Treatise Against the liberal arts

Student Lounge College Life
1

<p>Hello all, </p>

<p>I just joined after reading a recently locked thread, in titled "Hierarchy of Majors." Lots of the people in that thread ganged up against the OP who was just trying to prove that there IS a hierarchy and that it's possible to rank the majors based on their difficult and the intelligence of the people in them. This touched a nerve for a lot of people and I'm not sure why. Why is it such a taboo to accept that some majors are instrinsically just better then others?
Anyway, I don't want to open back up the topic of that thread, but I want this to be an interesting discussion. What I want to say is that I think the liberal arts should be abolished.
why? </p>

<p>1) they ARE "pseudo-knowledge," as someone said in the other thread all you learn in liberal arts classes is what other people have done and thought, you don't learn how to be an innovative thinker like in engineering related classes and some other (though not many other majors teach you to really think) </p>

<p>2) liberal arts majors are selfish and short-sighted and just worthless in general. Other majors, not just engineers but physics, math, bio, even economics though not as much, are pursued with an eye on contributing to society - but what possible use could a "gender studies" major have to society? Especially since that person probably won't get a job in that field, </p>

<p>3) Liberal arts majors and their professors notoriously espouse liberal views, so liberal arts colleges and school with large liberal arts departments are mainly just incubators of a hypertransformationalist liberal, anti-man and anti-white viewpoint.</p>

<p>4) Liberal arts majors don't get jobs, my brother was one and literally he worked in the food industry for 3 years after getting his degree.</p>

<p>5) We are entering a STEM century and need as many people proficient in the hard sciences/maths as possible, plus the US has terrible science and math skills. </p>

<p>6) Liberal arts majors take away from the learning environment of real students. most of them aren't serious and are just in college to party so they make life difficult for the rest of us STEM majors. </p>

<p>So I propose that we literally abolish the liberal arts at the college level. i know this sounds harsh and some of you will flame me for crushing people's dreams (which is BS in this day and age, it's selfish to really think you can contribute to society by majoring in something flighty like linguistics). I think we should be teaching our children from a very young age about the importance of math and science. We shouldnt abolish ALL of the classes because i'll admit some of them are quite interesting, but we DO need to make it impossible to major in things like Asian studies, international relations etc. Its a proven fact that people who have a good basis in STEM can handle pretty much anything so we'll still have people who CAN understand and research linguistics politics etc. But we shouldnt let people waste 200k on nonsense degrees like psychology. Even foreign languages aren't good enough because English speakers are outnumbered so there are plenty of people that already know those languages. besides if your trying to get hired in a different country you wont succeed because they'll hire someone native. I also think that ALL writing classes should be replaced w/ technical writing classes. no one cares if you can write a 30 page paper about epistemiology. </p>

<p>topics for discussion: just WHAT is the relevance of studying liberal arts in this day and age. I understand that a long time ago college was for rich people who had time to sit around fanning themselves and studying philosophy but times have changed. Why should we continue to teach liberal arts in our schools? Our education system would be so much better off without them. I really want this to be a good discussion and dont resort to name calling or being hateful.</p>

2

<p>I don’t see any relevance to liberal arts majors either. Of course, I am excluding the exceptions you mentioned (physics, math, bio, econ, etc.).</p>

<p>Sent from my iPhone using CC</p>

3

<p>

This is pretty much the opposite of what I observe.</p>

<p>“Why do you want to be an engineer?”
“To make tons of money and get a big house and a hot wife.”</p>

<p>“Why do you want to major in Philosophy?”
“Go into public policy, maybe after law school, and help the disadvantaged in society.”</p>

<p>(Both actual conversations. The engineer one has happened with ~50 different people, with similar responses. Only one answered that he wanted to help mankind reach other stars, which is an extremely admirable goal.)</p>

<p>As for abolishing international relations majors… I’d like you to take that up with Georgetown SFS and the US State Department.</p>

<p>

And thanks for the laugh.</p>

4

<p>I already proposed this.</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-life/1046691-should-liberal-arts-abolished.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-life/1046691-should-liberal-arts-abolished.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>People thought I was ■■■■■■■■, but I was not. Liberal Arts are total ******** and get in the way of what our society should really be focused on: making money.</p>

5

<p>“But we shouldnt let people waste 200k on nonsense degrees like psychology.”</p>

<p>Who are you to judge what people should or should not be allowed to do? That’s not your place. Besides, if we have a country of nothing but engineers and biologists, who’s going to be in Congress? The Senate? The President? The Diplomats? Careers like those depend on people with degrees in things like history, political science, business, and international relations. </p>

<p>Get a life and stop ■■■■■■■■, jeez.</p>

6

<p>

You have elevated this thread from “■■■■■” to “double ■■■■■.”</p>

<p>But sure, I’ll shoot. Why should we be more focused on making money than the pursuit of knowledge? The best scientists in history were dedicated not to money, but to the pursuit of knowledge.</p>

<p>Further, in our modern world, we need people with skills outside of science, as important as science is.</p>

<p>Oh, and one feature of these threads that confuses me; people with majors in things like “computer science” trying to throw their lot in with physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, and further divisions thereof.</p>

7

<p>The view that education must be very practical is assumed by the OP of this thread.</p>

<p>One beauty of the now very expensive and camp-like experience of “college” is that this little ivory tower is a very special place, protected from many practical problems, a bubble where ideas and practices and techniques (in science/math as well as the humanities and social sciences) can be learned and questioned and tested and improved.
The freedom is a huge gift, a huge opportunity; college can be an incubator for all sorts of important changes.
I remember feeling how hard it was to suggest change and innovate once I was out in the real world.</p>

