Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
A Simple Theory of Liberal Arts Education
Marginal Revolutionary and Inner Economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University lays out some reasons to get a liberal arts education:
Information in the modern world is virtually free, and well-defined tasks can be outsourced very cheaply, if need be. Don't specialize in those.
Bias is everywhere, and overcoming bias yields great gains. Empirically, our biases stem strongly from our nationality, our language, and our cultural background. (It is, by the way, remarkable how much libertarianism is an Anglo-American phenomenon.)
To overcome those biases we should travel, spend some time living in other countries, and learn other languages. In other words, the more knowledge is held in the minds of other people, the more competent we wish to be in assessing who is right and who is wrong, and that requires exposure to lots of different points of view.
Judgment, judgment, judgment. That's the scarce asset which most people underinvest in, and which yields especially high returns. It can't be outsourced very well either.
Marketing is becoming all-important as well. That also requires judgment and the ability to see things from other people's points of view. Again, live abroad and learn other languages.
At the very least, date foreign women (or men).
More here. reason interviewed Cowen on his latest book, Discover Your Inner Economist (go here) and his most excellent Creative Destruction (go here). He's written for us over the years (not all his stuff is online, alas) and has had nice things to say about reason over the years, so you can benchmark his judgment, judgment, judgment based on all that.
I made the case for studying the arts here and, at longer length, here. That's not exactly the same as the liberal arts (though the overlap is significant) but the points are very similar.
Hat Tip: Saw Cowen's post first at the New York Sun's excellent Economics on the Web blog.
Episiarch|12.21.07 @ 9:20AM|#
Interesting. I have done or am in the process of doing all that he recommends.
|12.21.07 @ 9:22AM|#
A genuine liberal arts education may be a great idea, but what
does that have to do with sitting in a chair at a public
institution for four years, listening to some tenured hack drone
about pet theories that have always failed when tested in the real
world?
What the State calls a 'liberal arts education' is neither liberal,
nor artistic, nor educational.
If you really want an educational exposure to a multicultural
environment, McDonald's is hiring, and don't bother saving for
tuition, they'll pay you.
SugarFree|12.21.07 @ 9:38AM|#
(It is, by the way, remarkable how much libertarianism is an
Anglo-American phenomenon.)
Why are we taking this racist windbag seriously? Let's laugh at him
and move on.
|12.21.07 @ 9:41AM|#
Bah, Liberal Arts is a substitute for an education. Bias is everywhere and L.A. majors are the least able to find/filter their own. You want to learn about eliminating bias, take a science course with a lab.
|12.21.07 @ 9:45AM|#
Liberal Arts is a substitute for an education.
Liberal Arts is pretty vague. Care to narrow it down before I tear
your argument to shreds?
Episiarch|12.21.07 @ 9:48AM|#
Maybe he means a "classical" education? You know, Latin (and
maybe Greek), Greek and Roman history, literature (from Homer on
up), etc?
I've had that and while it seems pretty useless, it actually has
this very cool foundational effect. So much in Western culture is
built off of that base that it helps in little ways all over the
place.
|12.21.07 @ 9:53AM|#
Oh, this is going to be good.
(rubs hands in anticipation)
In today's matinee performance, the role of Dan T. will be played
by Nick Gillespie.
Hooter_Mcboob|12.21.07 @ 9:57AM|#
I especially like the part about foreign women.
I'm dating a smoking hot brown girl from Saudi Arabia. She gives
me... knowledge.
Abdul|12.21.07 @ 10:00AM|#
A Liberal Arts education is valuable. Where do you think baristas come from?
ed|12.21.07 @ 10:00AM|#
Warren's posts aren't nearly as entertaining since he started spell-checking.
stephen the goldberger|12.21.07 @ 10:01AM|#
This seems like an by an academic defending his career choice to become an academic.
stephen the goldberger|12.21.07 @ 10:01AM|#
edit: This seems like a blog post by an academic defending his career choice to become an academic.
|12.21.07 @ 10:04AM|#
(It is, by the way, remarkable how much libertarianism is an
Anglo-American phenomenon.)
Why are we taking this racist windbag seriously? Let's laugh at him
and move on.
Sugar-Free, a couple of thoughts on your riposte.
(1) Care to provide examples of libertarianism that do not arise
from Anglo-American political culture?
