What defines a liberal arts university?

Parents Forum
101

I don’t disagree that a higher salary is not better per se but it is typically how success is measured.

Why else, for example, would UAH pay for a billboard on I-65 that says - highest average salaries of universities in Alabama and would half the chance mes (ok I’m embellishing) note they want to go to a top 20 because they want to be in a field they likely don’t even understand - I banking.

The reality is most want to end up in a highly paid profession and get the nice home with a spouse, two kids, the dog and a couple Volvos in the driveway. And average salaries are a staple of college placement office reports.

My son is facing this dilemma now. He had 5 offers in the past few weeks for May and we guided him against the top two, one because he’d be in total areas without young, educated people and the other because it’s in Massachusetts and the COL is high.

He eliminated the next highest because he didn’t enjoy the industry and took the 4th highest because it fits his desire, there’s other young people, and he’ll move over the first few years in lower COL areas.

But while the pay is lower, what he used to justify it is for the first two years, to help defray living expenses during his four rotations, he’s given an extra $800 a month.

To which he now says - yes this is the best offer for me but it’s also the best financially (for two years).

He is justifying his success by $$ which is why he majored in something he didn’t necessarily enjoy to begin with but chose the major because of the reality of the cost of living in a lifestyle he aspires to.

I’m impressed you have a life you love. My company treats me well. I neither love nor hate my job but I do like the people I deal with. But if a competitor called and offered me another $40k, I wouldn’t let the door hit me on the way out.

It’s life for most people. Doesn’t mean it’s how it should be but I do believe it’s how it is. The colleges are no different. They take surveys and add in figures that are one time like signing bonuses. Why ? To show a higher published level of success.

I don’t disagree that education is the key to success. Not sure it needs to be broad. Someone like me taking bio is an utter waste, giving me zero skills that transfer to life. But certainly an education is key.

Thanks.

1 Like
102

Very true. A broad education is a luxury. Not a necessity. It is consumption. Mostly not an investment. It is good to have critical thinking skills. Do they need 40 courses in ancient history or anthropology to develop?

This for example, is part of the reason why medical training is so expensive in the US, and medical services are so expensive as medical graduates feel compelled to charge what they charge – all the extra non-necessary years of college.

103

It depends on what you’re familiar with. My understanding from being on CC for many years is that suburbanites wax poetic about life in their heavenly suburbs. Most city dwellers I know could care less about owning two Volvos.

104

Only two or three cities in the whole country fall into this bucket with good public transportation. And living in city needs more money anyway, even without the Volvos.

105

Of course: New York and Boston and Washington, D.C.

106

I said most.

Simply put - most, not all, seek higher outcomes through $$.

Not saying it’s right or wrong but it’s the yardstick most use.

107

If I’ve learned anything these past six years, it’s the futility of trying to figure out what drives “most Americans”. But if I were in the business of constantly making the attempt, I would want a broad liberal arts education.

2 Likes
108

However, the larger part of the debt burden for physicians tends to come from medical school.

1 Like
109

I was telling my kid that 350k of private undergrad and 400k of medical school, post tax money, is too much. Really that undergrad is unnecessary. In many other countries they skip the first 4 years and go directly from high school to medical school. And it is also the opportunity cost of the 4 years – you start being useful to society (and getting paid) 4 years earlier. This is very non trivial. You are just counting the last 400k because it is the most recently visible cost and it is coming at the end.

110

Undergraduate can be much less expensive than $350k (e.g. in state public), and can more easily be reduced by scholarships and/or financial aid grants.

Medical students usually do not have a choice of medical school, and the cost is paid for by loans if their parents do not have the money.

1 Like
111

Sure. Time is the big cost. You are somewhere between 30 and 32 by the time you are done.

112

So interesting. I think this gets at the crux of why I have sometimes felt so baffled reading CC. As an aside, I think there is societal value to the pursuit of knowledge beyond individual consumption. Quite simply, I believe that fields like anthropology, physics, sociology, or linguistics are important for their own sakes not as luxury goods. I assume that the reason why we have institutions like the National Endowment for the Arts, the Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Science Foundation is because having some people do value pure learning, research, and arts absent market forces.

But leaving the above aside, even if I were to concede that studying liberal arts subjects is merely a form of luxury consumption, I guess that I keep wondering so what? Owning two Volvos and a big house is a form of luxury consumption as well. Owning a boat or a second home or going on endless ski vacations are forms of luxury consumption that apparently give some people more happiness than reading books or solving puzzles or making art. Great. I don’t judge someone for desiring those goods despite having little to no interest in those luxuries myself. Yet on CC, I sometimes read a kind of disdain for (non-preprofessional) educational consumption as a self-indulgent luxury while other forms of consumption are described as just normal everyday consumption that “most people aspire to own or do.” Consuming education seems no more or less luxurious than consuming caviar and pate to me.

I was probably one of those lost students that @DigitalDad refers to as a teen. I didn’t think of myself as lost, but if you had asked me what I enjoyed doing when I was 16, I would have probably stated in this order: 1. reading good books, 2. solving puzzles, 3. hanging out with friends, 4. having interesting conversations, 5. building machines, 6. making art, and 7. studying/learning. Maybe in my twenties, I would have added 8. traveling. Those are the things that I did at age 16 for pleasure and those are exactly what I still do now (mostly) for pay. So in college, I did those things (paying tuition to do them) and then I did them again in my twenties in graduate school (where I was paid a pretty low stipend for that “work”) and now I still do them in my working life (directly receiving a salary for most of that list and indirectly convincing my employer to pay for the rest).

