
The Day the Purpose of College Changed - brudgers
http://chronicle.com/article/The-Day-the-Purpose-of-College/151359/
======
didgeoridoo
I would love it if most liberal arts institutions "fostered a broad set of
knowledge and skills whose value is not always immediately apparent." But they
generally don't, at least not anymore.

The erosion of standards in the humanities and the promotion of
grievance/identity "studies" have led to academic environments based on
groupthink and insulation from unapproved ideas. And that's among the
"intellectuals"! Many of the rest of the students are just getting wasted
every night and taking "gut" courses with open-book multiple-choice exams.

It's mostly "hard science" programs like engineering and math that have
avoided this fate. Probably because it doesn't matter what you "feel" if your
code won't compile.

Edit: Sorry, to be clear this is coming from an American perspective. I have
no idea what liberal education is like in other countries, but I have to
imagine it can't be nearly as bad.

~~~
benbreen
I really have to disagree with one aspect of this comment ("the erosion of
standards in the humanities.") Perhaps that's to be expected because I'm an
academic who works in the humanities. But my point is a simple one and it's
something that you can test out yourself: try comparing a half dozen academic
history article written in, say, 1950, to a half dozen from 2015. I predict
that, on average, a 2015 article will feature a far more robust evidence base,
a broader range of sources, a richer historiography, and more rigorous
language training than its counterpart from the 1940s, 50s or 60s. In my
experience there is simply no comparison. In part this is because digitized
texts make it so much easier to access a wide range of sources, but it also
has to do with an increase in standards of graduate education. Getting a PhD
in a field like history used to be an old boys club based on connections and
family money. It certainly still retains some of those trappings today, but I
think there can be no question that academic training today is far more
rigorous (and entering graduate school or getting an article accepted more
competitive) than it was in decades past.

I don't really take issue with the comments about students and multiple choice
exams, though. The way we teach the humanities in the US leaves a lot to be
desired.

~~~
candu
I'd say that the palpable difference in critical reasoning capacity between
the two ancestor comments speaks volumes.

~~~
mistermann
Or, maybe they're both right.

------
roneesh
I don't understand why jobs and curiosity have to be so starkly opposed.

I studied mechanical engineering, and I consider that a degree for anyone
who's curious about the world. If you want to have a strong foundation to peel
back the layers of existence, you really can't do much better.

I think one thing we sorely lack in modern education is a strong minor system.
Students could easily get their well-roundedness by obtaining minors in
subjects that interest them, and if the subjects are quite different from a
job getting major, then all the better. I believe Paul Graham would say this
is how startups happen.

Furthermore we need a strong system of technical minors as well. If a bootcamp
in SF can get you an entry-level dev job, then why shouldn't a minor in CS
train you as a web developer? Or why couldn't a sociologist minor in UX?

~~~
ggchappell
> I don't understand why jobs and curiosity have to be so starkly opposed.

One word: money.

> I studied mechanical engineering, and I consider that a degree for anyone
> who's curious about the world. If you want to have a strong foundation to
> peel back the layers of existence, you really can't do much better.

Certainly. But to do that, you need to spend four years or more being a
financial liability rather than an asset. The standard justification these
days is that you'll be more of an asset when you're done, because you're going
to get a job as a mechanical engineer.

Or we could fall back to an older way of thinking, and say that everyone ought
to spend four years being intellectually challenged. And by "everyone" we mean
rich guys, because they're the ones that can afford it, and, really, we don't
much care about anyone else.

But in a truly egalitarian society, we care about everyone. So that kind of
reasoning won't do. Which leaves us with the question of who is going to pay
for that foundation to peel back the layers of existence, and what motivation
they have to cough up the money.

~~~
deciplex
> Which leaves us with the question of who is going to pay for that foundation
> to peel back the layers of existence, and what motivation they have to cough
> up the money.

Presumably it would have to be the same motivation we had to do public
education in the first place: Democracy can't work if the electorate isn't
educated.

Now, if that remains a motivation for the elite today is another question.

(I'd wager 'no'.)

------
ef4
I feel like the author is ignoring a giant caveat. The liberal educational
ideal has always been connected to a certain degree of elitism. The author
quotes Jefferson about broad access to liberal education, but Jefferson
himself expected his university to be for only the cream of the crop.
Something like the top 1% cognitive elite. Jefferson's argument about breadth
was more about building a feeder system that would educate each person up to
their maximum ability -- with the expectation that only very few would go all
the way through college.

If instead you want to build a system where most people can successfully get
through college, you need to meet very different economic and social
constraints.

------
stegosaurus
Would it not be fairer to say that the demand for highly-paid work has
increased and that college is simply a victim?

Going back a few decades in the UK, a manual labourer could afford to buy a
home, own a car, provide for the family, etcetera.

Nowadays that is falling fast.

Add to that the 'pandora's box' element of education (those who are educated
will likely feel depressed if low-paid or non-stimulating long hours bar them
from continuing to learn) and I think it's a natural reaction.

If you want to fix 'learning for learning's sake', then you need to get rid of
the idea that the winner takes all and that those who are unskilled are fit
for dog meat.

This also wasn't an issue when only the rich went on to further education,
because they are not constrained by work.

