<p>
</p>
<p>Nevertheless, to achieve all the objectives listed on the Dean’s letter you linked (i.e. work on your speaking and writing, understand difference among cultures, learn what it means to study the past, experience scientific inquiry, develop a facility with symbolic languages, etc.), one would probably have to study modern languages, social sciences, history, natural sciences, arts, and mathematics simultaneously, in other words, follow an exceptionally broad curriculum !</p>
<p>Of course, although mastering all those subjects was not uncommon in classical Greece or even in the early modern age, it is no longer a feasible goal today with the increasing specialization both in science and humanities disciplines and the exponential growth in content. In other words, it is quite difficult for someone to be simultaneously an accomplished historian, social scientist, mathematician, natural scientist, and artist. In a “well-rounded” “core liberal arts” curriculum as we see in US universities and, especially LACs, those subjects would probably be studied only superficially, which, quite frankly, could be done at the High School Level instead.</p>
<p>Perhaps it would make more sense then to go back to Modestmelody’s original concept that, in order to acquire broader analytical, verbal, and quantitative skills, one does not have necessarily to study n to the n different subjects in completely different areas, but rather perhaps only study a few key subjects properly (meaning also in depth). Again, however, that’s not what the letter from Brown’s Dean implies.</p>