Rather than shifting the focus, perhaps you will finally answer my questions so we can better understand your point?
You have repeatedly referred to some past period when a liberal arts education was “narrowly defined.” When was that? What was the definition? Why is that definition too narrow now?
Also, you make a point of saying you “don’t discount the value of a ‘liberal arts education.’” Great. But I what does this mean, exactly? What, in your opinion, is “the value of a ‘liberal arts education.’”?
Both @circuitrider and @merc81 have made good points about how “liberal arts” were defined from a historical perspective. While I don’t disagree with their definitions, I find them to be “too narrow” in today’s world because these historical definitions would exclude many newer fields that possess what @brantly suggests should characterize and define “liberal arts”, namely “critical thinking”. This is in essence what led me to question whether “liberal arts” can be defined and the term is still useful.
When did studying language and modern science become “old-fashioned”? You can’t argue that a definition is both too narrow and too broad at the same time.
That’s the problem, isn’t it? I personally don’t find any definition satisfactory. We probably all agree that the studies of language, math and basic sciences should be at the core of higher education, regardless of one’s specialty, but what makes the studies of these subjects distinct from the rest?
That they tend not to be transitory concerns; every generation wants its kids to read, write and calculate well; every profession depends on a reliable stream of entrants who are acquainted with those skills. What else would explain the endurance of LACs over the space of the last 100 years?
But, more to the point of the OP’s question, every generation - particularly in democracies - has a stake in basic research, i.e., research that doesn’t necessarily have a specific application. Without that freedom (liberalis) and the resources to make it possible, our economic systems would fail to innovate and would always be in danger of stagnating.
But, it’s not a suitable label to precisely define (absolutely include/exclude) institutions, because (as everyone has argued) all institutions mix in more or less direct career-centric studies, just to varying degrees.
Which is why it defies any attempts of an institution-centric definition.
The answer to the thread is: Not “What …”, but “Who …”
However, that is the crux of what this thread is about. Obviously, some institutions feel more threatened than others by the idea of being excluded. I don’t think MIT or Caltech particularly care. I think a school like Penn would feel the sting much more.
Then let them “identify” as “liberal arts” - because that’s what it ultimately comes down to: Does an institution see itself as “having adopted” a primarily liberal arts “philosophy”?
Just like some schools are “considered” party schools, no-fun schools, elite schools, T20 schools, greek schools, small school - there is no clear delineating factor by what criteria an University absolutely is elite, fun, greek, small,… liberal arts – or at what point it is no longer.
US News took its categories from the Carnegie Classifications and renamed them. What US News calls Liberal Arts Colleges is the Carnegie Foundation’s baccalaureate colleges, subcategory A. Liberal Arts Focus vs B. Diverse Fields.
I think that this is very clear. They’re talking about undergraduate colleges without graduate schools where the focus is on the traditional liberal arts.
While there may be room for discussion about what is a liberal arts subject and what isn’t, I think that it’s easy to identify schools where the focus is not on an undergraduate education in the liberal arts. University of Richmond, for example, might call itself a liberal arts college, but when it awards 35% of its undergraduate degrees in business, runs a Business School which offers several graduate degrees, and runs a Law School, it’s clear that the focus of the university is not just on undergraduate education in the liberal arts.
You’re the first person on CC that has ever agreed with me about URichmond. I actually have the same doubts about Claremont-McKenna which has the same percentage of undergraduates majoring in finance and accounting, but without the graduate school.
Also, I should clarify that at some point I began conflating @brantly’s original post and its subject heading using the “university” designation, with @DigitalDad’s sub-thread about whether there is such a thing as a liberal arts university. I’ve been taking the latter question literally. If I may restate it another way: Are there Carnegie Classified research universities where the undergraduate arts and science division is the central part of the university’s identity? IMO, a dividing line exists between Harvard (not so much) and Yale (clearly.)
Did you not notice the mention of the Law School and graduate Business School? I didn’t even mention that Richmond has a Department of Education which prepares students for teacher certification. Or that they have a School of Professional & Continuing Studies which offers multiple graduate degrees. Or that they have a School of Leadership Studies. I don’t know what that does, but it feels like a hybrid, somewhere between business and arts & sciences. Richmond has 726 graduate students, which is a substantial group to ignore.
Are you prepared to say that Richmond’s focus is on undergraduate education in the liberal arts? Or do they better fit the Carnegie categories either of Diverse Fields or Master’s Colleges & Universities?
Richmond is a university by its own description in its name but wants to be called a liberal arts college for US News rankings. Let’s be clear. This is pure marketing hype in search of prestige. The 2 prestige categories in US News are “national universities” and “national liberal arts colleges”. Richmond doesn’t want to be in the US News “regional universities” category where it used to be because it Carrie’s less prestige. So, they lobbied to be “upgraded” to a “national liberal arts college”. It’s cynical, but I don’t blame them because marketing is part of running a business, which is what colleges are. US News created this and the colleges are just trying to keep up.
No. I posted the Carnegie Classifications earlier in this thread. Carnegie divides research universities into subcategories strictly on the amount (dollars) of research they do.
We all know that outcomes are not as great for true “liberal arts degrees” where outcomes = money - and even some of the elite schools have lower salaries.
Everyone rates success differently but I would assume most enroll in college with the idea that it will create a better living for them in the long run.
And so many of these schools are adding higher paid majors - CS, Engineering, Business, etc.
And just to be clear, many of those ROI studies exclude LAC graduates who go on to earn advanced degrees; it’s where the survey subjects earned their terminal degree that gets the credit.
and said student could have gotten to that terminal degree from any college.
I’m of the belief that - and stated it earlier - all these “definitions” are artificial - and what defines an LAC is different to all. That’s why all the debate you all are having. Just like where I work - we have three regions - it’s artificially made up as to which clients are in which region.
My daughter’s College - College of Charleston - claims to be an LAC. Not sure why - but if it works for them, then great. She (my daughter) is in an libert art major(s) but…they have business, etc.
Located in the heart of historic Charleston, South Carolina, the College of Charleston is a nationally recognized, public liberal arts and sciences university.
Fascinating reads - I just think there’s no right answer.
In the end, if a school is right for a student, then it’s right for the student - regardless of any man-made definitions.
That’s a subject of pure speculation. I’m saying that a college graduate’s ROI should include his actual achievements, including gaining an advanced degree.
