<p>How did he/she even stumble on this thread?</p>
<p>Apparently it was intentional since Shadowzoid stated they wanted to revive the debate.</p>
<p>Shadowzoid may have inappropriately bumped an old thread, but Iâd be inclined to overlook that since 'zoidâs post is the best one in the entire thread.</p>
<p>I found this thread randomly. I was curious if Duke had a preprofessional focus, so I googled those term. I then found this thread and read the whole thing. I considered starting a new thread, but decided to revive this one for two reasons:</p>
<p>1) the topic is timeless and still relevant now.
2) I found a lot of the previous arguments valid, so I wanted their input to be considered in a revived debate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, a lot of students choose liberal arts majors for pre-professional reasons (often tailoring their course selection with pre-professional goals in mind):</p>
<ul>
<li>math, statistics â actuarial or finance work</li>
<li>political science, English â pre-law**</li>
<li>biology â pre-med**</li>
<li>economics â if business major is not offered</li>
<li>art, music â art, graphic design, music jobs</li>
<li>foreign language and literature â jobs involving foreign postings**</li>
<li>any major â teaching that subject in high school or college</li>
<li>any major â academic or research work in the subject</li>
</ul>
<p>**Such choice of major is not required for these goals, but many students seem to think it is.</p>
<p>Also, pre-professional does not necessarily mean anti-intellectual. Engineering is an obvious pre-professional major, but many engineers and students are quite intellectual about looking for ways to solve design problems in the most effective way possible.</p>
<p>As I said, the attack against preprofessional degrees isnât that it is preprofessional, but that it is narrow. Someone who studies English without delving into Bio or Physics is just as limiting as a preprofessional degree (Hence why Brownâs New Curriculum is criticized as well, despite its heavy liberal arts focus). Preprofessional degrees are just the most likely path for hyperspecialization. Furthermore, preprofessional programs GENERALLY focus on the âhowâ rather than the âwhy.â which strikes me as result-oriented rather than cultivation-oriented (the best analogy I can think of is eugenics vs. inherent worth in the individual, no matter how much they provide a negative externality to society. PLEASE NOTE I am NOT claiming that preprofessionals like eugenics). </p>
<p>As we all know, most degrees can get you into any post-grad school (generally, like how history majors go to medschool). This isnât what is criticized; in fact, this is desired by those of us who criticize preprofessional degrees. At the undergrad level, broad studies should be sought so that your humanistic elements are cultivated, you develop skills for lifelong learning, and you better understand the context of the whole. Only after these humanistic foundations are realized should you seek a professional education (i.e. do your undergrad in the liberal arts, then do your postgrad in professional schools). </p>
<p>Maybe I wasnât clear in my clarification that âanti-preprofessionalsâ arenât attacking preprofessional degrees itself, but hyperspecialization. Perhaps this quote by Robert Hutchinâs will better convey my opinion: "The object of the educational system, taken as a whole, is not to produce hands for industry or to teach the young how to make a living. It is to produce responsible citizens.â</p>
<p>Looks like you are really arguing for an extensive and rigorous core curriculum or breadth requirement list, such as what is found at MIT and the military service academies.</p>
<p>Many students in not-overtly-preprofessional majors at schools without rigorous core curricula or breadth requirements do their best to avoid rigorous course work in some areas outside of their majors. Indeed, it is often the case that preprofessional major accreditation requires more breadth requirements than the school otherwise does (Brown is a case in point, with no breadth requirements for students in most majors, but humanities and social studies breadth requirements for those in ABET-accredited engineering majors).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>However, most actual college students would not be in college if they did not believe it would help their job and career prospects. College is too expensive to attend for all but those from very wealthy families if it did not help the graduatesâ job and career prospects. And state governments which subsidize state universities and community colleges are motivated by improving the skill level of the workforce in order to grow the economy.</p>
<p>Yes, intellectual development, responsible citizenship, and the like are valuable effects of attending college. But to say that they are the only reason to do so is inaccurate for the majority.</p>
<p>I am not arguing about the reality, but the ideal. Yes, I understand that most Americans seems to only value economic success, that the government only cares about producing technical skills to help the economy. That is the reality. However, this is not the ideal. We should be striving for the ideal, and if the masses donât realize this, then the government surely wonât. The government is necessary in giving the masses access to an intellectual path (through subsidies in government tuition). </p>
<p>Why is this important? Well, as you know form my previous argument, upholding intellectualism helps reinforce human worth; it is what prevents us from resorting to eugenics and dictatorships. </p>