Why on earth would I want to worry about the Volvos, big house, and skiing when I already get to do my favorite things daily and in fact I’ve always gotten to pursue my interests --when I was 16, 18, 22 and 45. Don’t get me wrong, I get why pursuing reading, solving puzzles, and making art may be seen as luxuries by some people. I just don’t get why they are any better or worse types of luxuries to consume than a house with a three car garage. Are my pursuits somehow more self-indulgent because they don’t come with a six figure salary or because I can’t purchase most of them in a store? Why would I want any more wealth for my kids than what I have? I think at least one of my kids does want to be able to afford more store-bought luxuries than I want; hopefully that one will find a job that pays her enough for those purchases, but that is her problem not mine. My goal as a parent is not to put my kids on either a pre-professional or liberal arts track. It is to raise kids who 1) know themselves well enough to know their preferred tracks and 2) have the skills to succeed on those tracks.

7 Likes
113

Deleted.

114

The big difference with education is that one’s education (K-12 and most people’s undergraduate) is usually at least partially paid for by someone else (one’s parents, the government in the case of public schools, scholarships from the school or outside entities). This means that (what some may see as) “luxury” consumption choices in education are not private economic choices by people spending their own money like more expensive houses, more or more expensive cars, caviar, pate, books, puzzles, art supplies, etc., but are choices by those whose money is being spent (parents, government, scholarship funders) as well as the student being educated. Add to this the politics of opportunity fairness across the birth lottery and it is no surprise that there is a lot more arguing about consumption of education than of consumption of many other things.

1 Like
115

I do get this. I’m sorry. I admit that I was being a little facetious when I suggested that I don’t understand the difference at all. I shouldn’t do that in the middle of a genuine well-intentioned exchange of ideas.

Still I am also suggesting whether one gets the money for the expensive houses, Volvos, caviar, pate, books, puzzles and art supplies from one’s employer or from one’s parents or from the college financial aid budget, a foundation or the government, all “luxuries” come at a cost. If as a society, we don’t value education, I guess that the government will continue to underfund it. If the Gates Foundation decides that it doesn’t value my child’s major, then it will decide to only fund students in the future if they promise to study engineering or go into investment banking. In the meanwhile, if someone is willing to pay for educational luxuries, I don’t see what is self-indulgent about pursuing a liberal arts education. It may be a hard or risky path, but I am balking at the idea that two Volvos is normal consumption while a degree in history is a type of lluxury consumption.

5 Likes
116

"Why on earth would I want to worry about the Volvos, big house, and skiing when I already get to do my favorite things daily and in fact I’ve always gotten to pursue my interests --when I was 16, 18, 22 and 45. "

You are very fortunate - but I don’t believe you are the rule but rather the exception.

Back to the question - I simply stated that a liberal arts school is whatever someone defines it as. And of course, many “so called” LACs have pre-professional programs just like most, if not all, major universities, contain a libera arts college.

And I noted that most use salary as a measurement. Most means - not all - so you might not be included.

Many, I would say, most people assume a college degree is the key to upward mobility in society but there is a reason that certain majors have a much higher demand (and thus salary) than others. Few say - let me become a car mechanic (I know, it’s my industry and we can’t find them) or a plumber even though those type roles are well paid and also point toward a decent level of living.

117

Don’t concede that!

There are some professions/positions where highly specific professional training is a necessity - and then there are professions/positions where “general intelligence” weighs heavier than very narrow/specialized knowledge.

I can say for myself, that my exposure to broad areas of knowledge and various modes of thinking is precisely what made me a valuable commodity recognized by the principals of an international firm - and allowed me to rise through the ranks to where, at a young age, I ended up being the one “signing the paycheques” of all those engineers!

No, liberal arts education is definitely not someone indulging in some luxury - it is a very necessary education for tasks that require a broader view at things.

5 Likes
118

Two new ones would be luxury consumption compared to other available cars. Two old ones for $500 each (the price limit for 24 Hours of Lemons racing) would not usually be seen as luxury consumption (although doing the 24 Hours of Lemons race could be), although it may not be seen as “normal” consumption either.

1024×685 102 KB

1 Like
119

There is a reason people from around the world have long clamored to study at US colleges and universities. The US “liberal arts” based system (including non-liberal arts schools with “extensive” non-major requirements) has historically had a pretty good track record of driving leadership, innovation, treatment, etc. , this includes those with supposedly useless history and anthropology degrees. Education is not all about easily and immediately calculable ROI. Some benefits exist that aren’t immediately apparent in the first job salaries.

3 Likes
120

I used Volvos because that was the old adage when I lived in So Cal…a wife, two kids, a dog, and two volvos.

Today it could be Kias or Hyundais, etc.

The point being that many strive for an upper middle class life in the burbs.

Unfortunately, with costs having spiraled out of control, it’s going to be tougher for these kids in the future.

All these kids graduating college and planning to stay in high COL areas are especially hosed.

Nothing wrong with a liberal arts education - I have a history degree.

Not sure how we got from what defines a liberal arts degree to this.

But anyway, with my history degree (and dual with a journalism degree) - after failing out of journalism, I was qualified for - sales. That’s it. I used to door knock 50 doors a day of people that didn’t want to see me.

It was my MBA that put me on the path i’m on now. I use zero from it - but it got me recruited by the automotive industry where I remain 25 years later.

I have two kids - one an engineer and one an international studies/poli sci major.

The engineer is set.

The other wants to save the world, working specifically with refugees. I hope she can make this difference professionally that she has as a volunteer.

But where will the money come from to pay her a living salary?