<p>Hi all, just spent my weekend plowing through this highly instructive read about the dangers facing the teaching colleges in American higher ed: Liberal Arts at the Brink by former Beloit College President Victor E. Ferrall, Jr. (HUP, 2011)</p>
<p>The GOOD news: whether you're an applicant, a BS student, or a parent, the majority of the BS we talk about here, from HADES to Hidden Gems, offer all of the benefits of a liberal arts education, just starting 4 years earlier.</p>
<p>The BAD news: One of the main thrusts of the book is that the non-specificity of liberal arts education is being ever devalued in our results-oriented culture. Both research universities with large endowments (Ivies, MIT, Stanford, etc) AND state universities have either endowments or state funds to essentially "buy" the best students they can afford, whether through FA or merit-based scholarships. Squeezed in the middle are the kinds of colleges that closely resemble boarding school communities: residential communities where the focus is on undergraduate teaching, critical assessment across disciplines, etc. The pressure to offer more and more "vocational" degree programs is mounting, as are costs, while the sense of what makes the value of a Bowdoin/Pomona/Wesleyan/___(insert here) education is only becoming more vague.</p>
<p>Obviously it may be early for many of us to be thinking ahead to the college process, but this read is GREAT both in terms of thinking about why it is that BS provides particular advantages, and then in terms of questioning what will constitute the best college experience for you or your DC coming out of BS. </p>
<p>(and no, I'm not the author & don't know him) :)</p>
<p>Having grown up venerating the liberal arts education and having had my children educated in classical schools, I’ve come to have serious doubts about what is actually being delivered by the humanities departments at our colleges and universities. ThatcherDad recently posted the first link below which I recommend. The references to Amherst and Pomona certainly made me think. The second link provides some additional thoughts about what is actually being delivered under the heading “liberal arts.” As Bob Dylan once crooned…“the times they are a’changin.” </p>
<p>That’s interesting. I’ve always considered my children to be getting the classic “liberal arts” education at their wonderful boarding school. That includes learning how to write well and think critically. College, as far as I’m concerned, is all about becoming employable! Given the amount of money that we’re shelling out for their education, I think that’s fair. I can’t afford eight years of “liberal arts!”</p>
<p>@BSR: well, for instance, the author makes the point that undergrad business schools do not prepare students well for MBA programs, nor will their graduates compete successfully against MBA grads for top jobs. His argument is that the qualities of eduction learned in the liberal arts environment (and, hopefully, seriously jumpstarted in the BS environment!) allow liberal arts B.A.s to move flexibly and seemlessly into management training etc. because they have a better understanding of how to ask relevant questions and not just parrot vocationally provided “answers.” Anyway, I’m not firmly committed one way or the other, but I find the argument interesting, and worth consideration as families consider the options ahead ; and certainly, the cost of all of this education is astronomical.</p>
<p>PelicanDad- Yes, and did you read the (fairly scathing) article in the NY Times recently about undergraduate business programs? Luckily, my offspring are math/science types. Their humanities classes at boarding school were so amazing, I can’t imagine that experience being replicated at their research universities unless they got very lucky with a good professor. But, I could be wrong…</p>
<p>This is truly a fascinating topic, PelicanDad. It confirms a few things I have been sensing, that the larger colleges/unis are becoming very pre-professional, and that, yes, what is being taught at BS is truly a liberal arts education!
Kraordrawoh- Funny, but sad. Humanities may be getting too too flaky- wonder if there will be a resurgence of more classical topics… And more disciplined thinking and critical writing.
