>Those wealth-seeking, “what’s in it for me” philistines are not buying our product. Rather than changing ourselves to serve them better, we should instead be inflexible, and demand that they change their desires. They should love our product, which even I acknowledge is useless. Diversity rocks, I support diversity! Professors should be paid more.
By the way, I'm not exaggerating. The article actually describes students as "wealth-seeking, 'what's init for me' philistines".
It's attitudes like this that make me strongly consider leaving academia.
As someone who attended a liberal arts college for a short while, as well as a top-tier "big" school, I feel somewhat qualified to comment on their argument.
(1) The quality of a liberal education that makes it so effective is that the subject matter studied is not “use-eh-full.”
>> So, a liberal arts education is better because it teaches you useless stuff? That makes no sense
(2) The best teaching is at liberal arts colleges.
>> There is some truth to this one. A great deal of truth, in fact.
(3) Your life will be fuller and richer if you read Aristotle, Descartes and Rousseau.
>> Yes, but liberal arts colleges don't have a monopoly on Rousseau - you can read them and get just as much out of them from big schools too!
I think in #1 they were trying to convey that Liberal Arts schools don't necessarily focus on teaching 'applied' skills. Some colleges get turned into job-mills, and have curriculums full of 'Applied X' courses, meant to enhance the resume more than the knowledge of the student.
"In the early 19th century, subject matter that made up the liberal arts curriculum was fixed: the ancient classics, rhetoric, logic, Greek and Latin."
With the possible exceptions of Greek and Latin, liberal arts colleges should restore these core courses. To those they should require advanced coursework in probability, statistics, biology and psychology.
Probability and statistics are essential elements of thinking and are extensions of rhetoric and logic. Biology and psychology have undergone such change and are so significant to modern scientific and social thought that they should be required.
"Your life will be fuller and richer if you read Aristotle, Descartes and Rousseau."
Yes, but such studies should be limited to the first 2 years of a 4-year curriculum, so that sufficient time for later courses in biology and psychology is available. These courses would point out the errors in the assumptions or reasoning that those earlier philosophers made and bring the student up-to-date with current knowledge of biological, physiological, psychological and social systems.
A graduate of such a program would be educated in the classical sense but more current in his knowledge than the typical liberal arts graduate. He would be very valuable as a potential employee in almost any field, since he was taught primarily to _think_.
For myself, I have been intrigued by liberal arts curricula for a while now, especially the 'Great Books' approach. I've actually been toying with the idea of getting a liberal arts master's degree after I'm finished with my current CS bachelor's degree.
No, the liberal arts are not 'practical', but I'm not a believer in the idea that universities are for preparing students for the job market. In fact, I recently presented an argument to my department's faculty that they should re-focus on CS theory and mathematics rather than practical skills (it was well-received).
I don't understand the "not practical" sentiment. During the pursuit of my BA, I learned how to research, perform analysis, communicate, and most importantly how to rapidly switch contexts. I use those skills every day. I'm not saying that is exclusive to a Liberal Arts education, but I would definitely call those practical skills.
Today I got wrapped up contemplating the terminology I was using for a UI. I was worried that it was counter to the ontology of the system. Sure, maybe a CS grad would say "consistency of language" or something, but my philosophy-major-addled brain said ontology.
>Those wealth-seeking, “what’s in it for me” philistines are not buying our product. Rather than changing ourselves to serve them better, we should instead be inflexible, and demand that they change their desires. They should love our product, which even I acknowledge is useless. Diversity rocks, I support diversity! Professors should be paid more.
By the way, I'm not exaggerating. The article actually describes students as "wealth-seeking, 'what's init for me' philistines".
It's attitudes like this that make me strongly consider leaving academia.