~~~
sharkweek
I have a bit of a theory, specifically in the US, that in the near future
there will be some very lucrative opportunities in things like plumbing and
electrical as most folks got the idea in their heads that they HAD to go to
college to avoid such work. And now equipped with a college degree there is a
strange mental block in becoming s blue collar serviceperson despite the
absolute need for plumbers and electricians.

A friend of mine skipped out on college, worked for 5 years for the local
union and last year started his own electrician business. He now has two
employees and makes fantastic money, which I only expect to go up as more of
the old guys retire with no replacement.

Yeah it's not glamorous but at the same time he's doing what most folks on HN
dream of in running his own business with high paying customers.

------
Shivetya
I do agree college should not be free. It devalues the education and puts
those who are there to truly learn at a disadvantage. Who wants to be in
classes alongside people who just there because its free, or for the ride?

When you ask people to pay for something they rightly should expect something
in return. They should also be able to set limits. There are many colleges
offering degrees in nearly useless if not useless areas. There are many that
simply exist to farm loans, scholarships, and the like.

~~~
smtddr
_> >I do agree college should not be free. It devalues the education and puts
those who are there to truly learn at a disadvantage. Who wants to be in
classes alongside people who just there because its free, or for the ride?_

Being free doesn't mean they drop all their standards. Even in paid schools
today you can be expelled and/or kicked out of a class for terrible
performance, attendance or inappropriate behavior. As long as you keep those
standards, free college should be fine. Now if you're talking about crowded
classes and/or not enough teachers, maybe we should prioritize schools &
teachers more and sports less... but that's a whole other discussion. I
strongly believe school should be free. I expect Germany to do well with their
recent changes:

[http://thinkprogress.org/education/2014/10/01/3574551/german...](http://thinkprogress.org/education/2014/10/01/3574551/germany-
free-college-tuition/) _" At least for now, however, learning German might be
the best financial choice an American high school student can make."_

~~~
someguy1233
There's also quite a few european countries with free college/university
education. To name the main ones: Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland

AFAIK, Norway offers this privilege even to international students, while
Sweden gives it to any EU citizen

------
cafard
The tension has always been there. The first university in Europe was
Bologna's, which was chiefly known for the study of law.

As for 1967 and after, I would complain less that we are dropping liberal arts
departments, though I'd rather not see them dropped, than that the cost of
studying anything at a state school has greatly outrun inflation. It costs a
hell of a lot to study philosophy, but it also costs a hell of a lot to study
electrical engineering.

------
eastbayjake
It should be noted that Reagan's argument was against _taxpayers subsidizing
four-credit courses on organizing demonstrations_ , not intellectual curiosity
and certainly not the _private_ pursuit of intellectual curiosity. Governor
Reagan would have had no issue with a private institution like Harvard
offering whatever courses it liked.

Public funding for education can improve its quality and access, but it always
comes with strings attached. And for good reason: taxpayers deserve
accountability and transparency where public money is spent.

------
joelgrus
"Developing a meaningful philosophy of life" is a life-long pursuit, and to
that end the four years I spent in college were way less influential than the
years since have been.

------
graycat
The OP seems to say that education for jobs, e.g., as in the Obama quote about
manufacturing and trades, is one case and that the other is a "liberal"
education, which usually means heavily the _humanities_ of literature, art,
history, philosophy, and maybe some religion.

But, this _dichotomy_ seems to have omitted mathematics, physical science,
social science, engineering, and technology. And the purpose of some of these
might be not just jobs but beneficial research results and new companies that
create new products/services and jobs.

It appears that the OP has set up a straw man, _education for jobs_ as
something to knock down in order to praise his favorite "liberal" education.

I'd say: "Liberal" education, that's about the _humanities_ , right? And the
main purpose of the humanities is to better the lives of humans, right? Well,
what else has so far bettered the lives of humans, say, compared with a few
hundred or a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years ago?

For bettering the lives of humans, how about agriculture, domestication of
animals, textiles, writing, arithmetic, geometry, the wheel, work with wood,
stone, and metals for tools, construction, etc., open ocean sailing, steam
power, other heat engines, chemistry, physics, medicine, electricity,
electronics, mathematics, engineering, materials, computing,
telecommunications? Have these been good for _humans_ and, thus, helped
achieved the main goal of the _humanities_?

Are the classic topics in the _humanities_ and a _liberal_ education really
the sole, best help for humans?

We can help humans by helping them to be happy, and one way is with some art,
say, some Bach

[http://grooveshark.com/s/Cello+Suite+No+1+Bach/3seBIM?src=5](http://grooveshark.com/s/Cello+Suite+No+1+Bach/3seBIM?src=5)

some Vitali

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4B1ifcWa9o](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4B1ifcWa9o)

some Camille Saint Saens

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X79OkSayPSw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X79OkSayPSw)

but also some math, say, Lebesgue and von Neumann as in Rudin, _Real and
Complex Analysis_ \-- gorgeous stuff and with, e.g., a lot of beautifully done
Fourier theory of crucial importance across the STEM fields. So, such math can
make humans both happy and productive!

Some of the prerequisites for the crucial, core technology for my start up are
in Rudin; so I expect that that material is productive; if my start up works,
then I will thank Rudin, von Neumann, etc.; but if my start up flops, I won't
blame them!

