I am delighted to learn from this week’s Chronicle that, despite the increasing focus on vocational training in higher education, some institutions have gone back to basics by emphasizing the power of a liberal-arts curriculum. I am not against vocational training, but we should be honest about the fact that vocational training, even if it takes place on a college campus, is not the same thing as a higher education. A solid foundation in the liberal arts—including in the physical and natural sciences, mathematics, history, literature, art, music, and philosophy—is critical to ensuring the future value of the higher education for which today’s students pay so dearly.
Despite what some would have us believe, though, simply attaching the words “critical thinking and real-world problem solving” to the curriculum does not mean that students are gaining the knowledge and skills that are associated with being learned. All too often “critical thinking” is used to describe courses that require no actual learning and in which there are no right or wrong answers. Tell us what you think, and we’ll give you a gold star for thinking it, regardless of how well you can construct an argument or defend your hypothesis using empirical evidence, reliable sources, or well-constructed proofs or logic.
The National Mathematics Advisory Panel pointed out the mockery of “real world” problems in that what is “real” is clearly in the eye of the beholder. What is “real” to a tenured professor and what is real to an hourly wage earner or a corporate CEO could be very different things. And to be honest, real “real world” problems are generally far too complex for anyone who lacks a deep understanding of economics, science, technology, diplomacy, history, and psychology to tackle. Real-world problems wouldn’t be real-world problems if the average undergraduate could solve them.
Similarly, we must be wary of “modularized” courses which serve only to introduce students to ideas and concepts without requiring them to master critical skills in mathematical computation, literary interpretation, scientific analysis or foreign-language fluency. The idea that a faculty member can “go deeply into one topic” in a course that meets only six times over three weeks is a joke.
And the idea that first-year students have the skills they need to combine “research skills with civic projects, such as conflict resolution in local schools” makes me wonder if the faculty members who teach these courses have any research skills themselves, or have ever spent time in troubled local schools. Such modularized short courses likely serve only to trivialize both the problems students are asked to solve and the skills needed to develop viable and effective solutions.
With so much focus on college retention and graduation rates—and so little focus on educational quality—I can’t help but wonder if the “new” humanities focus isn’t yet another attempt to dumb down an already dumb curriculum so that more students can have fun and get through.
History is hard if we actually must memorize dates and understand the social, economic, scientific, and cultural context in which various actions occured and decisions were made. Foreign language is hard if we must learn how to communicate clearly and correctly in another language (especially when we can’t construct a complete sentence in our first language). Mathematics is hard if we must use higher-order algorithms to derive correct answers. Literature is hard if we must master a college-level vocabulary and read for content. Science is hard if we must design and carry out controlled experiments that build upon current theory and evidence to defend or refute our hypotheses.
So, when we can’t get students to do the hard stuff, it might just be easier to have them dribble on and on about what they think or what they feel and call it a day.
The question is, though, does this sort of education constitute a higher education and does it well prepare a student—and especially a first-generation college student—to succeed in the competitive global marketplace? It is time to stop treating students like consumers and to go back to treating them like students. Students may not like it if they have to perform higher order mathematical functions and get the right answer, or if they have to become proficient in a second language, or even if they have to read classical pieces of literature upon which Eastern or Western civilizations were based, but as the adults in charge, we need to ensure that a diploma on the wall means that the recipient is capable of reading, writing, and performing arithmetic at a level worthy of the sheepskin.
I urge higher education leaders to initiate a serious discussion about what constitutes a rigorous liberal-arts education—and what does not—and to be sure that liberal arts does not become the new euphemism for social promotion in higher education. After all, a solid, rigorous liberal-arts education provides the best hope that the next generation will be empowered to solve the problems of tomorrow, which we can’t begin to anticipate today.
And it isn’t so bad, given the cost of a college degree today, that a liberal-arts education feeds the soul and enriches the mind, thus allowing individuals to experience the world in a richer, more meaningful, and more satisfying way. This may be especially important given the current economic outlook since high unemployment and high underemployment may mean that all of those vocationally trained individuals will have to look farther than their weekly paycheck to find a source of joy, satisfaction and higher purpose.
