It's a curious choice to call the liberal arts "they are only cheating themselves" attitude old-school. One could debate whether the certificate-motivated or cu

It's a curious choice to call the liberal arts "they are only cheating themselves" attitude old-school. One could debate whether the certificate-motivated or culture-motivated type of university came first. I suspect that advanced hunter-gatherer and early agricultural societies viewed education more as purely motivated by culture: basic useful life skills can be passed on informally within communities or families (so formal education is not strictly necessary for survival), and typical tasks would unlikely to be a risk to others if done incorrectly (making certificates valueless). However, the modern Western university could arguably originate from the Church (and Jewish institutions before that), in which the education would surely have been considered necessary to correctly interpret texts. In that context, the certificate is a reassurance to the general, uneducated public that they are being led by qualified spiritual leaders (the clergy). Once you get to the Renaissance and towards the Enlightenment era, it seems as if the increasingly secular focus of education yet again reduces the necessity of certificates and makes broad, 'polymathematic' science and culture more important. The certificates only become important in secular life again once the apprenticeship system breaks down in the late 19th century. Finally, the idea of a 'liberal arts' course seems to be a reaction to keep the spirit of the Enlightenment alive despite ubiquitous industrialisation, so in this light is both an old school and a new school of though, depending on how you look at it! These are my thoughts from a very British perspective, so I would be curious to know whether that fits with views from other cultures, such as East Asian or predominantly Catholic ones.