4 ms·

I completely disagree. If anything we are under-specialized. We are pumping out liberal arts grads who have no skills that can pay back their loans. We have

by wdewind 13y ago

I completely disagree. If anything we are under-specialized. We are pumping out liberal arts grads who have no skills that can pay back their loans. We have created a culture of middle managers without people to manage.

jckt 13y ago
I used to believe this under-specialisation was a good thing. That a more general college education was better. But as I see it now, a liberal education has mostly just given us liberally educated people, but not liberal learners. I'd say, if you think yourself intellectually motivated, eager to learn things outside your field already, then paradoxically you should specialise, for this innate drive to learn will not perish after uni, and IMO unlikely to be affected in any way by a liberal arts environment. Rather, go to someplace more focused, and if you are not American, perhaps consider other great schools in places that are not the USA. Big money, big technology may be in the USA, but your average undergrad really doesn't need too much of that. (Of course, America has the best schools. If you're going to attend one of those, by all means, and work hard!)
- calinet6 13y ago
  "a liberal education has mostly just given us liberally educated people, but not liberal learners." I would argue this is a specific problem, and not the intention or desired result of a Liberal Arts education. The intention is as this article states: to learn how to think correctly across boundaries of fields and within them. To solve problems better, not just be more general. Of course this is sort of a No True Scotsman, but arguably any kind of education isn't working if it's not creating a positive impact on the value and ability of the person being educated.
kijin 13y ago
Is that a problem with the idea of liberal arts in particular, or a problem with higher education in general that happens to manifest itself most obviously in liberal arts graduates? In other words, is liberal arts a hopeless idea in the first place, or is it simply the way that American colleges teach it that is problematic? There are plenty of colleges that offer a B.S. in computer science, for example, whose graduates can't pass the fizzbuzz test. Meanwhile, hundreds of art history majors go on to have productive careers. Specialization is orthogonal to competence.
- learc83 13y ago
  >Specialization is orthogonal to competence. Doesn't follow from >There are plenty of colleges that offer a B.S. in computer science, for example, whose graduates can't pass the fizzbuzz test. Meanwhile, hundreds of art history majors go on to have productive careers. Look at employment rates for Art History Majors vs. CS majors.
  - deathcakes 13y ago
    Look at job opportunities for the two. Popularity of field is in no way linked to competence of indivduals practising in said field.
kemiller 13y ago
We are pumping out liberal arts grads only in the sense of people having degrees. Most of them are not nearly so rigorously grounded as the kids taking the baccalaureate.
- gottasayit 13y ago
  A degree in philosophy doesn't go far in grounding anyone. Philosophy is the ultimate in mental masturbation degrees. With expertise in philosophy, you can argue at great length without saying anything meaningful about reality. Neil DeGrasse Tyson makes a nice point about philosophy's role in the current world of Science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dGenk99YDwY#t=3768s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...
subsystem 13y ago
Wouldn't that be the same as saying that liberal art grads are too specialized in liberal arts?
tonfa 13y ago
Remember we're talking about high school (age 17-18), college is a different matter (and very few people study philosophy in college/universities in France).
vsbuffalo 13y ago
These are two different problems. I believe your complaint is people are under-specialized in useful skills. For example, if someone was highly-specialized in middle eastern poetry during a small 30 year period, they would likely still not be able to pay back loans. In the sciences, people are over-specialized. I run into scientists frequently who are quite smart, but lack understanding of statistics, math, causality, and philosophy of science. This might have been acceptable back in days before large data sets, but now the way we do science has changed considerably, and scientists are largely unaware of the philosophical implications of this.
astine 13y ago
"We are pumping out liberal arts grads " You mean humanities graduates. The Liberal Arts is not about making better managers, that's what an MBA is for, the liberal arts is about exposing students to a wider variety of fields. We have way too many people majoring in fields like history or literature, without corresponding educations in math and science for them to be truly "liberally educated." The point of education is only partly to prepare individuals for a specific career. (Technically, that's not even education, but rather "career training.") The other part is to give them the intellectual tools they need to be parts of society, not just as good worker drones, but as citizens and fully formed individuals. This is something the liberal arts does attempt to address, while specialized training does not. Having a strong knowledge of history really helps when it comes to voting, for example. Even from a career preparation standpoint, however, there is a point to liberal, or at least multidisciplinary, education. That is having an understanding of multiple fields makes it much simpler for one to understand how one field affects another. Just about anyone with a CS degree can write software to a spec but someone with knowledge about both CS and accounting might actually understand the spec when it comes to accounting software and anticipate the needs of clients. All that said, one really needs to differentiate between the liberal arts and the humanities. The humanities are set of disciplines such as history, philosophy, art, etc. which alone, have limited practical use but have a long tradition of being studied in western society. The liberal arts is an approach to education that seeks broad exposure, including the humanities but also including disciplines such as math and science. This term dates back to the reign of Charlemagne, FWIW.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Well, for those of us who are specialized, perhaps something like philosophy would be a valuable addition? A combination of very high-level and very low-level skills can compliment each other well.
tommorris 13y ago
I have a philosophy degree (BA and MA). I work as a software developer. Not to brag, but I could wipe out my student loan debt in three months of gross earnings. Of course, running in parallel to doing my degree, I spent an enormous amount of time coding, going to tech/geek events, reading documentation and so on. I value my formal education. It's taught me to think widely about a wide range of things including the nature of language, the basis for politics and the state, religion and the good life. (Plus, a thorough knowledge of Kierkegaard is kind of sexy to the sort of person I'd want as a boyfriend.)
saraid216 13y ago
Yeah. Where, oh where, have all the slaves gone? Why, back in the day, you could get yourself a whip and some shackles and you'd be set for life. Now these goddamn lowlifes have choices and the law agrees with them. Why, they can walk off a job for mistreatment and still be paid for it! WELFARE. Big, crowding, intrusive government getting all up in my business. I don't pay you trash to think. I pay you to work at scale!

