> Is it to create well rounded individuals with a broad base of knowledge, or is it to prepare people for careers? Up until about 80 years ago, it was exclusively the first, and mostly for children of wealthy people to go and learn a broad base of knowledge.
What’s your support for that?
Take even the most elite school, Harvard. Engineering since the early 1800’s. And how many of those med, law, and divinity students weren’t there for vocational training?
So before the 1900s, Harvard had a classical curriculum, meaning even engineering majors were required to study the humanities. I don't mean the humanities as we have them today. I mean, they were required to read primary sources in the liberal arts, so philosophy, linguistics, literature, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc. Recall that engineering, law, and medicine are, historically, at least, liberal arts -- all such professionals would have had this education. This changed in the late 1800s, during the presidency of Dr Eliot. They compromised by getting rid of this curriculum (seen as unnecessary for an industrial nation) and instead marketing the reading list as a 5 foot bookshelf so others could self-study this lost core curriculum.
Today, some liberal arts colleges (including some engineering colleges) still require a core curriculum, but such a thing is increasingly rare at large universities, and non-existent at public schools. Moreover, even among the liberal arts colleges, a broad classical education is exceedingly rare, except for a few colleges like Thomas Aquinas.
What’s your support for that?
Take even the most elite school, Harvard. Engineering since the early 1800’s. And how many of those med, law, and divinity students weren’t there for vocational training?