<p>
</p>
<p>Oh well. There are worse things than colleges that don’t graduate consultants and i-bankers. That’s only a negative trend if you think that the world revolves around those professions. I know there is this trend on CC to think of those as the “best” jobs, but here’s the thing. Consultants and i-bankers only help the people who do the REAL work, who invent and create. And I’m a consultant, LOL.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There may be. Check with Google.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah, I see someone has already done that for you.</p>
<p>
I’m responding to the guy who thinks top LACs will get you ibanking jobs, consulting gigs, etc…</p>
<p>Correct English was, but correct typing was not. Sometimes I make a typo-- it’s not a lack of understanding the grammar, just haste.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The transformation from “College” to “University” is a long-established trend. Most of what we now call the Ivy League universities evolved in the late 19th century out of colonial colleges. The schools now called “liberal arts colleges” by and large are old schools that did not follow the same evolutionary path. Before the automobile, adding graduate and professional schools must have been a money-losing proposition for a small college located far from urban markets. This may be why so many LACs are in rural areas or outlying towns. </p>
<p>Today they continue to fill a niche that is in some ways a natural extension of their origins in training for the ministry. The modern liberal arts college is like a secular church, a special place where things of the intellectual spirit are kept separate from things of the vocational flesh. There are things polite people don’t do in church. Adulterating the pure LAC model with overt career training is a profane act.</p>
<p>A slutty LAC like Dickinson College can get away with adding a Business major, as long as the behavior stops there. Nice LACs don’t do it at all.</p>
<p>That may be a slightly biased account, tk, don’t you think?</p>
<p>I think that the poster in post 23 was really asking what the difference is between the two and when and why schools transition. A traditional definition would be that universities offer post-baccalaureate studies in degree granting programs whereas colleges do not. However, by that definition some “colleges” are universities and some universities are actually colleges. There is no hard and fast rule, however, many schools that more recently have changed to universities have done so because recent studies have shown students hold the “university” designation in high esteem, leading to many colleges (not just LACs, and possibly mainly not LACs) to change their name to have the university designation.</p>
<p>
Why no, not at all :)</p>
<p>Being of a certain age, I respect the church (though I keep a distance from it).
So to call the liberal arts college a “secular church” is a little tongue in cheek, but not meant as an insult. Not to the pure, nor to the fallen versions. A LAC’s gotta do what a LAC’s gotta do to survive, I suppose. </p>
<p>I do think the “pure” liberal arts college is a civilizing, idealistic spiritual force. It’s not the only such institution that is in jeopardy (though the best LACs still seem to be thriving). Churches themselves are in jeopardy. Newspapers are in jeopardy. Where else do people come together to think and talk in a disciplined way about serious enduring issues affecting human beings, if not in college, in church, or in the daily newspaper?</p>
<p>College Confidential?</p>
<p>There’s a lot of LACs I want to go to, but I don’t think they’re necessarily that important to protect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Slutty?” What? Am I not acute enough to catch your internet sarcasm or what?</p>
<p>I find it weird how so many message boards don’t ban this word.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>tk21769, are you Richard Yates?</p>
<p>in Revolutionary Road, he wrote</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>snap snap. double snap.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ve asked this before and I’ve never gotten any kind of answer.
How are the philosophy and classics majors who are indeed “talking in a disciplined way about serious enduring issues affecting human beings” affected by the presence of other students who are taking, say, engineering? How does it “change the atmosphere”? What, does the presence of an engineering student in my dorm, or an engineering class on campus that I don’t take, mean that I can’t indulge myself in philosophical musings to my heart’s content?</p>
<p>
Uh huh. The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated.
tk is just my sock puppet.
