“If Utility U. is concerned with value, Utopia U. is concerned with values.” …
Wow. That was a well-written article.
He would definitely make for a good philosophy professor…
The point of college exists only for those who wants to attend. There is no point if one does not want to attend.
I think this quote distorts the relationship between professional majors and the quality of the universities that offer them.
Some of our country’s most respected universities offer professional majors – and not just engineering. At least two of the Ivy League schools have undergraduate business programs. The University of Pennsylvania has a nursing school. Stanford has undergraduate programs in a variety of career-focused areas, such as Architectural Design and Product Design, as well as many variations on computer science. Northwestern has, among other things, an engineering school, a professional music program, and a major in Radio/Television/Film. Cornell has the majority of its students in professional majors, ranging from landscape architecture to food science to its best-in-the-nation program in hotel administration.
There has long been and will continue to be a tension between the goals of a liberal arts education and the goals of professional education, but the implication that professional majors are inferior programs offered only by inferior schools is just wrong.
@Marian Was it the use of the word “vocational” that you didn’t like?
@JustOneDad No, not that. It was the implication that such programs are only offered at the likes of DeVry and the University of Phoenix.
The cost of going to college is too high to dismiss the call to justify its value in dollars. As a tuition-payer, I place priority on “utility” over “utopia.” As long as there is utility in education to justify its cost, I welcome the utopia that may also derive from it as an added plus. I don’t think the reverse is equally true. Surprising, since I was myself a philosophy major.
The implication that cultural/social revolutions only comes from educated people doesn’t align with history. Lots of revolutionaries have had no formal education. The desire to improve society is rooted and motivated by real life experiences, whether you have a formal education or not. The intelligentsia has been known to hold back progress…
The point is to have enough of both. Sounds like a cop out, but it’s the only answer that makes sense.
On the utility side, a degree should provide a fundamental understanding of a field in a way that will be useful for finding jobs, and proof that you actually have those skills (i.e. a degree and a GPA). This part seems to be the more common emphasis these days.
On the “liberal arts” side you learn more widely applicable skills that are useful in life, such as philosophy, history, math, science, writing, etc. Useful but these days, less and less popular.
I will say that it is, in part, the fault of those who teach more obscure subjects that the liberal arts portion of an education has become less popular. No sane person will spend 4+ years in school, on top of tuition, if it doesn’t have any tangible benefits - nor should they. A good well-rounded education will teach people to use their skills in a better way, and perhaps to better appreciate why they have to learn what they learn in college. Trying to justify the need for the kinds of soft skills you learn from the philosophical/historical/humanities classes with arguments that might as well be described as mysticism… not a good idea. There is a definite need to protect and pass on culture and philosophy, but I’d say it is being done poorly.
For some students it is neither utility or values. it is more like 4 more years of taking courses to get A’s because that is what students are 'supposed to do", enrolling in courses they think they are “supposed to take” and playing out some version of Glee (the year after high school tho).
Much of it is forming relationships. With peers, teachers, mentors. Some of that is structured, a lot of it is not.
This may be on my mind because D has just entered a structured mentor (alumni) program at her college, or because I’ve read these two things recently:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-weinberg/thriving-in-college-the-p_b_8167578.html - the pres of Denison talking about the importance of forming relationships in college
http://www.questbridge.org/intro-letter - QB president’s letter to applicants which is also about the important of forming relationships, esp with mentors.
Such a good question. You have purists at either end of that spectrum, and a contingent in the middle who either hope their career focused kid gets a little liberal arts exposure or that their liberal arts kid takes some classes that will help them get a job in 4 years.
I was a poli sci major…then I went to law school. There is nothing wrong with professional training in undergrad!
How is Poli Sci professional training for law school? Law school attendees come from all kinds of majors. Poli Sci is certainly popular, but so is philosophy, history, and of course you get your contingent that come from the sciences/engineering. Just curious.
More on point, I thought this was an extremely well written article, but I don’t think it gave any particularly fresh insights. At least not to CC type folks. Admittedly that wasn’t who he was writing to, but I just didn’t think it brought anything new to the table. Still, for those that hadn’t really pondered the issue before, it is a great exposition on the topic.