(2) "Anglo-American" is not a race, it is a culture. The
"Anglosphere" encompasses such countries as India, and such
individuals as Martin Luther King.
|12.21.07 @ 10:05AM|#
His argument that knowledge is becoming cheaper and easier, so a science education is less valuable, so you should learn languages seems kinda odd. The reason is that learning languages outside of school has never been easier and we'll likely have real-time translation in my lifetime.
carrick|12.21.07 @ 10:14AM|#
His argument is no different than the argument was 25 years ago:
generalist versus specialist.
Upon graduation, the specialist is more likely to be offered a job
and typically at a much higher salary.
After 10, 15, or 20 years, the generalist has overtaken the
specialist, has greater opportunities, and greater earning
potential.
In my experience, sometimes the argument is true and sometimes it
is false. In reality, it is the person that makes the difference,
not the education.
Lance Braga|12.21.07 @ 10:18AM|#
The apparent divide between science and "the arts" seems arbitrary to me. Weren't many of humanity's great minds (for example) writers and mathematicians?
Jerry|12.21.07 @ 10:20AM|#
Here in Europe, you are most likely to obtain a proficiency in a couple of languages when you exit high school. A "liberal arts" education does not really exist. When students enter university here, they are mostly likely to known already a lot more than a sophomore or junior in North America. The American high school curriculum is highly egalitarian, in Europe not necessarily so.
carrick|12.21.07 @ 10:26AM|#
Renaissance man
n. A man who has broad intellectual interests and is accomplished
in areas of both the arts and the sciences.
A "liberal arts" education is supposed to be the road to the
Renaissance man, but it has become the dumping ground for students
that should have been weeded out of university.
VM|12.21.07 @ 10:28AM|#
but it had nothing, absolutely NOTHING to do with this
thread.
you subscribe to my web cam, so you should know that!
Jerry - errrrrr. Not necessarily about the level of students
(probably certainly about languages, but LA is more than that).
GinSlinger|12.21.07 @ 10:28AM|#
Good point re: highschool Jerry. Though it's interesting that in
post-seconday education, the US takes the lead. (For just one
example, when applying to Ph D programs, a BA from an American
institution is the minimum, but from European institutions, one
needs post-bacc work--true on both sides of the Atlantic in my
application experience.)
I have no idea why this may be. Any thoughts, Jerry?
|12.21.07 @ 10:31AM|#
Back when I was in high school in the 80's, my teachers told me
that speaking a foreign language would be essential, that we'd all
need to travel and converse with foreigners, etc...
Fast forward twenty years and no one, NOT ONE, of my friends from
high school can speak any foreign language and none of us pursued
any sort of "liberal arts" education as described. We specialized
in math, physics, engineering, computer science, economics, law...
We're all stinkin' rich.
I work at Microsoft, and I deal with people from all around the
world every day - and guess what, they all speak English and they
all have pretty much the exact same culture as me (ie, a
specialist, educated human being).
Who gives a fuck what they eat in China? What does that have to do
with anything?
|12.21.07 @ 10:32AM|#
For a well rounded education, you could try curling up with good books and bad librarians.
Joe Slater|12.21.07 @ 10:34AM|#
Dopey advice, but not surprising. Some blow-hard thinks that the
way he lived his life is exactly how others should live theirs'.
This is not exactly original thinking. Isn't that how just about
every male over the age of 30 thinks? At least the ones I
know.
There are many paths to success. Liberal Arts education,
engineering, finance, etc. The common trait among the people I know
who are successful is that they are smart and work hard. What
disqualifies a lot of liberal arts majors is that they neither
smart nor hard-working, as their choice of study indicates. Who
wants to study math, medicine or engineering (increasingly
difficult, time-consuming and boring subjects), when they can argue
the merits of the Warren Commission in their poli-sci class? Only a
select few individuals can and want to make their way through a
technical (for lack of a better word) education? The answer is very
few. The information might be readily and cheaply available, but
the costs of mastering the material, at least enough to work in the
field, is extremely high.
Take it from this blow-hard, the path to success follows a
technical education.
Bernd|12.21.07 @ 10:34AM|#
Lance Braga: Well, math is not a science, strictly speaking.
Math isn't an art either.
Math is basically pure abstract thought with the artifacts of our
wetware filtered out as far as possible. Physics is applied
math.
So, I'd generally support the point of Cowen, which is that
learning to think is better than learning skills; I'd just argue
that math or physics teaches it better than the humanities
&c.
As for industry to apply good thinking in, nothing will ever beat
software; software is "reason without the critique", as John Walker
puts it, and he oughta know.
|12.21.07 @ 10:35AM|#
I'm a physics BS with an Eng Lit minor and a math minor from a
liberal arts school. I get the value of technical education, but I
think technical types are a bit dismissive of Tyler's
argument.