<p>Furthermore, in a more practical note, it does help us solve problems. The thing is, it isnât as obvious as technicians = good labor = good economy. Rather, a broad understanding of knowledge allows us to cooperate in various fields. Think of global warming and all the time we are wasting arguing for it. If only people were educated, they would be able to recognize valid research, we would all understand the danger of global warming, and weâd already be working towards it. Afterwards, policy makers who are broadly educated would have enough knowledge of environmental studies to understand how to implement valid policies. I argue that humanistic understanding will improve the economy indirectly - morale will improve, people will understand resource distribution (e.g. people think there is a shortage of food and resources for our growing population, but in reality we have more than enough resources. The problem is distribution), etc. Or think of the economy. I mean, do you really suppose a majority of Americans understand Keynesian economics or the theories of Milton Friedman? How can we trust these people to make efficient voting decisions without understanding how the economy works? How can we trust them to separate the BS that politicians spew out without adequate knowledge? </p>
<p>I am well aware that college is expensive. We should change this though; we need to reduce access to education. We also need to make broad understanding necessary to all educations. Investing in the liberal arts is a long-term investment; we will not recieve economic utility immedietly, but our future state, both the nation itself and its individual citizens, will be better off for it. </p>
<hr>
<p>I feel like Iâm starting to rant (oops), so maybe we should argue more concretely.</p>
<p>1) Do you agree that human development is more important than economic pursuits (Iâm speaking of importance, not necessity)?</p>
<p>2) Do agree with my argument that emphasizing humanism will indirectly help the economy?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If we make college education more elitist in terms of access, then fewer people (whether they major in liberal arts or more overtly pre-professional subjects) will have college level exposure to various liberal arts. How does that fit in with your stated goal of promoting intellectual learning about liberal arts?</p>
<p>Sorry, that was a typo. I meant lower the boundaries of access.</p>
<p>What would you see as the minimum âbreadthâ and âliberal artsâ content that one should have learned upon completing a bachelorâs degree (in terms of how many of what kind of courses and subjects)? You can write all about the need for various types of knowledge, but it is not clear how much âschedule spaceâ within a four year bachelorâs degree learning all of that would take. Also, your complaint about âhyper-specializationâ is not easy to interpret without any notion of whether any majors would take up more âschedule spaceâ than that left over from the âbreadthâ or âliberal artsâ requirements you would like to see as part of a bachelorâs degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which boundaries? One can argue that financial boundaries are still significant, but academic boundaries are currently probably as low as we can go without significant improvement in K-12 education to make high school graduates college-ready.</p>
<p>With regards to boundaries of access, I am talking exclusively about financial boundaries (if education was free, then it would be easier to implement a curriculum that seeks to develop the individual over developing his technical skills). However, as a tangent, I disagree with your statement that the boundaries are as low as they can go for grade school. America is considered to have one of the worst grade school systems out of developed countries. Most people attribute this to educational standards, but if you remove blacks and hispanics form the data, America performs better than all European countries except for Finland and Sweden. This shows that America still has high racial and social boundaries in public schooling. </p>
<p>As for curriculum, I am not a sociologist or an educational psychologist, so my ideas are limited to theories and what I read about (as I am sure yours is, unless you are an Education student). However, based on what I have read from educational theorist and philosophers, the first two years at least should be devoted to liberal studies. Students should take intro classes into the major sciences (or nonscience-majors versions of those science classes, as is popular in schools with large cores, like Columbia and Chicago). They should also take sequences in the humanities and social sciences that draw from various fields as opposed to simple Sociology 101 or Anthro 101 classes. These courses will be developed through collaboration between various departments within a university. Though I am a strong supporter of Cores, I donât think a set core is necessary. Instead, students should take be able to pick different sequences. For example, perhaps I would need to take a philosophy or humanities sequence as part of my program, so instead of issuing one sequence, I could choose between the overarching theme of Western Ethics or The Rise and Fall of Western Political Thought. I think this would give everyone a strong foundation in the humanities, as well as allow diversity in thought within a student body. </p>
<p>After the liberal core is satisfied, students can branch off into their specialization. However, the specialization should not be preprofessional degrees, for at this early stage, students should be exploring the âwhy,â not the âhow.â (e.g. if you want to be an engineer, take it post-grad and study Math or Physics in your undergrad). This way, students can approach their specialties with regards to the Whole (e.g. Iâm studying environmental science, but I understand the difficulties in implementing policies because of my sociology background. Or I am studying political science, but I have a better BS meter" due to my background in philosophical logic).</p>
