The Battle of Liberal Arts

Applying to College
1

<p>It seems to me that, for the true definition of a “Liberal Arts education,” there are two major philosophies on opposite ends of a spectrum:</p>

<li><p>“Core”: colleges like Columbia University, Shimer College, and the University of Chicago that give all required classes and believe that an education is liberal once the students have learned from all fields of study, such as the sciences, maths, languages, etc.</p></li>
<li><p>“Freedom”: colleges like Sarah Lawrence College, Brown University, and Hampshire College that give the student complete freedom and independence in choosing their classes. This also gives students flexibility, allowing someone concentrating in Physics to take theater, psychology, and music classes as well.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Personally, I think that the true definition of a Liberal Arts College is no. 2’s, “Freedom.” To me, a core system isn’t very freeing if I have no choice in what I’m learning. I want to focus on what I’m interested in, not waste time taking classes I’ll have no use for. That said, I’m going to Sarah Lawrence College so that I can concentrate in writing.</p>

2

<p>There's also choice 1.5: "Distribution Requirements". This seems to be the most common.</p>

3

<p>Yeah. I don't really like any kind of requirements at all.</p>

4

<p>Well, core requirements are more of a traditional liberal arts eduation, regardless.</p>

5

<p>Sure - but I don't think traditional is always better. Nontraditional tends to produce more innovative ideas.</p>

6

<p>"Nontraditional tends to produce more innovative ideas."</p>

<p>There's the argument that if you don't thoroughly understand the tradition, then nontraditional can be less robust. You can't thoroughly understand the tradition if you don't study it in depth.</p>

7

<p>Personally, I'm amenable to each method--core, distribution requirements (which is what Wellesley has), and open. However, I do lean toward the more requirements instead of less requirements. I like the idea of a well rounded education and although you can certainly do that yourself (and even acheive it while going very light on one particular subject), personally I find a more structured curriculum preferable. </p>

<p>For me, it was all in how each school represented it's curriculum. Though obviously very different, I was impressed by both the dedication that Columbia clearly felt towards it's core and the sense that although Brown had an open curriculum, they would not <em>really</em> let you just putter around during your time there. In contrast, another school that I visited (Wesleyan), which has a fabulous and I am sure deserved reputation, simply did not impress me at all with their statement of their academic mission, even though they too have an open curriculum. Maybe it was simply a poor admissions rep, but my father and I were both very negatively impressed with how they represented themselves. I am sure that you can get a great education there, but that was just my impression.</p>

8

<p>That's also very true.</p>

<p>Besides Wesleyan, there's another example. Neither The New School (Eugene Lang) nor Sarah Lawrence have requirements, but I've heard several people say that Eugene Lang hasn't really developed their mission. They say that they have seminars, yet the seminar classes are designed like lectures. On the other hand, Sarah Lawrence has a clear mission that seeps through in the classrooms, teachers, admissions, and students.</p>

<p>When I visited Columbia, I could tell that they were proud of the core. I definitely understand where they were coming from when they described a campus where every student can have a discussion on any topic even if they're majoring in completely different subjects - it's an interesting thought... But for me, I wouldn't be able to stand that. I would want to stand out by studying completely different areas, and forming a "major" unlike anyone else's... and then maybe teaching others about what I've learned through conversations, and learning about other's ideas in the same way.</p>

<p>Plus, I personally hate structure, lol. But that's just me.</p>

9

<p>SL is a great school; congrats. </p>

<p>But, just think for a moment about all the great writer/journalists we have that have absolutly zero education in science, zero education about economics., zero education in statistics. But, yet these folks still write about big issues of the day, such as global warming, business, taxes, immigration, etc.. I ask how can they write about something they barely understand? </p>

<p>IMO, a liberal arts education exposes you to things outside of your element. Just something to think about.</p>

10

<p>You know Kheryn, I really must strongly warn you. My mom has a colleague who went to Brown and to this day, the colleague ** still ** regrets focusing on one area. As much as I'd like to think I'm capable of deciding what's best for me, I'm afraid that I am no more of an expert than the next person when it comes to what the 21st century will demand of workers. Sure, it's great to focus on the things that you love, but the core exists so students may have a rounded view of the world, and not just have one expertise.</p>