As I suggested in the MR thread, I suspect that the value of a
diverse education at the 4 year degree mark (which is what we mean
by liberal arts) is higher than what is commonly understood. India
is cranking out some 700,000 technical graduates per year. Skills
that are in high demand in many parts of the economy relate to
sales of technically sophisticated products, product development
informed by a deep knowledge of customers, getting customer buy in
to cost saving technologies, etc. You know, those sorts of things
where it is advantageous to have a foot in both camps.
Of course there is no guarantee that liberal arts exposure will
make one a better person, but there are opportunities there you
just don't get sitting in a lab. Your exposure to perspective is
broader, your exposure to different types of good communicators is
better, and you get a taste for a broader range of subjects that
may pique your interests far down the road. Philosophy was like
that for me. So was Romantic lit.
VM|12.21.07 @ 10:36AM|#
Hay dog -
math, economics, etc. are part of a liberal arts curriculum.
and others know people who did happen to learn a language or two,
and they're also rich working in financial services, law, pharma,
advertising, management consulting. And they converse with people
where the lingua franca isn't English.
guess what? there are many paths to success. This is America. You
can do many, many things and be successful. There isn't a formula.
There isn't one way.
|12.21.07 @ 10:37AM|#
R C Dean,
Your points are quite valid, and I will admit the history of
libertarianism is quite Euro-centric...
But I don't think he was using the term "Anglo-American" to imply
the English speaking world or former British colonies. He was using
academic-sprache for "white people" and anyone else dismissing a
philosophy or a set of principles based solely on the race of the
people mostly likely to hold would be dismissed as a racist. I just
extended the same courtesy to him.
Also, he was being fairly insulting to the non-Anglo-American
libertarians found on this very comment board.
Kolohe|12.21.07 @ 10:45AM|#
As long as "liberal arts" = "strong foundation in mathematics" I
have no problem with a 'liberal arts education.'
But if liberal arts = 'because math/science is to hard for me'
you'd better either have a natural talent for an art, or a natural
talent for leadership, for your liberal arts degree to be worth
anything.
carrick|12.21.07 @ 10:46AM|#
We specialized in math, physics, engineering, computer
science, economics, law...
Math: liberal arts
Physics: liberal arts
Engineering: not liberal arts
CompSci: depends on the school
Economics: liberal arts
Law: Instrument of the devil
ed|12.21.07 @ 10:50AM|#
I pity all those economics majors who never experienced the joy
of trying to
figure out what the fuck Ezra Pound was really trying to
say.
Lance Braga|12.21.07 @ 10:51AM|#
Bernd,
A friend of mine graduated from GA Tech last year with a BS in
applied mathematics. While I am not very good at math, we would
talk at length about the classes he was taking. Anyway, he said
more than a few times that he believes mathematics is both a
science and an art; he found the elegance of pure mathematics as
aesthetically pleasing as I find, say, Shakespeare or a painting by
Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres.
I realize that is just an anecdote of one man's opinion, but I
thought it was relevant.
I do agree that learning math and physics (or science in general)
is a good way to develop faculties of analytic thinking. I also
feel that studying the humanities makes life richer, and can also
improve analytical and critical thinking skills. One of my favorite
classes in college was critical thinking, taught under the
philosophy department; even though we were dealing with language
sometimes I felt like I was in a math class. It was definitely an
eye-opener.
On the other hand, I suppose, are people who major in feminist
philosophy or French literature and then wonder why they're not
very appealing to some employers. That I guess I can
understand.
|12.21.07 @ 10:53AM|#
highnumber,
Barely at all. If I wrong, I'm wrong. I'm comfortable with
that.
But, in the excerpt above he seems to be playing the white guilt
"if only you knew more about other people you'd think just like me"
card. If he's being taken out of context, then I withdraw my
objection.
(Hint: I don't care if he's really a racist -- he's almost
assuredly not -- but my gorge rises a little more every time it's
suggested that only white people are interested in human
liberty...)
|12.21.07 @ 10:53AM|#
"Law: Instrument of the devil"
This is a common misperception. The correct translation, from the
original Aramaic, is member of the devil.