Thanks!</p>
<p>My idea is that we invest in a high quality high school education in one of the best borading schools. If our kids have done well and taken full advantage of the liberal arts education their BS provides, then we’d have the luxury of considdering less of the quality of the education their college is providing and more of what the colleges can help them be more employable in the field of their choice - in case sometimes the best liberal arts education doesn’t go hand in hand with the best employment prospect. Now, that’s some validation I am craving. :)</p>
<p>Well, I disagree with a lot of the sentiments here. I am a firm believer in the value of a strong liberal arts education at the college level, even in our current economy. When I think of the most successful individuals I know (high level positions, major bucks), they are not those that majored in engineering, accounting, business, or some other more job-oriented major. They are the liberal arts grads. Also, I am more concerned with longer term success (and job satisfaction!) than first job out of college success. A more ‘practical’ major may allow a graduate to land their first job a little sooner but 5 years out, I foresee little difference, and 10 or 20 years out, I think the liberal arts majors often have an edge on the corporate ladder in terms of communication and reasoning skills. I will encourage my children to follow their interests not whatever degree currently results in the highest starting salary. Some of our kids will eventually work in jobs we know nothing about or that haven’t been invented yet. 4 years of undergraduate education won’t be sufficient to compete going forward and most will continue their education and received advanced degrees where they can get more specific regarding their interests. I think it is unfair to expect most 18 year olds to really understand their options and interests. That’s what college starts to help them understand. Go on any college tour and you’re likely to find a good 1/3 or more of prospective students saying their plan is to major in biology. Then, ask admissions staff how many will declare themselves as biology majors by the end of their sophomore year. It’s usual only a fraction.</p>
<p>To add on, state universities are cutting back so much that it can often take a student more than 4 years to complete their education or they are in huge lecture halls getting taught by TAs. Not the education I want for my kids.</p>
<p>Looks like you don’t know many high level people like Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Jerry Yang, David Filo, Larry Ellison etc.</p>
<p>The last time I checked there is no limit on how long the unemployment lines can be if some one chooses non-career oriented academics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Silly that you say non-liberal arts majors and engineers can’t reason, a joke really.</p>
<p>Following up on post #2, a close examination of the humanities curriculum at a BS or especially at a university will demonstrate that many courses are either based upon or informed by a post-structuralist world view. Considering that such a world view is both anti-humanist and anti-enlightenment, it is no wonder that heavy doses of this would work against an individual’s ability to productively participate in our market economy. Whether you like a market economy or not, it’s what has lifted the economic circumstances of the planet for more than a century now. </p>
<p>Go ahead, look through the course catalogues. :)</p>
<p>Invent: Steve Jobs was never a business major. He dropped out of Reed and hung around afterwards to drop in on classes. He gave a great graduation speech some years ago at Stanford (search: Steve Jobs, follow your bliss, Stanford) saying how his study of calligraphy after he dropped out informed the computer typefaces we use today. He’s a poster child for the non-business school route (and for being in the right place at the right time also).</p>
<p>@Invent: Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Larry Ellison all dropped out of college. </p>
<p>Harvard College doesn’t offer concentrations in business, nor accounting, and many of their graduates have done well for themselves, even those who majored in History.</p>
<p>I think the Liberal Arts are important, but there are also reasons to incorporate more science and math into a college curriculum. Now many colleges have loose distribution requirements, so it is possible to graduate without understanding science and math fundamentals.<br>
Columbia College added “Frontiers of Science” to their core, and University of Chicago requires some science and math to graduate. Harvard was trying to give more importance to science under Larry Summers until he blundered with his discussions about women being less capable in this area.<br>
I think that a broad education that includes some knowledge of math and science is important. A professional education is good for many, but I think a broad college education covering many disciplines is valuable. I think it’s still true that top business schools still only accept around 20% business majors. Of course, economics majors usually have the highest % acceptance. A economics major usually includes some knowledge of history, philosophy, psychology, and math.
