<p>I think I know what it is, but what is it exactly?</p>
<p>My take on it is that you take many wide-ranging classes (interdisciplinary) and have classes to teach you how to think</p>
<p>Is that right? Any better definitions?</p>
<p>I think you are pretty close, except for the interdisciplinary part. (The fields that the liberal arts include are wide-ranging, the individual classes will often not be.) But besides that, you are right in your understanding that the liberal arts are about learning how to think – as well as how to express thought – and the power implied by that.</p>
<p>Additionally, I assume you mean wide-ranging within a specific context. For example, philosophy is a liberal art, and I’d say mathematics is as well – in both cases because of their universal applications. Once applications become narrowed (legal studies, engineering), then you are outside of the pure liberal arts – though the lines of distinction are not always clear. Art, as in studio art, may or may not be one of the liberal arts.</p>
<p>USNWR tends to confuse the issue with their categories, implying that the “National Universities” are somehow not liberal arts colleges at their core, which, with some exceptions, they contrarily are.</p>
<p>Traditional Liberal Arts Education means you go to college to study more or less whatever for 4 years. You end up with an undefined degree in such areas as Psychology, Anthropology, History, or Economics. Yes you could get a degree in Math or Physics but you will always find a better program in those disciplines at a larger research institutions.</p>
<p>Idea that liberal arts education teaches you how to think is just silly, any type of learning teaches you how to think. If you really want to learn about critical thinking study Math and take some logic courses in Philosophy department. This is surely not what most Psych and Anthropology majors do.</p>
@anotherparent, I can’t disagree more with your post. My daughter was being recruited to row at UMichigan, and so I’ve seen you post on that forrum and understand that your boy is headed to school at UM. Congrats, it’s a great school.
But your description of the education one receives from a top LAC is, in my view, both irresponsible and inaccurate. There is nothing “silly” a about broadly-designed liberal education, at least at the undergraduate level.
I am lawyer and practice in corporate finance, and I work with some of the best accounting and finance minds in the S&P 100. There is no question in my mind that a narrowly-focused degree of study at the undergraduate level can be limiting. One of the very best accountants I know, a CAO at a Fortune 500 company, has a little trouble when you wander outside of his topic - accounting of course. He is a Ferrari when discussing the latest FASB pronouncements, but a Toyota Corolla when discussing policy. He’s also a terrible writer and communicator. I’ve known and worked with 100s like him. Finally, I’ll say that I can always spot the kids who come from good LACs - they produce a consistent product of bright, thoughtful and well-polished graduates who are ready for … whatever they chose to do. Large research institutions, except for perhaps the very, very best of them, produce a mix. I’ve met people who graduated from Berkeley and Michigan who are very impressive and I’ve met some really unimpressive folks. That’s just the truth. UVa, Vandy, Stanford, Duke and the Ivies might be another story, but they’re the exception to the rule.
I won’t bother too much with your comment about larger research institutions, which I take as patently absurd. My mother’s cousin is the head of the Physics Dep’t. at a large research university and was one of the youngest tenured professors in the history of Harvard. Worked on Nobel Prize winning teams on particle physics, super collider, CERNA, FERMI LAB, all that kind of stuff. Though he was educated at U Chicago (because at the time it was one of only a few prodigy programs - he was pulled from school in 8th grade), he will tell you his best graduate students consistently come from the top LACs. He is particularly impressed with the talent produced by Carlton for some reason. In any case, I’m sure he would flatly reject what you wrote, and this guy definitely qualifies as “smart” when it comes to academics. As a product of the University of Washington, a decent research institution in its own right, I have a little insight into what big schools offer myself.
So as for mine, I encourage them to study broadly as undergraduates and to narrow at the graduate school level. Kid likes business? Study Math or Econ. Engineering? Math or Physics. Do the trade school stuff later. There’s always time.
Oh, and I was Philosophy major, and consider what I do now.
I am not keen on a World filled with engineers and accountants but I am little tired of people selling liberal arts education as the only path to Nirvana. It is not, it is a sure way to underemployment for a large part of kids that pick this path.