Hooter_McBoob|12.21.07 @ 10:54AM|#
You mean people go to college to learn? Here I thought it was all about cheap beer, cheap drugs, cheap food, ugly easy girls, hot easy girls and sucking up to teachers to get C-'s instead of D's.
|12.21.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Liberal arts is the new high school diploma. Of course, it's way more expensive, and just as useless. As a piece of paper, it doesn't get you anything, but chances are you will have a broader base of knowledge, better ability to reject bullshit (and sling convincing bullshit), and better ability to draw analogies or distinctions than somebody with a high school diploma. Of course, that's not always true.
carrick|12.21.07 @ 10:59AM|#
The physics major says "why does that work that way"
The engineering major says "what can I do with that"
The general studies major says "would you like frys with that"
Egosumabbas|12.21.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Tyler Cowen: OUTSOURCE EVERYTHING! That way all the 300 million
people in this country can be multilingual dilettantes judging
other countries' merits. That'll be a BOON to the economy.
In reality, if nobody specializes, all the LAS majors will be
ending up flipping burgers or wiping Baby Boomer butts at the old
folks' home. Maybe a handful of them will be able to lie themselves
into a high-paying corporate job.
My advice? Get a masters degree while you still can.
Bill C.|12.21.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Cowen is full of it. I spent two years in a foreign country. Graduated there and I speak a second language and have a history degree and it hasn't gotten me crap. Still waiting for these intangible benefits to come through. Waiting to find my skill that can't be outsourced. BULLSHIT!!!
Lance Braga|12.21.07 @ 11:01AM|#
Of course, the general studies major can also probably spell the plural of "fry" correctly.
Egosumabbas|12.21.07 @ 11:05AM|#
To avert any accusations that I'm a heartless technical major
SOB who speaks no foreign languages, I dual-degreed in French and
Computer Engineering, so neener neener.
And no I haven't read Ulysses.
|12.21.07 @ 11:07AM|#
To be fair, I think the general studies major is more likely to say, "Stacy, you're on register, Ronnie, you're on drive-thru, Bill take burger board, Frank take the broiler and Janet, come in at 5 for the dinner rush...."
Egosumabbas|12.21.07 @ 11:07AM|#
Oh and I *do* tip my waitress, and give money to the LAS major who plays guitar in the subway, so I'm not a complete prick. Cowan is a lying sack of soiled cat litter.
hick|12.21.07 @ 11:09AM|#
"frys"
It ain't proper, but I seen it many times at the joints I hangs out
in.
|12.21.07 @ 11:10AM|#
Egosumabbas,
And no I haven't read Ulysses.
It's OK. 9 out of 10 people who say they have, haven't either.
Egosumabbas|12.21.07 @ 11:12AM|#
WHY?!?!?!?!
J'aime bien lire Baudelaire, c'est pas mal. Apart de ça, ça ne sert
a rien.
dhex|12.21.07 @ 11:19AM|#
man this fucking thread again. jeeze. the blowjob deficit rides
again.
i'm just kidding; it's really about status. that's why you have a
small but definitely non-imaginary streak of "cultural studies"
types running up the "science is socially constructed flag." (i am
firm in my conviction that kuhn is the second most mis-read or
quoted but unread author since the alien overlords who wrote the
bible)
why would they bother with such a thing, outside of pique? that's
always confused me. while i don't see the value in, say, lacan, (if
you must go french, foucault is the way to go, with baudrillard a
distant second) i do see the value in cross-cultural literary
studies, or primary source work with writers and personal papers,
drafts, etc. the word is quite important, and a tremendous part of
being human.
and obviously the sciences are important. given a good cornering,
even the most marxy of marks would 'fess up to this. even the poor
bastards who go to work for weapons manufacturers are contributing
to technologies that will - if past performance is any indication -
filter into the mainstream in dozens of unpredictable and largely
beneficial ways.
me, personally, i respect folks who can do stuff well, especially
stuff i can't get (like math in general). speaking second and third
languages well, or understanding study construction, or being real
good at statistics, being able to boil down complex ideas and teach
them to others. (that last bit might be the most difficult of
all)
i think a secondary thing here is people don't like hearing
opinions outside of their own viewpoints, either due to brittle
convictions or just being easily riled up (i think the second is
more likely than the first). so this way the cult-studs can
continue on thinking anyone who likes math is some kinda weird
conservative machine and the engineers can continue thinking of
non-engineers as commie scum.
why anyone would spend much time making broad general charges -
beyond a search for status, real or imagined - about such wide and
varied fields is beyond me.
even lawyers, may god have mercy on their blackguard souls.
dhex|12.21.07 @ 11:21AM|#
and seriously don't you motherfuckers get me started on ulysses
again. it totally rawks.
and before you get all fancy prancy about how no one actually reads
it, read this:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29196.html
|12.21.07 @ 11:30AM|#
dhex,
My data for the rate of people who actually read it comes from the
fact that I am one of the few. I don't care for it much, but that
is neither here nor there...