by wdewind 13y ago

jckt 13y ago

I used to believe this under-specialisation was a good thing. That a more general college education was better. But as I see it now, a liberal education has mostly just given us liberally educated people, but not liberal learners. I'd say, if you think yourself intellectually motivated, eager to learn things outside your field already, then paradoxically you should specialise, for this innate drive to learn will not perish after uni, and IMO unlikely to be affected in any way by a liberal arts environment. Rather, go to someplace more focused, and if you are not American, perhaps consider other great schools in places that are not the USA. Big money, big technology may be in the USA, but your average undergrad really doesn't need too much of that. (Of course, America has the best schools. If you're going to attend one of those, by all means, and work hard!)

calinet6 13y ago
"a liberal education has mostly just given us liberally educated people, but not liberal learners." I would argue this is a specific problem, and not the intention or desired result of a Liberal Arts education. The intention is as this article states: to learn how to think correctly across boundaries of fields and within them. To solve problems better, not just be more general. Of course this is sort of a No True Scotsman, but arguably any kind of education isn't working if it's not creating a positive impact on the value and ability of the person being educated.

kijin 13y ago

Is that a problem with the idea of liberal arts in particular, or a problem with higher education in general that happens to manifest itself most obviously in liberal arts graduates? In other words, is liberal arts a hopeless idea in the first place, or is it simply the way that American colleges teach it that is problematic? There are plenty of colleges that offer a B.S. in computer science, for example, whose graduates can't pass the fizzbuzz test. Meanwhile, hundreds of art history majors go on to have productive careers. Specialization is orthogonal to competence.

