Oh, liberal arts is valuable, but the degree isn't.
I've seen plenty of programmers who are very educated in history, philosophy, economics etc.
The problem with the actual degree.
1. Liberal arts degrees have terrible economic returns, almost always negative, especially for men. Because...
2. Liberal arts is ill-suited for mass-market higher education. Can you really teach liberal arts with underpaid teach assistants grading essays on strict rubrics?
3. The degree introduces indoctrination. When you have to please the professor, when your opinions have to please your employer, you end up self censoring, initially consciously, eventually subconsciously, and transform into a drone, incapable of original and piercing thoughts. That's lethal when the whole selling point of the degree was to produce 'original thinking'.
When you have an otherwise normal job, you are free to think, not needing to please anyone else, but your own judgement and conscience.
Indeed, I find it extremely questionable, why a liberal arts degree is needed at all in the age of the internet. I obsessively read over history, and its extremely cheap and available online, full of endless high quality material, perspectives. And because its free, its a lifelong hobby with no monetary investment, and its pure fun and no downside.
> I've seen plenty of programmers who are very educated in history, philosophy, economics etc.
I've seen plenty of programmers who think they're well educated in history, philosophy, economics, etc. But actually being educated is rare. Much easier to read stuff like "Guns, Germs, and Steel" uncritically and just quote it at people.
Yes, what some programmer don't really understand from atop their STEM superiority complex is that, similar to how you wouldn't be called a good programmer if you never actually write code; you don't really get considered a reference on "liberal matter" until you actually produce anything or hold a dialog with your peers on the subject. I mean, it makes sense, does a reclusive genius make noise if nobody is there to hear them?
So in short: they may be educated in that they read books, follow specialized news, and watch content. All of that is great, but they shouldn't feel ton equal footing with people who, you know, actually DO something with that knowledge.
Agreed. There's a difference between systematically studying a subject for 4 years and reading the equivalent of "Learn Java in 14 days". Or even attending bootcamp for a couple months.
That said, the indoctrination of liberal arts degrees is a thing IMHO. I would very value the opinions of those who have, after obtained the degree, are able to recognize and critically comment on the indoctrination. If they're just paraphrasing the textbooks I'd lose interest very quickly.
I have yet to hear a principled distinction between "education" and "indoctrination" that doesn't boil down to whether the speaker agrees with the content being taught.
> Me: What is the etymology of "education"?
> ChatGPT: The word "education" comes from the Latin word "educare," which means "to bring up" or "to rear." "Educare" is derived from another Latin word, "educere," which means "to lead out" or "to draw out." The concept behind "education" is closely tied to the idea of drawing out or developing the inherent abilities, talents, and knowledge within an individual. Over time, the term "education" has come to encompass the process of teaching, training, and nurturing someone's intellectual, moral, and social growth.
> Me: What is the etymology of "indoctrination"?
> ChatGPT: The word "indoctrination" has its roots in the Latin language. It is derived from two Latin words: "in" and "doctrina."
> The prefix "in" in Latin often denotes "into" or "inward." The word "doctrina" in Latin means "teaching" or "instruction."
> When combined, "in" and "doctrina" form the Latin verb "indoctrinare," which means "to teach" or "to instruct." Over time, "indoctrination" has taken on a more specific connotation, referring to the process of imparting beliefs, ideas, or a particular ideology to someone, often in a forceful or uncritical manner.
> It's worth noting that while "education" generally refers to a broader process of learning and intellectual development, "indoctrination" carries the notion of teaching in a way that is heavily influenced by a specific agenda or set of beliefs.
Education is showing a customer the door, or if you like leading the horse to water. Indoctrination is frogmarching the prisoner, or drowning the horse.
I agree with your point, but most of the contents of STEM education aren't that controversial. You can't really disagree with the AM-GM Inequality for example, and most of undergraduate level laws of physics are well accepted by most people. The meta-philosophy of STEM subjects does carry certain amount of indoctrination, but they're usually not explicitly taught as-is.
Have loggers been “indoctrinated” into supporting Republicans? Or do they reasonably see them as more likely to support policies which are favorable to their continued employment?
Is that evidence of indoctrination or self selection? Or that faculty are significantly more educated? Or that the system has developed its own selection filters, perhaps some with good reason (and others not so good).
I disagree with point 3 there. A well taught arts education requires you to use critical reasoning to make sure what you are writing or arguing for can be supported by sound arguments. Maybe you have some experience with some institution or department where there were individuals who only accepted work from their students that argued for the views that agreed with, but this not my experience at all.
Then most liberal arts educations are not well-taught. Look at the uniform political slant of everything coming out of the liberal arts sphere in the past 50+ years.
There's a ton of value in a good liberal arts education, but I agree with anonylizard that this is not something that can be taught en masse.
I am not sure I see a "uniform political slant." People in the many fields that comprise liberal arts find many things to disagree with each other about, sometimes quite vehemently.
It would be surprising if educated people supported a party mostly hostile to the existence of their jobs. That still leaves a lot of room for differing political beliefs since there are not only two possible political positions.
Republicans have made hostility to universities, or at least the non-engineering parts of them, a plank for as long I can remember. Recently, Ron DeSantis led a high-profile effort to take over the New College as part of his audition for President. Like everyone else, professors are capable of understanding that they have interests aligned with different political positions.
I've seen plenty of programmers who are very educated in history, philosophy, economics etc.
The problem with the actual degree.
1. Liberal arts degrees have terrible economic returns, almost always negative, especially for men. Because...
2. Liberal arts is ill-suited for mass-market higher education. Can you really teach liberal arts with underpaid teach assistants grading essays on strict rubrics?
3. The degree introduces indoctrination. When you have to please the professor, when your opinions have to please your employer, you end up self censoring, initially consciously, eventually subconsciously, and transform into a drone, incapable of original and piercing thoughts. That's lethal when the whole selling point of the degree was to produce 'original thinking'.
When you have an otherwise normal job, you are free to think, not needing to please anyone else, but your own judgement and conscience.
Indeed, I find it extremely questionable, why a liberal arts degree is needed at all in the age of the internet. I obsessively read over history, and its extremely cheap and available online, full of endless high quality material, perspectives. And because its free, its a lifelong hobby with no monetary investment, and its pure fun and no downside.