Virtues of a liberal arts education

Parent Cafe
21

<p>Don’t know where you are getting your information, mini, but NCES data seems to contradict it:</p>

<p><a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/images/fig15.gif[/url]”>http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/images/fig15.gif&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Add together the liberal arts - history and social science, visual and performing arts, psychology, biology and biomedical science, and communications-related majors - and there are more graduates than in business, and way more than in engineering and health occupations.</p>

22

<p>I don’t really have a position in this oft-repeated debate, but it did bring something to mind this morning. I think perhaps the reason why many people choose to major in something other than the humanities, aside from their perceptions of the practical implications, is that they believe they can learn things like history and literature on their own. For some people perhaps that is true, but I imagine that some people could also learn Topology on their own. I always enjoyed my breadth classes and would have enjoyed taking more. I believe I got something out of the classroom experience. </p>

<p>One of my most vivid memories from way back when (early 70s) was my Spanish lit GE class – I remember reading and debating Jorge Luis Borges in Spanish with a bunch of Atheist Marxist Chicanos (that’s what they called themselves) who spoke Spanish 100 miles an hour. It was great! I don’t think I can remember a single Calc or Physics lecture, but that sticks in my mind. Even though I was pretty much completely apolitical they talked me into joining MECHA – the first “gringo” in their group at my school. I did it primarily for the food at their meetings and to meet Latinas.</p>

<p>Maybe all this is too risky these days. I don’t know. But that would really be a shame if it is.</p>

23

<p>Those who take more than the necessary number of courses in the areas in which they are weak are risking their GPAs – which are important for graduate school admissions and many jobs. Is it really worth it to take that literature course to round out your general education if writing about literature is your weakness and the resulting low grade drops your GPA below an employer’s cutoff? </p>

<p>Exactly - as I said it is part of the American Educational Culture. And it doesn’t just start in college either. When I was in High school if you could pass 9th grade math you could be done. You had to take 3-4 years of almost everything else. But 1 math was enough. And in 9th grade you had a choice between 9th grade math and algebra I. Sure there were college bound kids who took the 9th grade math and then took alegra I in 10th and algebra II in 11th. But there were others who flunked the 9th grade math class and had to take something called Mathematics Review as seniors in order to graduate. You can’t call that getting an education! But that is how the system works. It isn’t about becoming well rounded. It is about being competitive in the tiny little space where you already have an edge.<br>
I agree with the person who said High School is the best place to get well rounded. It is the place where you need to be trying everything and figuring out what you are good at. And with the IB programs they have now there is really no reason why kids shouldn’t be expected to get a lot of that before they go off to college. I’m just as worried about the STEM folks who don’t know who Mark Twain is as I am about the English majors who can’t balance their checkbooks. When you get right down to it neither one should have gotten a HS diploma.</p>

24

<p>“communications-related majors”</p>

<p>Fair enough, but commuications-related majors (journalism, etc.) are not liberal arts.</p>

25

<p>I don’t think you get to add in the visual and preforming arts those are fine arts not liberal. I’m not so sure the communications technologies wouldn’t go into STEM either. And biomedical science sure sounds like healthcare (premed) to me. I think you are reaching.</p>

26

<p>Every journalism degree I’m familiar with requires extensive backgrounds in liberal arts.</p>

<p>Missouri:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://journalism.missouri.edu/news/2010/05-26-new-curriculum.html[/url]”>http://journalism.missouri.edu/news/2010/05-26-new-curriculum.html&lt;/a&gt;
Medill:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[Medill</a> - Curriculum](<a href=“http://www.medill.northwestern.edu/journalism/undergrad/page.aspx?id=62241]Medill”>http://www.medill.northwestern.edu/journalism/undergrad/page.aspx?id=62241)</p>

<p>Well down the food chain, Northern Illinois University:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.niu.edu/clasadvising/2+2/journalism.shtml[/url]”>http://www.niu.edu/clasadvising/2+2/journalism.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

27

<p>

I don’t think the point mini was making had to do with whether you had to take “liberal arts” courses for a journalism degree, but rather whether the subject “journalism” is technically a “liberal art.”</p>

<p>I had to take calculus, physics and chemistry (all liberal arts subjects) to get my electrical engineering degree. But EE is not a liberal arts major, probably because it is vocationally directed.</p>

28

<p>High school isn’t the best place to get well rounded. High school only offfers the foundations, enough breadth and depth to get the basics that can be squeezed into a semester or year. There is only very rare opportunity to focus within a discipline. Same old, same old. Rarely do kids learn real critical thinking or how to integrate multiple resources. You see it in hs seniors’ posts here, in their applications and in freshman college classes. </p>

