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.
(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!