The trend for college students who can afford it, is to go to graduate school for the professional degree.<br>
Anyway, my $0.02.</p>
<p>As some of you have suggested, liberal arts education is not just offered by LACs. Some of the large research universities’ undergraduate programs are liberal arts based offered through their undergraduate colleges. And I think even with the professional undergraduate programs, they have a set of core course requirement that’s meant to give the students a broad education. As for whether an LA education is <em>necessary</em> for one’s sucess in workplace, it’s hard to generalize, but I think in certain professions our kids are likely to be in, a critical mind and strong writing and analytical abilities etc., which is the explicit goal of a LA education, are definatley going to help. How you get those traits varies for different individuals. One can get all the LA education they can get but it may still not be enough for them to develop the abilities or know how to turn those abilities into tangible career success. On the other hand, some people who have limited formal school training are great thinkers. </p>
<p>Having said that, both of the cases I mentioned above are considered “exceptions”. I like to think in terms of “odds” or “chances” as that’s the best we can do when we make choices for the future. I would be more reluctant to send a kid who hasn’t gone through the great LA training in an excellent high school (be it BS, private day or maybe some public schools) or hasn’t done well in high school directly to a professional degree program in college. I believe kids who have done well in the best BS’s have more freedom in this regard. If they do have decided to go for a professional degree such as engineering or business etc., the training they have received in BS may make up some of the “deficiencies” in their collge progams compared with their peers from other background. A continuation of the LA education is great too. And as many of you agree, they may eventually go for a graduate degree. A few years before graudate school in a high-paying and experience enriching position is great, but I wouldn’t “force” the kids to choose a major they don’t like or are not ready to commit.</p>
<p>Periwinkle, Yes Harvard History grads may have done well when we ruled the world in the last century. Now with a flattened world, past results won’t guarantee you future success. We probably graduate more liberal arts folk than we need, that’s why we end up importing engineers from China and other countries, not liberal arts generalists.</p>
<p>For those of you who read the Wall Street Journal, there is an editorial this morning with the title “How Jane Austen Taught Me to be a Man”. </p>
<p>The author makes the point that there is a difference between knowing a lot and being an educated person, and that one of the reason he came to that conclusion was by coming to know himself in the reflection of Jane Austen’s heroines. </p>
<p>full disclosure - he’s just written a book - I think I might get it and read it. And another full disclosure - I love Jane Austen. And yet another full disclosure - I majored in History and Literature, but took a lot of math courses, and yes, the thing that makes me employable and able to pay my kids’ tuition probably has more to do with the math than anything else. I’m not an engineer - but most of my time is spent solving problems, and the problems seem to lay themselves out better when you take a mathematical/logical approach to them. </p>
<p>Having said that - would I call math “vocational”? In a way, yes, but it’s more than that - it’s a way of thinking. And if education is developing ways of thinking, and coming to know yourself, then math and science, and the habits of questioning what you think is “the right way”, probably is at least as “liberal” as history or literature. </p>
<p>So, back to the question of what is education, and what is educational rigor - this is probably the natural home for such a discussion (thanks Pelicandad for starting the thread!), and I would love to hear people’s thoughts on that. I can start out by saying I don’t think educational rigor has to do with how many “double800sontheSATs” you are surrounded with…but I’m sure there are other opinions out there. All ears!</p>
<p>To me, academic rigor is how much the brain is stretched. In any number of directions. To think in new ways and do new things. To combine skills and concepts. To clearly express higher complexity to others. To be unafraid to take an intellectual or problem-solving risk and thoroughly think it through and test it out. To push beyond to extend one’s capabilities. </p>
<p>It is often considered quantitatively: work-load, number of courses, frequency of assessments, amount produced, etc. And considered measurable by performance in testing. But I think qualitative rigor is rare, hard to teach, and extremely important. An individual student is often on his/her own personal path in qualitative rigor; excellent teachers can inspire and guide students on this path.</p>
<p>Ironically, too much quantitative rigor can impair qualitative rigor.</p>
<p>The Liberal Arts include math and science. This is a point which seems to escape people who love to declare the Liberal Arts an outdated concept.</p>
<p>@DA, just to clarify. The author (Ferrall) would disagree with you specifically on the point of research universities, not over “curriculum,” but over who’s TEACHING it. Even at the best research universities, you have mid- to large lecture courses where the actual “face” time of education is handled by graduate assistants and not by professors. Professors at research universities retain their jobs NOT on the basis of course evaluations, but rather on professional stature (publication and other public service beyond the university) and their ability to bring in grants. I would hazard to say the majority of these professionals consider undergraduate education an onerous distraction. At the LACs, courses are taught by professors, and their ability to retain their jobs is predicated on their success as teachers.</p>
<p>As you point out, both systems have certain strengths, but Liberal Arts at the Brink does a good job of clearly delineating some of the differences, as well.</p>
<p>P.S.–as an aside, at Loomis Chaffee, where son will be enrolling in the fall, seniors can elect to serve as “Teaching Assistants” to the main teacher in the school’s freshman history courses. Pre-university training at the LA BS? ;)</p>