In Defense of Liberal Arts Education

Post Reply New Topic

Here's something I hate: I hate it when people say "Liberal arts majors are failures!" or "Liberal arts education is worthless!"

Liberal arts education is important because it is subversive. You learn about history in liberal arts education and you can't understand politics without history. Liberal arts education is useful if you know someone who has too much political power.

Your perching to the converted about that.

There's an increase of liberal arts courses in UK universities over the last years.
(See: Liberal arts offer something completely different, The Guardian, 19 January 2010)

Oh for the hates of artes liberales and studia humanitatis, the following:

I also totally disagree with the people who think that gym class is bad. How else are young homosexuals going to discover that they are homosexual?

Could someone define "Liberal arts" for me? (the Wiki page is a mess). Is it the equivalent to the concept of Humanities?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities

^^^

Its the subjects that were thought in classical antiquity to be considered essential for a free person to know in order to take an active part in civic life. It formed the medieval Western university curriculum, Trivium and Quadrivium. The modern definition of liberal arts has the issue of what academic disciplines to class as a liberal art. The best definition for it is this: it is an educational curriculum of not professional, vocational, or technical matters.

Short answer, No. The Humanities are the non-empirical study of the human condition, the liberal arts are a broader knowledge of academic subjects that the Humanities are just a part of the curriculum. In the seven liberal arts of the medieval period: arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy in the Quadrivum!

Here in Quebec the opponents of the student movement often jumped on the fact that the most militant of the students as well as their leaders tended to be "soft sciences" students or arts students and so forth, that these were the ones driving the strike, and that the more 'practical' people did not. In my opinion, that such people were the ones leading the strike, leading the militancy, is proof of the necessity of such education. They are actually able to criticise society, to criticise the politics, to work to keep it from veering into the abyss.

In the medieval western university, the seven liberal arts were grammar, rhetoric, and logic (the trivium); and geometry, arithmetic, music, and astronomy (the quadrivium).

In modern colleges and universities, the liberal arts include the study of literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science; and are aimed at imparting general knowledge and developing general intellectual capacities, in contrast to a professional, vocational, or technical curriculum ("Applied Sciences"); which tend to focus on specialization and a deeper understanding of a narrower range of subjects.

Thus, we have Liberal Arts graduates who know a little about a lot, and Applied Sciences graduates who know a lot about a little.

Artistic expression is very important and should be required. However, I think there should be less of a stressor of deadlines in art classes in public schooling. I have noticed it annoying people starting artwork that may otherwise enjoy it. This saddens me, because we have too much technology and not enough self-expression these days. Most teenagers only have trolling for self-expression it seems, and that is inherently destructive.

Fnord, you seem annoyed by that...I have a theory to improve the education systems you might find interesting. Do you think that apprenticeships would be useful as an alternative to public schooling? I think it would simultaneously lower unemployment while giving those with intense abilities in one particular area (such as here) a good place to prove themselves able to make good products in the real world. Are such proofs of ability relevant in job interviews, however? That may sway my opinion.

I think the best part about liberal arts is it has a philosophy like nothing else in school, and one that they fear: do not just read or hear; question what you read or hear and form your own opinion.

I have a "liberal arts" degree because of chronic indecisiveness.

And, while I can't invent an engine, I've done fairly well with helping to put busted airplanes back in working order.

The Liberal Arts lie at the very root of what all academia exists to do: to classify, store and transfer knowledge. That is no way diminishes the importance of the other disciplines in the humanities, the social sciences and the sciences. But at its most fundamental, human knowledge cannot exist and grow without the liberal arts to provide the framework within which that can take place. How can any engineer function without arithmetic, geometry and logic? How can any engineer transmit his knowledge to others without grammar and rhetoric?

To my way of thinking, many undergraduate programs in universities have relegated themselves to nothing more than vocational training. We create a curriculum that is focussed on preparing the student for specific skills in a specific occupation, rather than creating a well rounded intellect. Not that those skills aren't important--but do they really belong in a university curriculum? Are not colleges (not in the American sense of the word) better institutions in which to train accountants, nurses, doctors, dentists, engineers and all manner of other highly skilled but narrowly focussed professionals?

When I look at potential employees, I value five undergraduate degrees beyond all others: Economics, English, Mathematics, Philosophy and Physics.

Every one of these disciplines requires exceptional analytical skills. Some of language, others of patterns, but analysis nonetheless. Each requires a solid command of logic and structure. And each requires the ability to read, to understand, to communicate and to be understood. And finally, each requires the ability to think in the abstract.

Now, that's not to say that, for example, Chemistry is bad. (I have one of those degrees, too.) But Chemistry is is far more about observation and reporting than it is about abstraction and analysis. Medicine and Law were both wonderful disciplines to study--but they are far more about professional training than they are about learning a new way of thinking (although each comes close in their need for analytical rigour).

The first of my four degrees is the ultimate liberal arts degree: mathematics, which encompasses all four disciplines of the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy), and picks up logic from the trivium. I am lucky to have picked up grammar and rhetoric along the way. And I firmly believe that I owe all of my later success to the breadth of my secondary and undergraduate education.

I think art and science should coexist and get equal funding. Both are useful in different ways, why can't more people see that?