14 Responses to Revival of the Liberal Arts?
suomynona - March 1, 2010 at 7:26 pm
This is thoughtful and thought-provoking.One quibble: I’m a bit perplexed by your speculative point about “the ‘new’ humanities focus” as an attempt at dumbing down an already “dumb curriculum.” I’m not sure if you’re using “humanities” as a stand-in for “liberal arts” in this case (that would be a misuse of terms), nor am I sure how or why you would associate humanities with dumbing down without any further explanation. I understand well enough (all too well, actually) that in some circles of scientists or engineers putting in heavy lab hours, the humanities are thought of as lightwieght or easy (though even in these circles not necessarily *intellectually* lightweight or easy). But for any–ANY–higher education professional to tie “humanities” to “dumbing down,” particularly without any explanation, as though it’s a given that the humanities reflect a dumned-down situation in higher ed., or an easy curriculum for slackers, is kind of ridiculous. Can you defend yourself on this front?One further comment that will devolve into a screed:Beyond deciding what constitutes a robust and rigorous liberal arts education and what doesn’t, I anticipate the tremendous challenge of addressing the education-for-vocation mindset even among the most liberal-arts-oriented students (and their parents). I had a bit of a Charlotte Simmons experience at my snooty SLAC alma mater: I went in expecting people to have chosen that particular kind of education becasue they were interested in the broader value of an education, but it turned out that way more than a few were there to cash out on us being among the few places where McKinsey and JPM made serious recruitment rounds. Okay, that was kind of harsh. What I really mean is, the framework for a robust liberal arts education is already there, and the professors are already aching for more intellectually engaged students. This is no secret. What pervades is the education-for-vocation attitude, both within universities as they’re administrated by managerial types and nonacademic trustees, and well beyond universities in ways that higher ed. leaders have thus far shown no promise whatsoever in being able to address. One might add to this problem the great paradox of the hiring of new graduates in so many ‘office’ jobs: they want to see that college degree on the resume, and in some cases the fancier the better; but then the sweaty bastard interviewing you is also thoroughly convinced that your education, whether liberal arts or vocational, is absolutely worthless without the almightly ‘real-world experience’ of having pushed paper and pencils for a couple of years, preferably in some unpaid (and by definition) exploitative ‘internship.’
dajones - March 1, 2010 at 11:45 pm
Dear Suomynona, I did not intend to imply that humanities courses are responsible for the dumbing down of the curriculum. To the contrary, I think that traditional humanities courses in foreign language, literature, the arts, and philosophy are very much heavy-weight coursess in higher education. However, as we have moved from a traditional focus on the liberal arts to a more contemporary focus on vocational training, I believe that we have reduced our focus on rigorous humanities education, and have therefore dumbed down the curriculum so that more students can easily earn a diploma and go to work. I am delighted to hear that there is a new effort to revitalize liberal arts education, and thereby restore the rigor and value of a higher education. However, from the articles I read in today’s Chronicle, I worry that the new liberal arts curriculum will follow the model of vocationalized higher education and be similarly devoid of rigorous humanities courses. Some of the courses described in the Chronicle article will likely replace more traditional humanities courses (thus my use of the term “new humanities”) thereby robbing students of the opportunity to expand their minds and understand the origins of Western civilization. New humanities refers not to the humanities as we know them, but to a new set of “tell me your opinion” courses that will replace them. I agree with you completely about the exploitative internship. Real world experience is what comes from delivering newspapers at 4:30 a.m., flipping burgers while your friends are out partying, and scooping ice cream while everyone else is in the pool swimming, or in my case, emptying bed pans and giving bed baths at a local hospital.I agree that higher education has always included some who were less intellectually motivated than others, but when we started advertising college as the way to boost one’s lifetime earnings by a million dollars, not only did we lie to students, but we created a selection bias that favored attendance by people who were there for all of the wrong reasons.Diane
rbannist - March 2, 2010 at 11:56 am
This essay does a splendid job of defining and explaining the essence of what a true higher education should be while showing some of the pitfalls and diversions that exist on campus today.That there are certain core common studies that help define higher education is of tremendous value especially to the extent that the learner must apply himself/herself to demonstrate the ability to do the heavy lifting required from each academic discipline that is part of a liberal arts degree. A good liberal arts program should be rigorous, thorough, and deep. It seems the public and even education policy makers don’t appreciate the difference between vocational or functional college degrees — nursing, accounting, early childhood — as examples of more or less vocational programs versus majoring in history, fine arts, philosophy, literature, or the pure sciences. Sadly, way too much emphasis today seems to want to push all grads into being able to pass some kind of proficiency exam that translates into each discipline’s version of the CPA or nurses’ exam. Gee, how about being able to write a thorough compare and contrast essay on Aristotle and Plato, an essay on how a work of Shakespeare reflects some universal conflict, or how a Mark Twain novel provides an insightful critique of 19th century Americana? Along with that the ability to write well constructed, carefully researched and documented reports, and have the knowledge base that understands the fundamentals of US History, the functions of government, and the operation of the political process should be expected of all grads. (Really all high school grads in a college prep or general program should master most of these too.)The most frightening thing the honorable Ms. Jones states is higher ed must…”be sure that liberal arts does not become the new euphemism for social promotion in higher education.”If higher education gets to that point, send in the clowns. It’s over. We will have nothing left but a crude pop culture oriented society where the latest gossip and insinuation of inner motives would be the highest level thinking our “educated” culture might obtain.Diane Auer Jones provides what should be thoroughly considered but all those who have an interest in advancing the goals of quality higher education in our culture. The seeds of decay of our great institutions are planeted everywhere.