We don't have to start with the fussin' and the feudin' do we?
GinSlinger|12.21.07 @ 11:32AM|#
dhex,
me, personally, i respect folks who can do stuff well,
especially stuff i can't get (like math in general). speaking
second and third languages well, or understanding study
construction, or being real good at statistics, being able to boil
down complex ideas and teach them to others. (that last bit might
be the most difficult of all)
QFMFT!
Ben Rast|12.21.07 @ 11:34AM|#
An emphasis on scientific knowledge at the expense of the liberal arts leads to mis-guided attempts to apply scientific terminology and methods to social problems. The results are a tragic waste of time, money and lives.
Egosumabbas|12.21.07 @ 11:35AM|#
i think a secondary thing here is people don't like hearing
opinions outside of their own viewpoints, either due to brittle
convictions or just being easily riled up (i think the second is
more likely than the first). so this way the cult-studs can
continue on thinking anyone who likes math is some kinda weird
conservative machine and the engineers can continue thinking of
non-engineers as commie scum.
I think this is really sad, because the whole point of a
classical education (the precursor to the now watered-down
LAS tradition) was that you'd get a balanced yet thorough education
about the world - hence the term university. In the past
100 years or so maybe a wedge has been driven between technical and
artistic disciplines. I can tell you right now, as a programmer,
80% of what I do is *art*. It's all about making an aesthetically
pleasing product, and writing aesthetically pleasing code to make
the life easier on my co-workers. LAS students aren't even required
to know algebra or the scientific method, and conversely,
engineering students aren't expected to take English Literature or
Philosophy. A lot of the LAS students I knew could barely get a
grasp on European History. (To be fair, a lot of engineering
students just copied people's homework and labs, and just coasted
along the curve during finals). I think we need LESS people in the
universities; have a higher portion people who actually care about
educated. A good chunk of people were there because mommy and daddy
told them so and couldn't wait to stumble off to the next
party.
That Cowan is is trying to pump up the deflated "do you want fries
with that" egos of LAS generalists is disingenuous. You absolutely
MUST specialize in the 21st century, and fortunately, LAS degrees,
while limited, open the door. Getting a masters or other
specialized degree is paramount.
/rant off
|12.21.07 @ 11:40AM|#
He was using academic-sprache for "white people"
SF, I am impressed by your powers of telepathy, able to discern
what he was thinking in spite of his use of other words.
anyone else dismissing a philosophy or a set of principles
based solely on the race of the people mostly likely to hold would
be dismissed as a racist.
I missed the part where he was dumping on authoritarianism because
of skin color. Could you point that out to me?
I will admit the history of libertarianism is quite
Euro-centric
Quite the opposite. The Euros have been noted mainly for pushing
various flavors of authoritarianism. Even the French Enlightenment
experiment with la liberte' was quickly swamped by the
egalite' and fraternite' bits of the agenda, and
spawned instead a monstrous convulsion of authoritarianism and
nationalism.
What we consider to be libertarian thought is almost exclusively
the product of a specific cultural tradition originating on an
island that has been at pains to distance itself from the
Continent, and on a different continent altogether.
|12.21.07 @ 11:42AM|#
Clicked too soon.
Anyone who lumps English political philosophy with Continental
political philosophy is most likely doing so because of the shared
skin color of people from that part of the world. That, my friend,
is racism.
|12.21.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Cowen is full of it. I spent two years in a foreign country.
Graduated there and I speak a second language and have a history
degree and it hasn't gotten me crap. Still waiting for these
intangible benefits to come through. Waiting to find my skill that
can't be outsourced. BULLSHIT!!!
Tuscaloosa Barber College is looking for you.
Egosumabbas|12.21.07 @ 12:15PM|#
Tuscaloosa Barber College is looking for you.
Don't mean to threadjack here, but did you know they have so
regulated the barber industry now that the only place in Illinois I
can get a shave is in downtown Chicago? No joke. On my wedding day
I could not find ANYBODY who could give me a shave in Springfield,
and it's a decent sized town.
|12.21.07 @ 12:17PM|#
R C Dean,
We are not in any disagreement on the origins of
libertarianism.
I, myself, was using Euro-centric as code for Caucasian... not
catching your meaning...
I just took exception at Cowen's way of expressing himself and his
whole multiculti-tude. (Read the thread. Am I the only one?)
|12.21.07 @ 12:26PM|#
Education is a lifelong quest, task, pleasure, responsibility
... I expect to be crenated the day after I stop trying to expand
my knowledge.