I agree that the point is to have both - not one or the other (profession or general/liberal studies). There are ~40 courses to be taken during your standard 4 years of college. 20 courses in philosophy, arts, English Lit etc…does provide the opportunity for a lot of introspective and deep thinking. The High School years also give a well rounded, liberal arts education… In most of Europe, students have to select their profession tracks in HIGH SCHOOL - and its very difficult to switch later in college. Is America obsessed with the idea of liberal arts? Are professional studies students not open minded and deep thinking students, just because they’ve chosen a major that is reflective a career that they think interests them?
At what a college education costs these days - its hard to rationalize not having any "professional’ or vocational training in college. Who can afford to pay for grad school after college these exorbitant college costs?
The article was interesting - but a bit pompous. I agree with @marian where she pointed out that the author conveniently used non-prestigious colleges to represent Utility U, which is not reflective of the reality.
More common is about 32 courses in 8 semesters at 4 courses per semester. Students at quarter system schools will commonly take more courses (e.g. 48 courses in 12 quarters), but each course is “smaller”.
It is also likely that most students do not take half of their course work in humanities (like philosophy, art, and literature), since, even in the realm of liberal arts, there are the social studies and science subjects.
However, it is true that most pre-professional majors other than engineering tend to increase in popularity at less prestigious and less selective schools, while liberal arts majors tend to decrease in popularity at those schools.
Perhaps that may be because those employers who hire liberal arts majors for their presumed ability to think and learn (as opposed to specific skills learned in college) are more likely to strongly favor more prestigious and selective colleges, while those more willing to hire from less prestigious and selective colleges are more likely to be looking for specific majors or skills learned in college.
@fallenchemist I worded my point poorly. Poli sci isn’t really good professional training for anything! Which is why my next choices were shift manager at the Gap, or law school.
I was way on the liberal arts end:poli sci/philosophy. Not always the best for getting a job.
Well, I’m studying engineering.
Really, the only reason I’m doing it is to be able to say “Trust me, I’m an Engineer” once I graduate.
Would it be so wrong to study something like Computer Science but ultimately work as an Actuary?
You can’t work as an actuary without taking enough courses in that field. Do not assume things about different fields. Actuarial Science is found in the Business School and does include some advanced-beyond calculus- math courses (they struggle while the math majors excel in the same course from what I heard about one in each who were friends) but a computer science degree is not sufficient for knowing what an actuary needs to know. There often is overlap in coursework for different majors but there is a reason the majors are different- none are subsets of others.
There is a reason colleges and universities have breadth requirements- for all courses of study not just the liberal arts (btw- just got my annual UW Letters and Sciences mailing that discussed that field- it does include math and science, not just social studies and humanities). And learning about Descartes and other philosophers is not the only mark of an educated person- there are countless ways to do so.
Something that bothers me is the ability to get college credit for “life experiences”, especially it seems at some of those for profit schools that are job oriented. Part of an education is studying something outside of normal, every day living. This would include literature classes, science classes et al that add structure to a topic. I think it is great to have AP classes but I also think students that are able to take fewer courses outside their field of interest in college because they use AP courses to meet breadth requirements are missing the college versions- especially at the schools with much above the AP courses’ contents (I guess the same could be said for students who meet many requirements at a lesser school then finish the degree at a much more prestigious school- including flagship U’s).
Today’s world seems to emphasize the financial rewards of college instead of the education received. Hence all of the for profit schools. An RN has professional qualifications while the BSN degree includes the college education as well.
What IS the point of college? The answer varies with the person asked. Some are in college just to get a higher paying job. Some want the knowledge without regard to practical considerations. I suspect most want both. And- I’ll bet most high school seniors don’t really know why they’re planning on college except that it’s expected of them.
The article was well-written but I did not care for it. It had a lofty-sounding argument but I guess I am too “utilitarian” to like it. A college degree opens doors. Sure, the diploma hangs on the wall in a battered frame that was somewhat cool in 1995 but it is mine. I worked long hours in the library and I met with study groups. I grew up a little and I learned to set goals. I took classes I could care less about and ended up learning things I did not realize I wanted or needed to know. College exposed me to friends who were different in a safe space where it was ok to express different opinions. College also exposed me to perve professors who hit on all the college girls and acted as if they were a God doling out grades. I saw kids who did not care and kids who cared too much. It was a segue to law school but it was also important in helping me learn to be independent and to think on my own. College helps you get your first job and it teaches you where to look to find the answers. It also teaches you how to deal with a klepto roommate and a homesick one that visits her boyfriend every weekend. I think college still matters but it is so expensive that it is hard to justify a degree that does not produce a good salary immediately.