11242283 - March 3, 2010 at 6:56 am
Maybe all is not lost. I teach many an upper division general education class in a humanities discipline and I’ve discovered that by and large students from these very vocational programs are hungering to tackle the more complex ideas that are at the center of a liberal education. They don’t always have the skills (right away) to feel comfortable in these classes, but they are interested. I’ve found that in many respects the stereotype of a business or nursing student who just wants to know what’s on the test and how to pass it, just isn’t accurate. I don’t know where this gets us at the level of national higher ed policy, but all is not negative in the trenches. Just so you know.
rbannist - March 3, 2010 at 7:33 am
I’m not sure this discussion revolves around stereotypes for certain student profiles such as nursing or accounting students as much as it is how the value and purpose for higher education is pitched to prospective students. More and more emphasis seems to be on the “vocationalization” (a term Diane Auer Jones coined) of the post secondary experience and not higher education as a calling to reach higher levels of enlightenment and appreciation for the true intellectual endeavors. It sure is reassuring to hear one who teaches upper level courses having such interest from students. That’s exactly part of what a good college education offers. A student can take a few advanced classes outside his or her major or track specifically for the sake of personal interest and desire to grow with no calculation how that class works in to passing those all important professional exams.
careershift - March 3, 2010 at 11:12 am
The critique offered here is largely on target and speaks to a nationwide trend that is now in its 40th year, leaving the liberal arts curriculum, as such, in disarray, and replacing it with the empty banality of critical thinking. Dr. Jones veers off target, however, when she seeks to name what lies ahead: first it’s the “new” humanities, then it’s the “new liberal arts,” and finally it’s “the new humanities.” It is in recognition of precisely the situation that Dr. Jones has described that my collaborator, Kurt Spellmeyer, and I put together *The New Humanities Reader* a decade ago. As we define them, “the new humanities” are concerned with the human dimension of all knowledge–from civil engineering to the effort to establish a science of happiness. How can we help to foster the development of thoughtful students? Not by asking them their opinions about matters they’ve thought little about; not by providing them with the critical tools to analyze a canon they not familiar with; not by assigning them hundreds of pages over the course of a semester and then asking them to “make an argument about X.” “The New Humanities Reader” and the pedagogy associated with it represent our effort to resist the vocationalizing and simplifying forces Dr. Jones has identified. We do this by having students in our entry-level writing classes contend with the complexity and the ambiguity that are at the core of any serious problem. That this is but one course in a sea of courses couldn’t be clearer; even so, we think it provides evidence that local efforts to resist larger national trends can succeed.
11159995 - March 3, 2010 at 11:39 am
A really good education in the liberal arts, leading toward real ability to think critically, might well help educate the younger generation so well that they will become revolutionaries, as has often happened in underdeveloped countries where the radical intelligentsia coming out of universities form the core of revolutionary movements.
dank48 - March 3, 2010 at 1:37 pm
11159995 makes an excellent point. This is probably why revolutions typically execute the intellectuals who were not part of the revolution. This is after the revolution has succeeded but before getting down to the business of running a country. Later the inconvenient intellectuals who were part of the revolution but have not learned to take off their thinking caps are also executed. Call it liberal arts, call it humanities, call it what you will. Like a gateway drug, an education leads, sometimes slowly but almost invariably, to thinking. There’s a reason the powers that be (present, past, and future) don’t want to encourage the liberal arts, and it’s not because they’re held to be useless or impractical. Even one semester’s worth of critical thinking can ruin you as a “team player.”
jcialone - March 3, 2010 at 3:25 pm
This is really an excellent article that points out what rbannist said – “defining and explaining the essence of what a true higher education should be while showing some of the pitfalls and diversions that exist on campus today.” We have not done a good job of telling student upfront what they can expect in realistic terms from a liberal-arts education. I think one problem lies in the fact that when a student graduates and applies for a job in say nursing, they are not asked by the interviewer to give an explaination of the New Deal or to work out complex math problems. Liberal arts degrees give students basic knowledge of a broad subject matter. Academia has also said that we should update curriculum and adapt disciplines to refect the changes in the marketplace so students graduating from liberal arts institutions are more marketable in the ‘real world’. It seems that institutions are responding to what the “real world” is asking for. When what is required outside of our world of higher education changes in it’s demand of graduates in the liberal-arts, institutions may return to a more thorough educational program in the humanities.
