A couple of responses. The argument of the reviewer was not about directing students to major in the liberal arts, though it's not a bad idea. It's about getting a liberal education while in college, which one can do by majoring in any number of things, if the curriculum is structured correctly. Moreover, it's even more to the point of the philosophy of education that undergirds a college, that provides the structure of incentives for the faculty, and so on. Not which program students tend to major in.
A second response. There's data, don't have it right now, that gets thrown around every time this issue comes up in higher ed, that shows that students who majored in one of the liberal arts tend to do much better in jobs than students that major in business, engineering, and so on. That is, in its crassest terms, make more money and rise to higher positions of authority. The argument goes that technical training prepares students for mid level work, at best. But that philosophy, history, english, and so on, enlarges the imagination, leads to more creative, long term thinking, the sort of skill needed to the higher reaches. And, my guess is, these folk tend to go onto law school, grad school, and even business school. I've heard it argued that the best students in graduate level business programs tend to be students who did not major in business as undergrads. Rather in philosophy, history, english, and so on.
I've always disliked the second argument because majoring in philosophy, history, english, and so on shouldn't be about making the most money or running the largest corporation. But rather about learning about the human condition, how to think critically, the long scope of culture, and so on. But then what the hell. |