Of course, I don't have a college degree so I'm probably talking
out of my ass.
|12.21.07 @ 12:32PM|#
"Anyone who lumps English political philosophy with
Continental political philosophy is most likely doing so because of
..."
Lack of a liberal arts education?
highnumber|12.21.07 @ 12:33PM|#
I neither speak nor read French, but I have understood every one
of Egosumabbas' French posts.
I haven't read the English ones.
|12.21.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Education is the key....but the door might not be locked, and even if it is, you can break in cheaper.
|12.21.07 @ 12:35PM|#
Lamar,
I have a Creative Writing degree, I'll have you know!
(No. I'm not kidding. I always win the "Most Useless Undergrad
Degree" bar bet.)
Egosumabbas|12.21.07 @ 12:39PM|#
Lamar,
I have a Creative Writing degree, I'll have you know!
(No. I'm not kidding. I always win the "Most Useless Undergrad
Degree" bar bet.)
Nah, you could write for Little Green Footballs.
|12.21.07 @ 12:54PM|#
You must be thinking of communication minors... philosophy is all about should-have been art school kids with no hand-eye coordination. Brooding and little eye contact. And lot's of cigarettes. I justed liked arguing...
|12.21.07 @ 12:56PM|#
Everything I learned in Journalism School I could have learned
in a month at a newspaper.
In fact, everything I learned in college -- two degrees, mind you:
history and journalism, with a music minor -- I could have learned
all by my lonesome.
I just needed those years in college to fuck everything with two
legs. That's what I don't regret about dropping $15k.
I Guess the Entire Reason Staf|12.21.07 @ 1:45PM|#
Nick Gillespie-English major
Jessee Walker-History major
Radley Balko-Journalism major
Brian Doherty-Journalism major
Kerry Howley-Philosophy/English major
Jacob Sullum-Economics/Psychology major
Katherine Mangu-Ward-Political Science/Philosophy major
Michael C. Moynihan-History major
David Weigel-Journalism/Political Science major
Yup, all drive-thru workers. Those degrees sure are useless!
Mike Laursen|12.21.07 @ 2:11PM|#
You forgot Ronald Bailey, reason's go-to guy for
scientific subjects, and shill for Big Evil Corporations.
His wikipedia entry says: "attended the University of Virginia,
where he earned a B.A. in philosophy and economics in 1976. He
attended the University of Virginia School of Law for three
semesters."
carrick|12.21.07 @ 2:12PM|#
Yup, all drive-thru workers. Those degrees sure are
useless!
Well, it's not like they're doing something useful like building
rocket ships.
|12.21.07 @ 2:13PM|#
I'm waiting for Mr. Cowen to explain how we're going to ship the entire water and wastewater infrastructure of central Florida overseas so that an engineer can recommend upgrades and maintenance.
dhex|12.21.07 @ 2:20PM|#
the general flavor i get from people on the outside, as it were,
is that libertarianism = rich white guys. which may or may not be a
way to deflect dealing with it, or dealing with the whole ron paul
phenomenon (i.e. see any recent wonkette posting re:
"paultards")
My data for the rate of people who actually read it comes from
the fact that I am one of the few.
i don't know if it's really that few, actually. compared to dan
brown, probably...and most undergrads would have to seek it out.
though it be canon (and legend) it's not really required in most
places (unless you're taking a 20th century english/irish moderism
course, that is.)
but most of the folks i come in contact with pretend to have read
and understand lacan, or some really opaque writer like judith
butler. (that woman is incomprehensibly vague, especially as she's
gotten older.)
We don't have to start with the fussin' and the feudin' do
we?
ok no fussin' or feudin, but i got dibs on wrasslin'!!!
one thing i think we could all agree upon - possibly? - is that
there isn't enough of a classical focus on rhetoric. cable news
"debate" shows don't exactly teach good argumentation skills, and
as we've seen from the interwebs...well...yeaaaaaaaaaah.
ps: guilty as charged.
pps: fags!
|12.21.07 @ 2:30PM|#
"see any recent wonkette posting"
That site is the flagship for self-loathing wannabes who make
themselves feel better by making fun of other people.
|12.21.07 @ 2:32PM|#
dhex,
You said the D and B-words. That is beyond the pale for a comment
board frequented by women and the mentally-enfeebled. Horrors!
thoreau|12.21.07 @ 3:04PM|#
Late to the thread, but a few things:
1) I'll start with the people who say that natural sciences =
liberal arts. It may be true as a matter of traditional definitions
that the natural sciences and mathematics are grouped in with the
liberal arts, but the differences between the natural sciences and
the other liberal arts fields (humanities and social sciences) are
pretty substantial. In our research, we are more likely to
collaborate with people from professional schools (engineering,
medicine, etc.) than the humanities or social sciences.