But let’s keep that our little secret so I can continue to slum in the forums.</p>
<p>Now back to this “disappearing LAC” question …</p>
<p>Isn’t it fairly unremarkable if colleges, like corporations, occasionally fail?<br>
What may be more interesting is that, even as demand soars, we don’t build any more of them. Not just LACs, but universities too. Almost all the best ones are old. </p>
<p>In the old old days, these schools started small. Just as new corporations generally do today. But unlike for a small company, for a new college today it would be pretty unrealistic to throw up a building or two and hope to succeed in an upscale niche. Maybe something like a “Great Books” college could do that, if there were more demand for that model. </p>
<p>There does not seem to be much impetus anymore for someone with a huge fortune and a sense of philanthropy to buy up 200 acres and build a fine college. A place like Olin is really exceptional in that way. New College of Florida, Hampshire, and Eugene Lang College are the few other young colleges I can think of, and they are all hippie dippie “alternative” schools where kids like mine go. I would think with a growing population, wealth, and demand for higher ed, there would be more. Maybe all the parents on College Confidential whose children were rejected by HYPSM should pool their family savings and build one.</p>
<p>I’d nominate modestmelody for President, her typing challenges notwithstanding. And of course there would be no engineering, business or communications majors.</p>
<p>I suspect that the “change in atmosphere” is more one of sensibility when the homogeneous nature of a campus is diluted with varying mindsets ie: the academics vs the techies. Just reverse the equation and think how MIT’s campus personality might change with a large influx of pure liberal arts majors. It is not a question of good vs bad but just different. It is great that we have so many educational options in this country although many only available to those who can afford them hence the age old association of Ivy/LACs with the idle, connected wealthy and tech schools with the working class.</p>
<p>Yes. You don’t even have to imagine that scenario at MIT to answer Pizzagirl’s question. Just recollect your own high school experience.</p>
<p>The most selective LACs and liberal arts universities are residential schools where the classroom conversation extends to the dorms and dining halls. It takes work to foster that atmosphere. My own alma mater is a research university, one with several well-regarded professional schools, but with no undergraduate pre-professional majors. Even adding a Computer Science concentration was a big friggin’ deal. What they and similar schools try to nurture is an unabashedly Ivory Tower atmosphere where mundane things are relatively shut out. Going hand-in-hand with the lack of engineering majors there is, at some of these places, a certain disregard toward “party schools”, the Greek scene, or D1 sports. You can dismiss these attitudes as snobbery, or accept them as appropriate to the spirit and mission of these particular places. Chicago exemplifies the muscular nerdiness I’m talking about; but then there are schools like Northwestern or Georgetown where the liberal arts manage to co-exist happily with nursing or communications.</p>
<p>FWIW, I was a chemistry concentrator who spent a lot of time with engineers so I’m in no way advocating one thing or another, rather, questioning what CC thinks.</p>
<p>So far it seems that no one cares. I’m a bit more wary, personally, because of how this trend at LACs is representative of a kind of building external pressure on all of higher education. For years, because higher education was elite and small, the purpose of educating for the sake of learning and seeking to create new knowledge for the sake of knowledge was not a goal that found itself challenged. These days, with so many people going to college and so many people fro various classes spending tremendous amounts of resources on college education there is an ever-increasing pressure for universities to give back, in an easily measured and demonstrated way, to the society that’s shouldering the expense of maintaining universities.</p>
<p>Essentially, the Ivory Tower is gone not necessarily because greater access has been achieved, but rather because society is demanding demonstrative ways to prove that higher education is a worthy investment. The trend to study fields that are directly related to job training is a part of this pressure. </p>
<p>My personal fear is that universities are taking on roles that they are not really designed for and squeezing them into their model. It seems they are doing well producing people equipped for that kind of work, but I question our search to insert quantifiable value in the university, because I think it may have led to far greater inefficiencies. I’m still not convinced that sending someone to spend $150-200k to get a degree in communications is effective pooling of resources for society-- I’m positive that the TV station or radio station can train people on the job for far less money than that, perhaps after a one or two year stint at a more technical-based community college kind of space where they learn some of the basics.</p>
<p>Just some observations… I’m not really sure what it all means and I think this train has long left the station, but I’m surprised at how universally people are ok with the idea that higher education is purely a marketplace where students are the consumers.</p>
<p>I think a better analogy for LAC’s is the family farm. They are beautiful and will remain (for those willing to pay a premium for an heirloom tomato) – but they will become increasingly marginalized.</p>
<p>LAC’s are a bit of a throwback to oppressive aristocracy, because they are unafforable to many students and generally focus on a broad-based education rather than developing practical workforce skills. Simply put, it’s like a luxury that is rooted in tradition for people who don’t need to worry about its practical aspect.</p>
<p>You can say it’s sad that they’re disappearing all you want, but I’m glad this is happening. We aren’t loosing LAC’s, we’re gaining universities that prepare our students to fill modern roles (such as engineer) that quite frankly our nation needs to be able to compete in the world of today.