<p>My ideas really stem from being an educational perrennialist, which means I believe that all facts are fleeting, so it is better to study the universal foundations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That was not my claim. My claim was that K-12 is the limiting factor in sending more students to college, which is not in contradiction to what you are saying. Certainly, improvements in K-12 would increase the percentage of high school graduates who are college-ready. But there is little the colleges can do to increase access to college (from an academic standpoint) without improvements to K-12.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you consider understanding of science to be less important than understanding of the humanities? Non-major science courses are usually seen as a joke at most colleges, although only a few colleges require rigorous science courses for humanities majors (MIT, the military service academies, Caltech).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How would it be paid for if it were free to the student? Would you want to go to a lower cost model (larger classes, on-line classes, fewer assignments â but that may reduce teaching effectiveness)? Would you need incentives to prevent students from âwastingâ their educational opportunity (especially given that most college students are not all that interested in studying the liberal arts subjects that you want them to study)?</p>
<p>On a large scale, what you advocate in terms of eliminating the more obviously pre-professional bachelorâs degree majors would likely reduce educational attainment, in that many students are not interested in studying just liberal arts subjects for four years before studying their intended specialty. To the extent that they do not go to college at all, the knowledge of the liberal arts in society may actually be reduced, since even pre-professional majors typically include liberal arts breadth requirements.</p>
<p>Or sorry, I misunderstood what you said about grade school.</p>
<p>As for humanities vs. sciences, no I do not think that. I suppose it seems that way because I am arguing so strongly for the humanities, but that is because the humanities needs more help in being validated; I donât need to put that much effort in arguing for the sciences. Rest assured, I value them equally in the human experience. As for nonmajor-sciences, I know they are seen as a joke, just as history, womenâs studies, and sociology are seen as a joke. This is because of our culture that values technical knowledge and measurable success. Also, people can BS more easily about the humanities, because at the basic level, it is intuitive. Yet, on the more advanced levels, the humanities are more complex. The goal of teaching the humanities isnât to get everyone to pass the class, but to change the culture into one that values self-actualization over economic success, one in which people fully understand the complex interconnectedness between the sciences and humanities. Furthermore, humanities are seen as a joke in America also because of grade-inflation. Yes, grade inflation exists in most universities (exception being JHU, UChicago, Stanford, and as I assume you know based on your username, Berkeley), but it is significantly more prominent in the humanities because there is not as much competition (e.g. premed students are very competitive, so they hurt the curve in req classes). </p>
<p>In regards to your second post: This becomes more tricky to answer. I do plan to study in Public Policy, with a focus on education, so perhaps I will be more knowledgeable about this when I finish my studies. For payment, the most obvious source would be the government. As you know, we are spending an inordinate amount of money on defense, which is ridiculous. I donât think our nation needs that much defense, especially if we stop intervening in all these other countries (though I donât want this debate to shift to one about government spending). Also, I guess a purely free education system wouldnt be feasible. I thinking more in terms of low cost, like how (pre-CA deficit) the UC system was like 7k, or how in McGill (best university in Canada) tuition is only 2k. To get people to study the liberal arts, universities should institute a heavy Core (like Columbiaâs and Chicagoâs). Lastly, I donât think eliminating undergrad preprofessional degrees will lower college admissions. If we do it now, then it will since college is so expensive that the marginal cost of attending college exceeds the marginal benefit of getting a preprofessional degree in 6-8 years. However, if college were cheap, then the opportunity cost of attending college that long wouldnât be that high. </p>
<p>Now for educational quality: I think the level of educational quality would not reduce that much. Of course, not all colleges can have to dialectic system used by UChicago and Columbia (though I wish it could), but the current level of quality shouldnât decrease. If anything, reform to the university system should increase quality. Colleges now mistreat professors terribly, hiring most of them as adjuncts, paying them below minimum wage (the article is posted on the Should I Go Ivy? thread on the college search page). This is because colleges want to maximize the funding that goes towards research, since that is what our culture values. However, with a cultural shift to one that values the humanities, colleges in theory would emphasize teaching more, thus requiring them to hire full time staff and to be more rigorous in establishing teacher quality (as you know, a prestigious professor doesnt necessarily mean they are good teachers, which is why LACs are esteemed by those who value waht Iâm arguing for). Finally, though I agree this next point is baseless idealism, educating people in the liberal arts would instill in them a respect for the community, which will in turn make them more likely to give back. Andrew DelBanco wrote about this when he explained the culture of the âold rich,â like the Rockerfellarâs. During that period, the rich culture included noblesse oblige, so many of them felt a duty to give back to the community. Nowadays, the rich are more likely to value social darwinism, thus those who need help deserve what they get.