Also, in my (admittedly anecdotal) experiences, science students
tend not to self-identify as liberal arts majors. Take it for what
it's worth. To me, it means that the common usage today does not
match up with the older usage. I'll let the pedants fight it out
over which definition is right.
2) That said, as a faculty member, I find that I have a lot in
common with faculty from just about every discipline, whether it's
categorized as a professional major, a liberal arts major, or
whatever. We seem to want a lot of the same things for our
students, believe it or not.
3) To me, what matters most is the thinking skills acquired from
science classes, not the mastery of the particular topic. I don't
really give a damn if my students master the subtleties of magnetic
fields or Newton's Laws or perturbation theory in quantum mechanics
(or perturbatin' theory in URKOBOLD mechanics) or whatever. I'm
more interested in the skill in setting up a problem, solving it,
and checking it. And the skill of writing a good lab report, as
well as trouble-shooting your apparatus or your computer code.
Whether you go into industrial R&D, academia, or some
completely different field, I think those skills will carry
over.
I find that a lot of my colleagues in other disciplines (liberal
arts or otherwise) feel the same way. I can't speak for all
schools, however. Maybe we're just special here.
4) In college, I minored in economics, and I felt the same way
about that education: What I retained was some overall intellectual
skills, rather than the particulars of any topic. If you ask me to
manipulate the cost curves and explain how a per-unit tax will
shift the supply or demand curves and change the equilibrium, I'll
have to strain to remember how that's done. But my overall ability
to understand and interpret graphs and data and models is something
I've retained, even if I only have mastery of it in contexts where
I use those skills.
5) I'm a big believer in science GE classes, and classes that
combine science with liberal arts. For liberal arts majors, I don't
see much point in having them take the specialized, technical
classes that we teach for science majors. They'll never retain any
of it. But they might retain what they learn in a class on, say,
ethics and technology, or the economic impacts of materials
science, or whatever. For science majors, the higher-level skills
that you can get from liberal arts classes will not be retained if
these classes are never taught in the context of science and
technology. If all of your long writing assignments prior to senior
year are in literature and history classes, except for a few short
lab reports, we shouldn't be shocked if your senior project report
sucks.
6) Finally, I used to have a big bias against liberal arts. Then I
mellowed out.
thoreau|12.21.07 @ 3:09PM|#
Two more things:
1) Some of you are probably aghast that I don't care whether my
students master physics, just the skills. Well, I do care that they
get some competence in physics. However, the only topics that you
master are the ones you use repeatedly. I don't know all that much
about magnetism. I don't even know much about topics in optics,
materials, or biophysics that are outside my immediate research.
But I know a lot about how to solve a problem, and so do all of my
colleagues. So I value those skills.
2) Having spoken in favor of a generalist approach to education
(valuing intellectual skills over specific content), I don't think
every high school graduate should be encouraged to pursue that sort
of education. It depends on what you want and what you're
interested in. Some people may prefer a focused, technical
education. More power to them. I'm not interested in teaching
people who really don't want to be there. They'll learn more if
they take a class that interests them. Later on, if they feel that
they should have taken more classes with a generalist focus, they
can always go back to school. I have relatives who did that, and
some of my best students are older students.
Study what you want, I say. If you don't like the way I approach
education, don't take my class. It will be a waste of your time and
my time.
dhex|12.21.07 @ 3:18PM|#
thoreau, if i had to take a fizziks class i would totally take
yours, and not just 'cause you'd have to pass me since i'm so
awesome.
That site is the flagship for self-loathing wannabes who make
themselves feel better by making fun of other people.
this has nothing to do with urkobold!
har har, no seriously...wonkette gets pretty angry about the whole
ron paul thing that is out of proportion to - at least they seem to
put it - his chances of winning. i presume much of that is due to
the automatic "libertarian = slavestate" connection they seem to
make.
You said the D and B-words. That is beyond the pale for a
comment board frequented by women and the mentally-enfeebled.
Horrors!
dan and brown?
i'm more of a holy blood, holy grail man myself. (well if you want
to genuinely learn, you're best off reading elaine pagels, but if
you want to laugh holy blood holy grail is your book.)