learc83 13y ago
>Specialization is orthogonal to competence. Doesn't follow from >There are plenty of colleges that offer a B.S. in computer science, for example, whose graduates can't pass the fizzbuzz test. Meanwhile, hundreds of art history majors go on to have productive careers. Look at employment rates for Art History Majors vs. CS majors.
- deathcakes 13y ago
  Look at job opportunities for the two. Popularity of field is in no way linked to competence of indivduals practising in said field.

kemiller 13y ago

We are pumping out liberal arts grads only in the sense of people having degrees. Most of them are not nearly so rigorously grounded as the kids taking the baccalaureate.

gottasayit 13y ago
A degree in philosophy doesn't go far in grounding anyone. Philosophy is the ultimate in mental masturbation degrees. With expertise in philosophy, you can argue at great length without saying anything meaningful about reality. Neil DeGrasse Tyson makes a nice point about philosophy's role in the current world of Science: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=dGenk99YDwY#t=3768s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...

subsystem 13y ago

Wouldn't that be the same as saying that liberal art grads are too specialized in liberal arts?

tonfa 13y ago

Remember we're talking about high school (age 17-18), college is a different matter (and very few people study philosophy in college/universities in France).

vsbuffalo 13y ago

These are two different problems. I believe your complaint is people are under-specialized in useful skills. For example, if someone was highly-specialized in middle eastern poetry during a small 30 year period, they would likely still not be able to pay back loans. In the sciences, people are over-specialized. I run into scientists frequently who are quite smart, but lack understanding of statistics, math, causality, and philosophy of science. This might have been acceptable back in days before large data sets, but now the way we do science has changed considerably, and scientists are largely unaware of the philosophical implications of this.

astine 13y ago

"We are pumping out liberal arts grads " You mean humanities graduates. The Liberal Arts is not about making better managers, that's what an MBA is for, the liberal arts is about exposing students to a wider variety of fields. We have way too many people majoring in fields like history or literature, without corresponding educations in math and science for them to be truly "liberally educated." The point of education is only partly to prepare individuals for a specific career. (Technically, that's not even education, but rather "career training.") The other part is to give them the intellectual tools they need to be parts of society, not just as good worker drones, but as citizens and fully formed individuals. This is something the liberal arts does attempt to address, while specialized training does not. Having a strong knowledge of history really helps when it comes to voting, for example. Even from a career preparation standpoint, however, there is a point to liberal, or at least multidisciplinary, education. That is having an understanding of multiple fields makes it much simpler for one to understand how one field affects another. Just about anyone with a CS degree can write software to a spec but someone with knowledge about both CS and accounting might actually understand the spec when it comes to accounting software and anticipate the needs of clients. All that said, one really needs to differentiate between the liberal arts and the humanities. The humanities are set of disciplines such as history, philosophy, art, etc. which alone, have limited practical use but have a long tradition of being studied in western society. The liberal arts is an approach to education that seeks broad exposure, including the humanities but also including disciplines such as math and science. This term dates back to the reign of Charlemagne, FWIW.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Well, for those of us who are specialized, perhaps something like philosophy would be a valuable addition? A combination of very high-level and very low-level skills can compliment each other well.

tommorris 13y ago

I have a philosophy degree (BA and MA). I work as a software developer. Not to brag, but I could wipe out my student loan debt in three months of gross earnings. Of course, running in parallel to doing my degree, I spent an enormous amount of time coding, going to tech/geek events, reading documentation and so on. I value my formal education. It's taught me to think widely about a wide range of things including the nature of language, the basis for politics and the state, religion and the good life. (Plus, a thorough knowledge of Kierkegaard is kind of sexy to the sort of person I'd want as a boyfriend.)

saraid216 13y ago

Yeah. Where, oh where, have all the slaves gone? Why, back in the day, you could get yourself a whip and some shackles and you'd be set for life. Now these goddamn lowlifes have choices and the law agrees with them. Why, they can walk off a job for mistreatment and still be paid for it! WELFARE. Big, crowding, intrusive government getting all up in my business. I don't pay you trash to think. I pay you to work at scale!