8

<p>

Not at all. Researchers are still making great strides in psychology; philosophy, political science, etc. majors often go to (some of the top) law school(s); how exactly does the world of engineering better prepare you to think for yourself? I’m not necessarily saying it doesn’t, but you don’t seem to have any idea as to how it might.</p>

<p>

Are you seriously clumping sociology, psychology, economics, philosophy, anthropology, history, classics, languages, etc. into one category with the label “gender studies”? Or do you truly believe that gender studies is the only liberal arts major? Just FYI, liberal arts typically doesn’t exist as a major; it is a classification that the aforementioned majors fall under.</p>

<p>

So all liberal educators exist for the sole purpose of breeding anti-establishment warriors to rage against the machine? That’s new to me…</p>

<p>

Was your brother also a women’s studies major? Everyone I know who has graduated from my college with a degree in some field of the liberal arts is current either working (at an internship or some sort of well-paying job) or in graduate school. A sample pool of one doesn’t exactly make for the possibility of contrary results.</p>

<p>

As a whole (not just mathematics and hard sciences), the education level in the US is far below that of many European countries, that is true. However, the US is also home to some of the the top universities in the world in a multitude of departments. We also have plenty of mathematics, physics, CS (a rapidly growing field), etc. majors, so I doubt we will ever encounter a nationwide deficiency in those fields.</p>

<p>

What a sweeping generalization. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?</p>

<p>

So basically, your idea is to have people with no prior training in linguistics, political science, international relations, etc. be our country’s linguists, political scientists, and IR specialists? How on earth can you provide the education for such fields with out, you know, providing adequate education for such fields?</p>

<p>

Seriously? We shouldn’t allow people to major in psychology, which has helped combat serious disorders such as clinical depression, bipolarity, schizophrenia, etc.? You do realize that colleges provide counseling for students for a reason, right? How can you seriously justify that statement?</p>

<p>

Do you not realize that English is the third most widely spoken language in the world, behind Chinese (largest nation in the world) and Spanish (South America, Central America, plus hispanic immigration and integration in a multitude of other major countries around the world)? And yes, being fluent in at least one foreign language is often a hook when applying for a job.</p>

<p>

Same. Contrary to popular belief, interviewers for MIT do not only look for math and science capabilities. My dad, who conducts interviews for MIT applicants, has written countless unimpressive recommendations for people who are mere savants and do not see the value in other areas of study. While MIT does favor those who do excel in the math and sciences, it also offers great graduate programs in fields such as philosophy and economics. In addition, the distribution requirements promote a slightly more well-rounded student body.</p>

9

<p>

I wouldn’t insult science majors everywhere by calling this current nothing-major one.</p>

<p>

The only world leader who was is the dictator of China, so…</p>

<p>

A good point. Classes in formal logic, historical development, human reason, cultural development, and the like are all important and not “pseudo-knowledge” at all.</p>

<p>I suggest the OP read something philosophical, maybe The Critique of Pure Reason for starters?</p>

10

<p>I think the original post really says it all. Why the liberal arts? Because otherwise, you end up writing stuff like that.</p>

<p>And for the record, most of the science majors I know had a liberal arts minor, usually in philosophy, history, or political science, because they recognized the value of the liberal arts.</p>

11

<p>And I love how he called it a “treatise.”</p>

12

<p>Seriously everyone, the liberal arts are useless. It’s not like there’s war, discrimination, poverty, starvation, and political issues going on in the world. We don’t need people being taught all this “humanities” crap. Science and math solves ALL problems. Honestly, I don’t even know what planet you liberal arts supporters have been living in. People don’t need to have any sort of education to make big decisions, you know? Like, for example, George Bush didn’t know **** about Iraq’s history, culture, and politics, but guess what, we still went to war. And it’s going awesome, as everyone knows. Just goes to show that studying history and all that other **** is useless. It has no place in the real world.</p>

13

<p>

People who see merit in the liberal arts, having read Jonathan Swift’s works, will like what you said.</p>

<p>People who see no merit in the liberal arts, having never read Jonathan Swift’s works, will like what you said.</p>

<p>Bravo.</p>

14

<p>Sarcasm does not equal satire.</p>

15

<p>The OP may have had a point but I do not believe he did that best job presenting it.</p>

<p>Even if Liberal Arts art useless (… :slight_smile: ) who are we to tell someone they can’t waste their money? I mean, should we ban the sale of Snuggies as well?</p>

<p>And not all humanities are crap. Some are worth it (though most of the ones you mentioned could be considered Social Sciences). Most Social Sciences and some Humanities are good to have or important.</p>

<p>And science and math DOES solve all problems. Either directly or indirectly. We aren’t gonna solve world hunger by being aware of it and caring. Or by having seminars with skewed statistics that tug at our heart strings. We are gonna solve world hunger with inputs from all the important stuff. Economics, Math, Science, Business, and a few others are what really will make the difference.</p>

16

<p>What is your definition of liberal arts? You seem to exclude math, hard sciences, etc but as far as I know those are under the category of liberal arts.</p>

17

<p>^They are, but he seems to be referring to anything that is not math/hard science; i.e. social sciences, literature, english, languages, humanities, etc.</p>

18

<p>^Though I do find value in a lot of the social sciences. I mean, Econ is very important.</p>

19

<p>Of course, as is psychology. I was referring to OP.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>I kinda feel like there’s an implication here that liberal arts do solve problems like war, discrimination, poverty, and starvation. Otherwise what would be the point in showing that science and math don’t solve those problems?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And I kinda feel like there’s an implication that if Bush had a firm grasp of history he wouldn’t have made the decisions he did. On the other hand, given George Bush’s BA in History, that seems like a rather self-defeating point. Hmm…</p>