4 ms·
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 mos
by 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.