gtkarn - March 3, 2010 at 6:03 pm
May I recommend a recent article by Mark Slouka in Harper’s on “Dehumanized When math ad science rule the school.” Also, a recent piece “Beyond critical thinking” by the president of Wesleyan, Michael Roth in the Jan. 3 Chronicle is a real keeper on these matters.Finally, is there some way we can revive the idea of a “vocation” and quit using “vocationalism” disparagingly? A good liberal arts education should be deeply vocational, which is to say, it should help the young sense their vocation as something not merely the “call’ of some purportedly all powerful Market God. Doubtless some of us have been around long enough to have seen students carefully fill their resumes and transcripts with the proper courses to make them “marketable,” only to discover that the market has shrunk. Whyat if there are no more customers out there for what you’[re selling? Of course, if you are disturbed by this language of commerce which has colonized our way of thinking about who we are and who are students might become, it probably means your liberal educationj really stuck.
rbannist - March 4, 2010 at 2:01 am
I don’t think anyone intends to disparage vocational pursuits in higher education. It’s when the vocational aspect of higher ed becomes the goal of higher ed itself when problems arise. The proper program should be balanced, between the liberal arts and the vocational arena, not that they are inherently opposite polls. Follow Diane Auer Jones’ on going commentary on this subject and especially what her concerns were that in part led to her resignation from the Dept. of Ed. for a much more detailed accounting of how liberal arts have been devalued in favor of higher ed for career grooming.
mbelvadi - March 4, 2010 at 7:11 am
“I agree that higher education has always included some who were less intellectually motivated than others, but when we started advertising college as the way to boost one’s lifetime earnings by a million dollars, not only did we lie to students, but we created a selection bias that favored attendance by people who were there for all of the wrong reasons.”I think this is an absolutely critical concept that deserves much more discussion throughout the Chronicle. My first reaction was “heck, yes!”. But then I stepped out of the box (excuse the cliche) and thought maybe we should question whether higher ed should only play the role it did in the past, or whether the advances in technical knowledge made over the last two centuries necessitate the expansion of post-secondary “vocational” training into 4 year programs, even aside from the issue of the decay in rigor in secondary education. So maybe public universities in particular are evolving correctly into a role that the society that pays for them needs of them (actually a dual role, keeping the humanities “on the side” for the students who go for what used to be the “right” reasons). Maybe it’s doing a disservice to those taxpayers to force those 4-year vocational students who in the 50′s wouldn’t have gone to college at all to waste time in gen ed courses.
bcull - March 5, 2010 at 12:17 pm
Excellent article! I had a student recently ask why we were spending time learning sensation and perception in psychology when they only wanted to be a .I answered this question in my blog (http://lotusneuron.blogspot.com/2010/02/value-of-education.html) in terms of the value of education vis a vis civilization. This topic has been dealt with in a thoroughly insightful manner by Jane Jacobs in her book, “Dark Age Ahead”.My particular worry is that education, as now constructed, will deaden dissent, so important in keeping a society cognizant of its errors. Barry Cull
trendisnotdestiny - March 8, 2010 at 12:21 pm
I thought this article made several salient points and left me considering how to engage the subject differently… Clearly, the ‘too hard’ piece resonates with many who are frustrated by the de-skilling that takes place in the model of consumer-learners in higher education… Institutionally, students are seen as revenue centers meant to be catered to…Also, I agree with the author that there needs to be a new discussion over what constitutes rigor in higher education… But, these discussions get lost in their own narratives eventually and flame out; my belief is that there exists a larger narrative to education which is not being addressed.The last 30 years we have seen a systematic move to privatized education, healthcare, and gutting of public institutions for a pay to play model of for profit… The systemic gutting of essential functions or ‘hard’ things as the epicenter of the problem only to be incurred by students or the poor or sub-prime mortgage buyers misses the mark. In actuality, all levels of the system have been corrupted by doing hard things… Corporations find it hard to cut emission or commit to greater public safety. Governments find it hard to pass regulations to prevent predation.Families find it hard to avoid reality TV and credit card spending while inhaling their pharma. Students find it hard to concentrate on shit that will have very little bearing on whether they will get a job, can pay back the loans they commited to previously, or wish to get married and start a family wihtout security…. This is the greater narrative which makes it hard to locate problems within one discussion in higher ed.Also, it becomes so much easier numbly to do your own thing and to try and profit from it; This leads me to online learning (I do not intend to demonize any type of learning)… But the whole premise of this institutional emphasis is sold as process, teacher or student friendly while it is a model of profit (where costs can be cut, efficiencies met, and people can become more productive)…all the while selling how great it is going to be for students… Yes, students will derive some benefits no doubt, but at what cost…especially after gutting public institutions funding sources (selling the next great thing is so much easily done when the current system needs ‘hard’ fixes and becomes disposable)…. well, I hope you picked up what I was putting down! If not, no worries that may be hard to do