Every school big or small will offer some basic broad education curriculum. You do not have to be able to recite Kubla Khan to have a broad education. I encouraged my son to read Camus, Kafka, and Dostoevsky the Summer after his 2nd year in HS. These works made a huge impression on me at that age and I hoped he would get the same benefit. That however does not mean I want him to spend 4 years in College studying comparative literature, If that was his passion I would not oppose it but …
I would much rather he be a semi literate accountant at Big Four than an International Relations major working as an administrative assistant in a non profit organization.
And consider your examples, you talk about Math and Physics as majors, or Economics, which is really studying math if you want to be able to do anything with Eco major. Yes that’s great, as long as you enter a graduate school afterwards. That is a very small slice of kids that go to LAC. This is not what LAC broad education ideals usually refer to. And for every one of the LAC that have a great program in natural sciences there are several large Universities that would have just as good or a better program.
Besides, helping guide your child in their choice of a college, thinking of PhD, is irresponsible. I want my child to be prepared for life after college, graduate or professional schools are something he needs to want himself. Of the 20+ million kids that enter college each year, 1800 or so get a PhD in Math. A third of those are in Statistics based fields (accounting equivalent for mathematicians).
Top LACs attract some very talented kids, those kids can make their way through any school and continue on at best graduate/professional programs. Vast majority are unfortunately stuck with degrees that are not going to get them ready for life after college.
I was a math major.
Somehow you missed by point.
A few things. One, “going to graduate school” doesn’t mean “PhD or bust.” That’s just a red herring. The % of LAC kids who enter graduate school, more reasonably defined, is quite high. And when they get there, they tend to do very well. This is one reason why graduate schools like LAC kids in the applicant pool. Look up Boalt’s list of schools in rank order by rigor. SWAT is at the top, and there are a lot of LACs high on the list.
My examples were just that: examples. I know a Middlebury guy who studied Geography and French, and does research consulting for large companies now and is quite successful. I also know 1,000 people who graduated from the UW Business school who are selling insurance, which is something that does not require special training. We all have examples. I think you tend to oversimplify the outcomes to make your point. I, myself, just don’t know a lot Amherst people who are working in coffee shops … not for very long anyway. I know a few econ. majors from the University of Washington who are leading white water rafting excursions or coaching youth sports while they “figure out what they want to do.”
We can agree to disagree. If money is tight, then that may be a good reason for someone to push their kid into vocational training so that they can get off the family budget sooner. If a family can afford it, educating their kid broadly in the traditional sense has great long-term outcomes for many/most in my own subjective view. Of course you can major in math, physics or whatever at a large research university, and you can do it just as well at a good LAC. The difference is in quality control. At large State U, a % of your classmates will not be great students. At a good LAC, they almost all are. We learn a lot from our peers, so the quality of your peers should matter. In so many aspects of our life, we live by mantras such as “you get what you pay for” and we intuitively believe that more attention is better than less. Nobody ever advocates for larger class sizes at the pre-college level - in fact we’re always trying to make it go the other direction. Then, all of a sudden, we send our kids to college, and it’s not going to matter at all that they’re sitting on the steps of an 800 seat auditorium watching the lecture on a screen.
And reading “The Idiot” on your own is a poor substitute for a well taught comp. lit course. Based on that logic, none of us needs to go to college at all. It’s the guidance from a good prof. who can see you and requires you to participate and pushes you to do more than you thought you could do. It’s the experience of listening to others do the same, and then engaging in conversation after class … often with the professor. This is part of what makes education worth pursuing, and is one of many aspects of the educational experience that the LACs do very well. There’s a reason why firms like Goldman recruit so heavily at the LACs.
Finally, I"ll just say this to your comment about the accountant. The kid with a degree in Spanish from Middlebury will be able to make him or herself an accountant quite easily and quickly if that’s what they want to wind up doing, and I firmly believe that in the long run he or she will be a better senior accountant, CAO, CFO, etc. etc. than the one who jumped in on day one and focused on that stuff. The rules change, because the rules come from policy, and policy changes because policy comes from theory, and theory changes to meet the needs of an ever changing reality. People who can think affect theory and policy. People who merely apply the rules are prisoners to those who write them.
Irresponsible, to me, is merely sending your kids to trade school and wishing them well. Like it or not, a well-conceived education pursued in an environment that pushes you to be more than you thought you could be is the best gift you can give your child. They can become plumbers later on w/o much effort. I see it every day.