This isn’t the renaissance, this is the digital age, and LAC’s aren’t disappearing because they’re being hunted or losing habitat, they’re just evolving to be more relevant to the times, which they wouldn’t do if they weren’t sure it was the right way to serve their future students, and I’m very much okay with it.</p>
<p>I’m a bit confused about something. How is reading the classics, learning Latin, or considering the philosophy of famous thinkers any more valuable or less “mundane” than thinking about how to design a building or semiconductor? Why aren’t elegant solutions to complex programming problems just as artistic as the works of Monet?</p>
<p>
What you’re essentially saying in this post is that the role of post-secondary education is job preparation in an increasingly skills-based economy. This is precisely the trend I’m highlighting-- while that may in fact seem natural and obvious to you, there are many other purposes for education than purely economic potential and development.</p>
<p>Whether those other purposes should have any standing up against the economic drive is a matter of contention. I understand your position and it’s becoming more and more popular. I’m wondering amongst CC people just how popular this thinking is. Quite honestly, the university (not just LACs) as we know it will be fundamentally lost if this is the direction we take. That may be good, it may be bad.</p>
<p>
I do care, and I’m not o.k.with that idea. But the ideal past was never as nearly perfect as we portray, and the future outlook probably not as dire as some people predict. Or so I hope.</p>
<p>If it is true that we are seeing the demise of liberal arts education, along with daily newspapers, neighborhood churches and the family farm, then that is a bad thing if no other thriving institutions can satisfy the same needs.
What could be a more oppressive approach to education than to focus it entirely on developing practical workforce skills? What are those skills, anyway?</p>
<p>My youngest wants to be an architect. He is developing practical, hands-on building skills. However, he’ll attend a small selective LAC with no architecture department (and get the professional training elsewhere). I’m o.k. with that. There is no more impractical approach to designing a building than one that does not proceed from informed reflection on human needs. This is much more than just thinking about where the dishwasher ought to go.</p>
<p>Here’s a graph of Undergraduate and Graduate enrollment over the years:
<a href=“http://imgur.com/5qoCv.png[/IMG]”>http://imgur.com/5qoCv.png
</a></p>
<p>… and as a percentage of population:
<a href=“http://imgur.com/i91zR.png[/IMG]”>http://imgur.com/i91zR.png
</a></p>
<p>Very clearly the number of people attending college is increasing, but as a percentage of the population, it seems to be leveling off. However, without the formation of new colleges/universities, existing colleges/universities are growing.</p>
<p>I think of more concern than (and at the root of) liberal arts colleges becoming more career oriented is an increasing requirement by employers that people have degrees. Degrees can be a $200,000 piece of paper proving merely that you were smart enough and hard-working enough to earn that $200,000 piece of paper from a particular university. The fact is that most of that work you did to earn it is going to be irrelevant to the career you end up with. However, because the best jobs require it, kids are forced to earn one. Then when faced with the choice of where to go, it’s a relatively easy choice if one prestigious college offers a career-oriented program in a field you intend to work in and another doesn’t.</p>
<p>If liberal arts colleges are to stop becoming more career oriented, college has to cease being an expensive test of qualification in the eyes of employers. There would need to be widely-accepted, standardized methods of proving qualification, enabling career training to be separate from college education. The only problem with separating career training from college would be the sudden decrease in the necessity of college (which I believe would be far more damaging)</p>
<p>Of course, this is not what I want as a student. I want everyone to be forced to go through four years of relatively broad education to be able to get a good job. I want everyone to be forced to go through this inefficient career training process, because it means that I am not put at a disadvantage by pursuing all the silly intellectual things I want to pursue. It’s going to change, though, and the sacrifice involved in pursuing intellectual things will increase.</p>
![http://imgur.com/5qoCv.png[/IMG]](http://imgur.com/5qoCv.png%5B/IMG%5D){kind=link}
![http://imgur.com/i91zR.png[/IMG]](http://imgur.com/i91zR.png%5B/IMG%5D){kind=link}
