One of the best explanations of value of the liberal arts came, for me, from a professor who explained to us twenty-somethings that the "liberal" arts are not "politically liberal" but the arts of being a free (liber) person... rather than a slave. He told us that in ancient times, slaves were often very well educated in accounting and other practical skills, so that they could be useful to their masters, but that the masters, the free people, had access to an education that prepared one to "captain one's ship of life," attain perspective and wisdom and a sense of beauty, to examine life and thereby make it worth living, all that wonderful stuff. It made an impact, I still remember it.
Also, small quibble, but I think "the wise man by the river" is actually the "smug dick by the river" -- his lesson may or may not have been "wise," but imparting wisdom hardly seems like the defining motivation of his allegorical actions. :D
What a great memory. Your professor must have been influenced by William Cronon's "Only Connect," which you've summarized beautifully. And how sad that many students are now so burdened by debt that they feel they must amass and utilize practical skills in service of corporate masters.
I quite take your quibble to heart. Ironically, that parable was meant to explain Adrienne Rich's "Claiming an Education" to an audience that included a lot of student athletes. Many of them bristled at Rich's feminist message, and I was often trying to draw out the universal principle of choosing to act rather than allowing oneself to be acted upon. So the smug dick by the river was trying to do that work. But you're probably right that I could have found a better illustration! :)
Excellent article. Back in the dark ages when I was an undergrad, my small, state school had what was called the Liberal Arts Core Curriculum, two years of courses in the Humanities, Arts, Math, and Sciences, before students even entered courses in their major.
Yes, the gnashing of teeth from the undergrads occurred, the comments about "why do I have to take this course" and so forth. But a funny thing happened on the way to the diploma: Students started enjoying these courses, many changing their majors to reflect the favorite course they took in the curriculum. In addition, discussions on campus arose regarding these courses.
Did these courses make the students better people? I'm not sure. Better future career workers? Again, I can't say. What these courses did was enhance the college experience. For me and many of my friends, that was enough.
Thanks, Tim. This was once the rationale for a distributional core: that it gave students a chance to consider disciplines they would not have otherwise encountered, and that the unique synthesis that each student found between these disparate experiences was richer than more specialized study would have been. I typically found it possible, over a 15-week semester, to convince students that what we were doing was worthwhile, no matter their major.
I do sympathize though with the extreme financial anxiety that many students bring to their education these days. And I understand if "enhance the college experience" is not enough of a rationale for them. I don't know anything about your debt burden and wouldn't ask you to reveal it, but I think that the case for these broad spectrum requirements will only make sense to a majority of people when/if college is more affordable. Do you agree?
Yep, I posted this on another article here, but I don't think it went through. The ramping up of tuition some 10 times or more the rate of inflation has made it near-impossible for students to try out majors or courses. Colleges did react to the reduction of state support, but cranking up admin positions and salaries with higher tuition money didn't win my approval.
My tuition and rent was quite cheap and with a Pell Grant, college didn't cost me much. Now no way does a Pell Grant or even multiple roommates in an apartment solve the brutal price tag. Not sure why colleges stay on this track.
It seems, increasingly, that affordability might be the Occam's Razor explanation for a raft of woes in higher ed. I do understand some of the challenges, though. I have no direct experience with this, but I can imagine it would be challenging to finance dormitory facilities that both affordable to low-income students and comfortable to high-income students. At my little college, many students traded down significantly for things like gymnasiums, compared to what they had at their much larger high schools (which were not tuition dependent). So there was always a set of moving "quality of life" goalposts that the college was trying to hit. There were a lot fewer students seeking counseling services on campus when I was an undergraduate, and even though the stigma against seeking such care wasn't good, I think it's fair to say that my generation was quite a bit more resilient than many of my recent students. If a college is responsible for providing wellness services for students, then there are staffing and facility needs that can only drive up tuition.
The affordability question really is a Gordian knot, the more closely one examines it. But as you say, if a college education is associated with extreme financial risk, then experimentation and openness to experiences that don't have clear practical outcomes can only seem like they increase that risk.