<p>As Bluebayou points out, what good is a journalist who writes about complex political and social issues if they never studied any social theory or economics? What good is a genius mathmetician if he/she cannot effectively explain his/her ideas on paper? It seems that when we focus on just one thing, no matter how good we are at it, our 'ignorance' of other fields diminishes our talent. </p>

<p>I would like to make a friendly warning not to limit your college education to just what you're good at. Notice that employers are not flocking to Brown or SL any more than any other top school without that free-flowing curriculum. </p>

<p>Though the story of my mom's colleague is only one anecdote, I would like to urge you to look at the classes that the core demands of students at places like Columbia or Harvard and try to emulate their core curriculum at SL. Also, remember that employers and grad school adcoms will not immediately laud you simply because your degree is so specialized. Instead, they'll praise you if your work is quality.</p>

<p>Finally, I'd like to call upon some advice once spoken by I believe the most recent Harvard University president. He said that in terms of med/law school admission, the committee has found that generally those who have majored in music as well as common pre-law/med majors generally have a better time in the grad-school admissions process because musicians generally have great work ethic, and they're good at memorizing things. I believe it was the Georgia Tech president who said the GT admissions committe likes musicians because they're more than just a very competent engineer--they are * real * human beings, capable of doing more than engineering problems on paper. Nonetheless, it is important to note the president *** wasn't *** encouraging pre-med majors to only work in biology related fields in college or pre-law majors to only study history, english, and economics. Instead, the Harvard University president encouraged students to be well rounded, as these interests encourage habits that benefit students at law/med school. </p>

<p>Perspicuously, I am a strong supporter of the core curriculum, and I hope this post elucidates why I extend such strong backing.</p>

11

<p>There are benefits to distribution "requirements" (I put them in quotes because some people fulfill them by choice) beyond learning the subject matter. It isn't just the content one learns--it's the different approaches, the different paradigms, the different way of framing a problem. That varies a lot from discipline to discpline, and learning about that and having to adopt those styles of thinking are good for your brain. It's also good training in adaptability and knowing "how to learn."</p>

12

<p>bluebayou: I understand where you're coming from... and I'm not positive about other schools, but I know for sure that, at SLC, if you're a writer and you want to write about economics, then you'll have the freedom to study economics in depth.</p>

<p>I know that I want to be a historical fiction novelist that concentrates on the lives of famous homosexuals, like Oscar Wilde and Alexander the Great. So, I'm going to be taking several history classes and LGBT studies classes in depth, as well as writing. I don't think I would have that freedom at many other colleges. </p>

<p>At open curriculum colleges, people have the option of exposing themselves too. I know I want to take a psychology class, a dance class, a literature class, a theater class, and a Japanese class - even though these all pretty much have absolutely nothing to do with each other. But, since I'm interested in them, I'll be passionate about learning - and I'll take my studies seriously. I feel like at core curriculum schools, I would be forced to take maths and sciences... and because I really don't like those subjects, I wouldn't put all of my heart into learning.</p>

13

<p>I think skipping out on the math and science in college would definitely be a mistake. You didn't get into college because you didn't put your heart into the things that you didn't love. Schools require those math and science courses because they believe students who don't study those areas will not be prepared to really contribute fully to society. I don't mean to offend but it seems pretty immature to me to not take these classes because you don't like them. Instead you should challenge yourself to learn such material.</p>

14

<p>I prefer the approach of distribution requirements. They give you freedom as well as some guidelines. E.g. BMC (where I will go next year) requires me to take two classes in the humanities, two in the social sciences and two in the natural sciences.
I am a science kid and if I had the free choice I probably would not take humanities at all (because there are more interesting science and social science classes than I could possibly take in 4 years). But the humanities requirement is loose enough so that it does not feel limiting; after all, it is up to me to choose two classes from literature, creative writing, theater, dancing, philosophy... and I noticed that these departments offer some interesting classes as well. If it wasn't for the distribution requirement, I would have never even looked at those sections of the course catalog.</p>