Clemsonuee|12.21.07 @ 3:19PM|#
I'd have to say the best thing about getting a technical
education is the risk mitigation. I knew I'd get a good paying job
out of school and that was nice. Basically the reason I chose
engineering over history was that fact.
I did make sure to take courses from most of the other colleges at
the university.
I think the statement that there is no reason to specialize because
of outsoursing is BS. There are certainly a lot of technical things
that can be outsourced, but most technical work (that I've seen)
invovles a good deal of on-site time and a good bit of it involves
culteral understanding. If a techie makes something that is not
comfortable or appealing to someone it's not of much use.
Now I do totally agree that it is good to expand ones horizons, and
that foriegn travel helps.
GILMORE|12.21.07 @ 4:41PM|#
The simple fact is that undergraduate degrees dont mean shit
compared to one's broader set of abilities/aptitude
I work as an economic research analyst -and over half my co-workers
never studied either economics or finance in school. The ones who
did are invariably not quite as good at the job, often because they
lack broader interpretive skills, or the ability to articulate
themselves, to "tell the story" of the data.
The best people I've ever met in this gig? an ex journalist, an ex
food-scientist, a guy who studied creative writing for 8 years, a
chick with a with a masters in Medieval Literature...
Basically, the #1 skill is the ability to communicate. Most
technical specialties can be resourced, but having the mind that
can articulate goals and explain outputs is ultimately more
valuable.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|12.21.07 @ 6:32PM|#
I have a non-Liberal Arts background (in mathematics and
engineering), but (I gather) like thoreau, I teach mathematics at a
small private Liberal Arts college. There is a value to this sort
of education, but too often the students are trying to find the
path of least resistance through rather than gain something from
every class. Also, far too often, the courses that they take to
meet the general education requirements are too standardized and
not able to give students what they are looking for, which doesn't
really help them become well-rounded, or anything else.
As others have said, mathematics is most definitely not a science;
its ways of coming to answers and its standards of justification
are completely different, whether you view the sciences in the
empiricist mode as Hume (which I hope is pretty far out of favor)
or the later Popperian view of falsification. However, saying it is
an art is maybe a bit too strong a statement as well. There
certainly is beauty in a clever and elegant proof, but it isn't
quite the same as artistic beauty.
GILMORE:
Some technical specialties can be resourced, but certainly not all.
As an engineering undergraduate, I didn't need to know all the
various lists of physical constants, but I did need to know how
they went together. At a certain level, the material gets too
technical to just wing it without having a strong background. Maybe
economics isn't one of those types of fields; I have only a little
background in it.
thoreau:
I'd say the only topics you master are the ones that you have to
teach. (I imagine that you might agree.) I suppose that constant
use of something without teaching could do as well, but there's
nothing like knowing that you have to be able to explain nearly
every nuance of the subject to your students to make sure that you
understand it.
Also, my interest in teaching my students is similar to yours. I
hope that even the general education students will come away with
some basic competence in the methods they're taught, but the real
goal is to get them to understand problem solving as a general task
and how mathematics makes it possible. The beauty angle is another
tactic, but it's hard to get that across to non-majors.
Ventifact|12.23.07 @ 5:19AM|#
Liberal arts education is a wonderful thing, which many people
claim to have (directly or by presenting credentials that claim as
much), but which very few people actually attain. Like the
"Someone" above, my experience is that the majority of the students
and professors (and administrators, for that matter) did
not realize what a liberal arts education was all about, much less
have a desire to do it, much less do what it takes to actually go
for it. It didn't figure out the real point of the liberal artiness
of my own education until fairly late in the game, at least
consciously; I had an intuitive sense of it from the start. It's
really amazing how the whole system tends to funnel people away
from a real liberal arts experience (and of course how people want
to be funneled like that).
Especially in the realm of math and science, liberal arts
schools/programs are full of cop-outs so that students who claim to
want to learn how to think in the range of intellectual disciplines
can actually avoid doing any real mathematical thinking and can
avoid extensive bodies of interdependent facts. For classes that
count for math requirements, for example, kids at my school could
(and very very often did) take classes in which you could earn an
'A' by knowing how to multiply fractions (uh, that's what, like,
5th-grade math, not college level?). Also, there is a perverse
characteristic common to the trajectories of most folks' liberal
arts studies: they start out thinking broad, but then focus in and
eventually forget about most disciplines. This is the opposite of a
liberal arts mentality (it is in fact how someone goes about
getting a "technical" degree), wherein you study each realm of
knowledge on its own terms and for its own sake and later begin to
see different subjects interrelating.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245