors were also liberal arts majors undergrad.</p>

<p>So, for a particular kid, there may be an actual tangible payoff associated with a liberal arts degree. though this payoff may be deferred beyond undergrad; possibly far deferred at that. For others, maybe not.</p>

<p>2) unfortunately, a more applied vocationally-oriented education will probably provide little insulation from downsizing, etc. IMO. It might just tend to tie one in to a particular leg on the vocational scale. Not the lowest leg, but not the highest either.</p>

19

<p>Agreed, monydad.</p>

<p>Also, there seems to be a misconception that liberal arts educations won't lead to employment, or that they don't address practical concerns. A liberal arts student can major in economics (instead of business) and still get a well-paying job at a top US bank. The difference between a liberal arts economics major and a professional school business major is the breadth of education. An economics major may have also taken religion, art history, and biology. A business major is unlikely to have done so.</p>

20

<p>Many businesses now want starting level employees who have not majored in business - they want to teach the new employees their business in their way. So a liberal arts education can actually be more employable than an undergraduate business degree.</p>

<p>Additionally, I've read articles in which hiring managers and other employers in the business community bemoan the proliferation of "business" majors, since they often find an attitude of "I'm not an entry-level employee. I have a business degree! Start me at least in the middle, not at the bottom!" That attitude is much less prevalent in "non-business major" college graduates.</p>

<p>Finally, given the service nature of the American economy, the ability to speak and write concisely and persuasively, and to deal effectively with people, is often the most important quality to success in any business, but in any specialized type of education, often the most neglected. Liberal arts education tends to teach these non-quantitative skills.</p>