I’m not the one clamoring to force a rigid constraint to definitively delineate liberal arts. Like much in life, it is conceptual and relative. But that is a strength, not a weakness, and I don’t see a complaint about the fuzziness around the edges to be worthy a reason to scrap the concept.
In other words, it doesn’t really concern me that “CMC offers economics-accounting as a major,” with a grand total of 7 graduates in 2022. Why is this so troubling that you would highlight the example? It seems like complaints about such trivialities are just a pretext in support of some yet to be articulated grievance with the concept of liberal arts.
Further, whether from me or not, there have been numerous excellent explanations and descriptions, including by the OP. Most recently see @BKSquared explanation, immediately above.
Would agree that for Williams, Amherst, Swarthmore and Pomona, Econ and Science BA majors have similar career paths as those with the same majors at the Ivies even though the Ivies do offer both BA and B of Science degrees. In essence, regardless of the college vs. university label, it really is the degree you are receiving. Thus, whether its Stanford, Williams, Yale or U. Richmond, a BA degree is the same degree.
Your suspicion is groundless. I hold no grievance but do think the concept is ill-defined to be useful in today’s world. What makes Williams fundamentally different from Yale, or Amherst different from Brown? If a college offers training for specialized skills in one or more fields in addition to a more traditional “liberal arts” curriculum, does that make the college not a liberal arts institution? What makes the learning of chemical engineering so different from the learning of chemistry?
If you want to argue that there’s essentially no difference between Williams and Yale or Wesleyan and Brown, there are plenty of people who would be prepared to agree with you.
Having read through this thread I am no closer to being able to define liberal arts universities but I can distinguish between those predisposed to LA and those not.
The liberal arts person can argue indefinitely about how to define such things having entered into the discussion not caring about the answer but enjoying the deliberation and “cat toying” others.
The non liberal art person demands a definitive answer, quantitative difference in outcomes and a resolution “in their favor” that suggests tangible skills versus those liberal arts slacker/stoners who didn’t grind through a CS curriculum.
While we may have differences of opinion, I think it worth acknowledging the differences, observe mutual respect and acknowledge that all types of “success” can be achieved via either path.
Regarding computer science for example a BA from Williams or Yale with a major in computer science is really not that different in terms of the classes taken. Similarly, a BA from Amherst or Harvard with a major in History would be very similar. You can argue about the reputation or name recognition of the school name on the job market, but as to the content of the learning, it would be similar.
History is such a broad field that it is possible at some colleges for two history majors at the same college to take completely different sets of history courses. This is not quite the case at Amherst and Harvard, but both colleges’ history major requirements have exactly one course required for all history majors, so two different history majors at one of those colleges may have only that one course in common.
Yes, and the flexibility which is at the heart of the liberal arts approach proves the point here as well, both schools favor the student determining what they study and explore vs. pre professional requirements.
Not all traditional liberal arts subjects have the wide range of subareas that history does. For example, physics major requirements tend to have far less variation in topics covered in required courses, so two different physics major students at the same college will have most of the same major courses, and will cover most of the same physics topics as physics major students at other colleges.
This reminds me of an engineering friend of mine who asked me for advice about potting soil. Ordinary, commercial, potting soil for houseplants. Recommending a brand that worked for me was not enough. He wanted ingredients, NPK ratios, the whole nine yards. We just approached things differently.
While LACs and universities can be similar or disparate in the courses they offer within the same major (depending on the major…), there tend to be a couple of notable differences in classroom setting and instruction:
In survey level courses (100- and 200-level), LAC lecture sizes tend to be much smaller than their university counterparts. The universities catch up a bit in upper-level courses.
For university courses requiring weekly discussion sections and/or labs, often those discussions/labs are taught by graduate students lacking the terminal degree in the field. I am going to assume that at LACs, all sections of a course are led by the professor. (LAC students’ or grads’ input to confirm or deny would be helpful here; I attended a large state university.)
Not to split hairs but there isn’t actually a whole lot of Chemistry involved in Chemical Engineering. It’s more about large scale/industrial process design.
In any case the biggest divide between Engineering and the pure sciences that underpin the various streams is that Engineering is more applied and the fundamental sciences are more theoretical in nature. The same distinction can be made between pure math and it’s more applied versions such as accounting/finance/econ/statistics, and depending on the program, computer science. That to me is what differentiates between vocational and the liberal arts.
Did he lecture you on how your approach lacks the requisite rigor? Did he demand to know the weight of your produce so he could adequately quantify your approach in comparison to others?
If one gardener purchases commercial potting soil, and the other mixes their own, then isn’t the concept “gardening” too ill-defined to be useful in todays world?
Are these specific to LACs or rather specific to small colleges without graduate programs, like the original poster mentioned? Smaller student bodies lead to fewer giant classes with hundreds of students. Colleges without graduate programs rarely have classes taught by graduate students.
I don’t think we are going to find a simple agreed upon definition of LACs because none such exists. Instead it’s more if a college has a lot of shared characteristics with typical LACs , we call it a LAC. If a college has some shared characteristics and not others, then there can be more debate.
For example, Wikipedia says Berea is a LAC. USNWR ranks it as #26 on their best LAC list. Most sources say Berea is a LAC because of their Carnegie Classification (Bachelors with A&S Focus). Berea checks the boxes you listed. They have small classes. The CDS mentions >98% of classes have under 30 students. This relates to their small student body of ~400 per year. There are no graduate programs, so ~no classes taught by grad students. However, the most common majors are business and computer science. They also have a good portion of students majoring in engineering tech and family studies. They have nursing, health performance, and education majors as well. Some would say this means they are not a LAC. I don’t think whether it has a LAC label or not matters. What matters more is whether it has the characteristics and majors you are looking for in a college.
Economics and statistics are commonly considered liberal arts, although they are often chosen by students for somewhat pre-professional reasons (finance or other business).
Reminds me of the dichotomy of personality types explored in one of my favorite high school readings (our teacher was definitely a child of the 60’s), Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.
Yes, and let’s conduct a thought experiment: imagine two universities: one where 90% of students studied “traditional” liberal arts and theoretical science and the other where only 35% of the students did. Wouldn’t you suppose they were two completely different types of universities?