<p>Of course, there are exceptions. (I went to a tippy top hs and learned life long academic skills there.) But, don’t fool yourself that this is the average or the minimum. Especially not at a heterogeneous hs, where some proportion excel and others are middling or struggling.</p>

<p>It’ possible to learn a great deal on your own. But, on you own doesn’t offer the benefit of subject specialists leading you. Or conversations (even arguments) with others who may have a different take on the material.</p>

<p>Btw, in my technical field, the engineers had focused on their math-sci knowledge in college and the rest of us, even those dealing with technical concepts, were primarily liberal arts, with a rare business major thrown in. In getting into grad school, I found what was important was the range and grades in my major; was never faulted for a lower grade in a stretch-myself class.</p>

<p>Competition is fierce(r) today, which is why agree with Warblers about internships and relevant job experience before hitting the open market. </p>

<p>Btw, D2 started with STEM and dropped it. So, she had to explore alternative interests- anthro, psych, history, film- and developed an enthusiasm for learning that far exceeds what she had in hs, when her “path” seemed pre-determined.</p>

<p>ps. the old distinction that put some math-sci into “liberal arts” kind of goes away with the newer term, STEM.</p>

29

<p>Something that builds on a liberal arts education is obviously MORE than a liberal arts education. I thought you were talking about JUST a liberal arts education. You know, something with no direct application to the job world. Something that could be deemed worthless - it was valuable by its worthlesness. Wasn’t that the quote?</p>

30

<p>

When did this definition change? Liberal arts are liberal arts, whether there is a new term called STEM or not.</p>

31

<p>But the other new term is Humanities</p>

32

<p>

Humanities, STEM, liberal arts - they all have actual (or at least generally agreed upon) definitions, and they overlap to some degree.</p>

33

<p>glido,
“Knowing the successes and failures of the past, the motivating factors, the varying interpretations, gives great insight into current events and allows one to impact the present and future with more information. One has to be familiar with history, philosophy, theology, literature, art history, music, etc. to see past trends clearly and see present events in perspective.”
-this is strictly from your prospective. I do not want my kids to obtain any of it at school, not in HS, not in UG. I would not be pleased if they do. I specifically instructed my younger to stay away from any of these in college after my older one was negatively affected (from my personal prospective) in these value based aspects. All of the above could be viewed and learned from different and actually opposite points of view. I disagree with points of view that are used in most educational institutions. </p>

<p>I maintain that purpose of college education is very personal for each family. For some it is OK if above is covered outside of family, for others it is not OK by far, they might oppose to it. General view of purpose of UG education is not applicable, it is specific in each family.</p>

34

<p>Perhaps visual and performing arts aren’t technically the “liberal arts,” but they are part of the “humanities.”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[Humanities</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities]Humanities”>Humanities - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>And if you don’t like wikipedia</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[About</a> the Humanities | Division of the Humanities](<a href=“http://humanities.uchicago.edu/about/]About”>About the Division | Division of the Humanities)</p>

35

<p>The humanities are nice and really open up a nice new way of thinking about people…if they’re studied independently so your brain actually has a chance to form its own conclusions. So far my experience of college humanities (that’s 16 units) is the professor going on and on about his/her interpretation of the text, or the subject, or whatever, and you have to pretend to swallow it even if you can’t see any evidence for their position.</p>

36

<p>Bov’ ^ But, when people are critical of “liberal arts,” I don’t think they include math, bio and chem- they mean English, sociology, etc. Can we say the terms and the disctinctions have evolved?</p>

<p>Miami- some kids should go to a technical or trade school, no doubt.</p>

37

<p>

</p>

<p>Any subject can be poorly taught.</p>

38

<p>

Yes, that’s true. I think we can say that most people don’t fully understand the distinctions, nor do they really have any reason to. </p>

<p>And by “most people” I include myself, because I didn’t know the “official” definition of LA until I started reading this website. I assumed math/sci was not part of it.</p>

<p>I think we all know what the general distinction we are discussing here is. I was just being ornery.</p>

39

<p>Yeah, me too. Sometimes, I catch myself seeing it all as STEM and non-STEM.</p>

<p>To be frank, DH does spend a lot of time worrying about D1’s future prospects. But, she’s learning so much, in a balanced way, that it fulfills the more traditional idea that college is a chance to expand your knowledge, as well as hone critical reasonong and analytical skills, writing and research strengths. No increase in knowledge is truly useless. Fortunately, her LAC emphasizes both depth and diversity in learning.</p>

40

<p>

Of course–that’s why I included the fact that I’ve taken 16 units of non-STEM courses, from three different areas. One starts to see a pattern after a while. The humanities don’t seem to be taught with an eye toward innovation or actual critical thinking; they seem to be more about repeating the professor’s viewpoint.</p>