<p>An interesting quote by Mary Patterson McPherson, former President of Bryn Mawr College:
One purpose of a liberal arts education is to make your head a more interesting place to live inside of for the rest of your life.</p>

15

<p>fhimas: I have a strong philosophy about what a person should study. I have several friends who are passionate about art, but feel that it's too risky a field, and so are forcing themselves into more popular fields - even though they hate the subjects that come along with theose fields: business, medicine, law... Hey, I feel that we all only have one chance to live; and I would rather be homleless doing something I love rather than live in a mansion doing something I hate. </p>

<p>I already told bluebayou, but I'll say it again: open curriculums do give people options to expose themselves more. I know what I'm going to do and will take classes for that specific area, but I know I'll also look into other classes; and, because I'm so interested in those subjects, I'll learn passionately rather than reluctantly. </p>

<p>Honestly, at this point, I'm not thinking about employers. I'm not thinking about my future careers. I'm thinking about what I love learning about - what I love doing. Maybe I'll publish a novel or two, but really, those books won't be for money - they'll be for me. Also, if you do something you love, I believe that the work will be quality. If I detest math with a passion, then whatever comes from me studying math won't be quality work - it'll be pathetically crippled work. </p>

<p>There's a chance that I won't be successful as a novelist, but I'm willing to take that risk. I think anyone should be willing to take that risk for the things they love.</p>

<p>Yeah, I can definitely tell you love the core - and that's absolutely fine, of course. Like I've said before, it's an interesting thought: being on a campus where an English major can sit down with a Biology major and discuss politics. Still, I can't stand the restriction that comes with the core. I need freedom.</p>

16

<p>hoedown: I guess I don't really like the thought of taking four years to learn how to learn. I already love learning, already know how - hell, one of my hobbies IS learning. You might think it's strange, but I can spend hours researching random subjects for fun. High school's purpose, for me, was to learn how... And now, I expect college to be a stepping stone into adulthood. I expect it to help me shape myself into who I want to be. The maths, the sciences - I don't see those subjects having much to do with me. For many others, they might not think that English should have anything to do with them. That's why I love schools with no requirements: people will have choices.</p>

17

<p>fhimas: I don't think it's immature. I think you just need to look at it from a different side. Maybe some of the people at these colleges ARE just doing it because they're lazy, but I know I don't want to take math classes because it would be a waste of time. I wouldn't have my heart in it, wouldn't learn passionately; and in the time that I'm struggling with numbers, I could be spending my time reading classic literature, writing poetry, and learning about ancient Japan. </p>

<p>In fact, you know, maybe that would make people at open curriculum schools mature: most of us know what we want out of life. Not many people do. That's not a bad thing, of course... But why should we weigh ourselves down with requirements when we know what we want to do?</p>

18

<p>b@r!um: Yeah, I would prefer distribution requirements over the core. It still isn't really flexible enough for me personally, but I do like how it lets people choose in the different departments.</p>

19

<p>Kheryn, how are distribution requirements not flexible enough for you?
Above you said that you don't like sciences but I am sure you would find a couple of interesting and/or useful science classes at every college. E.g. Bryn Mawr lets you count psychology classes with a lab component as a science class and statistics is a useful tool in all social sciences. Those two classes would already fulfill the science distribution requirement.</p>

20

<p>
[quote]
I guess I don't really like the thought of taking four years to learn how to learn. I already love learning, already know how

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In my experience, there is almost always room for one's mind to be stretched. I too was someone who always liked learning, and by all accounts I know a lot about "how to learn" when I got to college. </p>

<p>But that didn't mean I didn't have something to gain by being exposed to different fields, by attending classes with people who had an affinity for things I didn't care as much for. </p>

<p>I believe it served me quite well in grad school--even though grad school tends to be quite a bit narrower in focus--and in my professional life since.</p>