I really enjoyed this piece, Joshua!
One of the best explanations of value of the liberal arts came, for me, from a professor who explained to us twenty-somethings that the "liberal" arts are not "politically liberal" but the arts of being a free (liber) person... rather than a slave. He told us that in ancient times, slaves were often very well educated in accounting and other practical skills, so that they could be useful to their masters, but that the masters, the free people, had access to an education that prepared one to "captain one's ship of life," attain perspective and wisdom and a sense of beauty, to examine life and thereby make it worth living, all that wonderful stuff. It made an impact, I still remember it.
Also, small quibble, but I think "the wise man by the river" is actually the "smug dick by the river" -- his lesson may or may not have been "wise," but imparting wisdom hardly seems like the defining motivation of his allegorical actions. :D
What a great memory. Your professor must have been influenced by William Cronon's "Only Connect," which you've summarized beautifully. And how sad that many students are now so burdened by debt that they feel they must amass and utilize practical skills in service of corporate masters.
I quite take your quibble to heart. Ironically, that parable was meant to explain Adrienne Rich's "Claiming an Education" to an audience that included a lot of student athletes. Many of them bristled at Rich's feminist message, and I was often trying to draw out the universal principle of choosing to act rather than allowing oneself to be acted upon. So the smug dick by the river was trying to do that work. But you're probably right that I could have found a better illustration! :)
Excellent article. Back in the dark ages when I was an undergrad, my small, state school had what was called the Liberal Arts Core Curriculum, two years of courses in the Humanities, Arts, Math, and Sciences, before students even entered courses in their major.
Yes, the gnashing of teeth from the undergrads occurred, the comments about "why do I have to take this course" and so forth. But a funny thing happened on the way to the diploma: Students started enjoying these courses, many changing their majors to reflect the favorite course they took in the curriculum. In addition, discussions on campus arose regarding these courses.
Did these courses make the students better people? I'm not sure. Better future career workers? Again, I can't say. What these courses did was enhance the college experience. For me and many of my friends, that was enough.
Thanks, Tim. This was once the rationale for a distributional core: that it gave students a chance to consider disciplines they would not have otherwise encountered, and that the unique synthesis that each student found between these disparate experiences was richer than more specialized study would have been. I typically found it possible, over a 15-week semester, to convince students that what we were doing was worthwhile, no matter their major.
I do sympathize though with the extreme financial anxiety that many students bring to their education these days. And I understand if "enhance the college experience" is not enough of a rationale for them. I don't know anything about your debt burden and wouldn't ask you to reveal it, but I think that the case for these broad spectrum requirements will only make sense to a majority of people when/if college is more affordable. Do you agree?
Yep, I posted this on another article here, but I don't think it went through. The ramping up of tuition some 10 times or more the rate of inflation has made it near-impossible for students to try out majors or courses. Colleges did react to the reduction of state support, but cranking up admin positions and salaries with higher tuition money didn't win my approval.
My tuition and rent was quite cheap and with a Pell Grant, college didn't cost me much. Now no way does a Pell Grant or even multiple roommates in an apartment solve the brutal price tag. Not sure why colleges stay on this track.
It seems, increasingly, that affordability might be the Occam's Razor explanation for a raft of woes in higher ed. I do understand some of the challenges, though. I have no direct experience with this, but I can imagine it would be challenging to finance dormitory facilities that both affordable to low-income students and comfortable to high-income students. At my little college, many students traded down significantly for things like gymnasiums, compared to what they had at their much larger high schools (which were not tuition dependent). So there was always a set of moving "quality of life" goalposts that the college was trying to hit. There were a lot fewer students seeking counseling services on campus when I was an undergraduate, and even though the stigma against seeking such care wasn't good, I think it's fair to say that my generation was quite a bit more resilient than many of my recent students. If a college is responsible for providing wellness services for students, then there are staffing and facility needs that can only drive up tuition.
The affordability question really is a Gordian knot, the more closely one examines it. But as you say, if a college education is associated with extreme financial risk, then experimentation and openness to experiences that don't have clear practical outcomes can only seem like they increase that risk.