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even heavy core requirements like those at MIT, Caltech, and the military service academies allow plenty of schedule space for all kinds of majors, including overtly pre-professional majors, as well as various liberal arts majors (some of which are mostly chosen for pre-professional reasons).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even if college were very low cost to the student in monetary terms, there would be a greater opportunity cost in terms of time spent if overtly pre-professional bachelorâs degree subjects were pushed to the post-bachelorâs degree level. In addition, if a student is not that interested in spending a full four years on required liberal arts courses (as opposed to the about half of that typically required as breadth requirements), s/he may see them as additional hurdles that entail risk of not passing and thus not qualifying for post-bachelorâs degree professional school. For oversubscribed professional schools like medical and top law schools, this âweedingâ may be something that they desire, but other subjects may end up losing students who choose not to go to college at all.</p>
<p>Another problem with pushing those subjects to the post-bachelorâs degree level is that it would reduce access to non-traditional students. Some have to attend part time because they have to work to support households and the like; extending the total amount of course work needed would likely deter some of them from starting, and reduce the completion rate, even if the monetary cost were low.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We probably remember the more charitable ones out of the robber barons of a century ago, since they started universities and foundations (Stanford, Vanderbilt, Carnegie, etc.) that ensured that their names lived on. But that does not mean that all of them back then were charitable, or that there are not charitable rich people today (e.g. Gates, Buffett). In addition, many would disagree with some of their business ethics while building their wealth, even if they did good when giving it away later.</p>
<p>Also, it does not necessarily take noblesse oblige for a super-rich person to care about the non-rich. Henry Ford paid factory workers well so that they could become customers of the companyâs products. And some probably see a society where the poor have lack of opportunity within the system to be one that is politically risky (greater support for far-left politics, rebellions, etc.).</p>
1 Like
<p>I agree with your point about noblesse oblige.</p>
<p>In regards to the core system, yes I know these âcore schoolsâ give a lot of room for freedom, so I propose extending their Core. UChicago used to require 20 classes in their core, which is pretty much 2 years of study (in fact, they used to have a major called liberal arts that was the core for all 4 years, in recognition of Hutchinâs views). They reduced the core to 15 because they wanted to attract more students (i.e. conform to the cultural emphasis on preprofessionalism). </p>
<p>In regards to your point about determent to go to college, I think the rewards of a professional degree will be enough of an incentive for people to go through all eight years. I would also like to argue that we can change the culture of society to value education for educationâs sake, and that the utility of self-cultivation will outweight economic utility. But alas, this point is incredibly idealistic and Iâm not sure if I believe itâs possible yet. Anyway, we would need data to prove either your point or mine. </p>
<p>But for argument sakes, letâs say you are right. If so, then professional schools would be a necessary component, which creates the problem of forming democratic citizens. Isnât that a justification for creating an intellectual elite that is socially conscious and that should make the decisions for the country? After all, I donât think it is acceptable to entrust national issues to narrow-minded specialists who donât fully understand the problems or the solutions.</p>
1 Like
<p>I want to go to a school full of nerds. Personal preference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Chicago does not offer many overtly pre-professional majors, other than perhaps music, theater, and visual arts, although many of its other majors are likely chosen for pre-professional reasons. In any case, even a 20 course core would still leave room for most or all of the majors it does offer (especially since some of a 20 course core would overlap with many of the majors).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[COLLEGE</a> EXPOSED: What Majors Are Most Popular, Highest Paying And Most Likely To Get You A Job - Business Insider](<a href=âCOLLEGE EXPOSED: What Majors Are Most Popular, Highest Paying and Most Likely to Get You a Jobâ>COLLEGE EXPOSED: What Majors Are Most Popular, Highest Paying and Most Likely to Get You a Job) lists mainly overtly pre-professional majors in the top 10 most popular majors. (Two liberal arts majors listed there, psychology and English literature, are likely chosen mainly for pre-professional reasons.)</p>
<p>Note that overly pre-professional majors are not necessarily well paid â see the list of the lowest paid majors. Presumably, students major in them because they find those subjects and potential careers interesting, despite the low pay levels.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Among politicians whom we entrust national issues to, lawyers are heavily over-represented. Lawyers currently follow the model you are proposing for all pre-professional majors â namely a bachelorâs degree (no specific major required, though certain majors like political science and English literature seem to be popular among pre-law students) followed by law school. But that does not seem to prevent them from being ânarrow-minded specialistsâ (in law and politics) who often know little about, or disregard in the face of lobbying or electoral considerations, things like economics, science, etc. which are relevant to the decisions that they make.</p>