DGS49
Diamond Member
I see a lot of discussion in this forum that dances around this issue but doesn't really attack it directly. What is the value of a liberal arts education?
There isn't really much question about the value of a "professional" or "pre-professional" education at a college or university. If you are studying accounting or engineering or even Business Administration, you are making an economic assessment that this formal education will have some value to you in life. In some cases you can't even work in the field without a degree. You may be right and maybe not, but it is a decision that can be made rationally.
But that is not really the case for a degree in Philosophy or History, or English Lit - the formerly-called, "Liberal Arts."
For the most part (at least based on my personal experience) these courses are not terribly rigorous. You read the assignments, listen to the professor, talk about the subject, maybe consult a secondary source for some insights, and that's about it. You understand the assigned book or philosophy or concept, and you parrot it back on your exam. You take your A or B and move on. A year from now, you have forgotten most of it.
But let's be generous and assume that you go through your programme, get your degree, and as a result of this education you develop a talent for "critical thinking." You have a healthy skepticism about new concepts and people, and you learn how to investigate, compare, evaluate, and ultimately draw your own opinion on the subject matter. You learn how to distinguish valid, reliable information from the crap that you see from most public resources, and you have learned how to access the most reliable information fairly quickly.
You learn critical listening, thinking, and communicating skills, both orally and in writing. You could, for example, prepare a cogent and informative PowerPoint presentation or a "white paper" on an issue that your company, agency, or organization is confronting, and defend it against - let's say - fairly aggressive challenges. You could make an oral presentation before a dozen co-workers and not make a complete ass of yourself - after all, you did it in Communications class.
For today's world, you have the intelligence and resourcefulness to locate government regulations that impact something your employer is doing, and at least get a general idea of what is required to comply with those regulations, and what agencies you will be dealing with.
It is not unreasonable to expect all of this from a Liberal Arts education. Maybe some people don't get there, but they should.
So the questions are: (a) Could you have reached this point in your intellectual development WITHOUT having gone to college? and (b) If you have reached this point, will you be able to convince any typical employer that you are as "educated" or "valuable" as a college graduate?
These are not easy questions. There is a difference between me reading Shakespeare, and me attending a university course that is focused on Shakespeare. The professor brings not only his own insights into the classroom, but also the insights of the most renowned experts in the field for the past 200 years. You will hear and read other peoples' viewpoints on the subject matter - people whose opinions have stood the test of time.
Can you possibly "get as much" from a personal reading of Shakespeare as you could in a college classroom? I don't think so. It is just as likely that you misinterpret what he is trying to say, or miss out on some significant points that were not obvious just by your reading of it. This is just one example, but I think the same principle applies to history, philosophy, literature, and certainly the "soft" sciences like sociology and psychology. Reading books on your own just doesn't get you there, and I don't care what Good Will Hunting had to say on the subject. A library card doesn't get you the same education as four years at Harvard.
The second thing is, can you convince some employer that you are as "smart" or valuable as a college grad? Probably not. No matter what position (or promotion) you are going after, very few employers will give the same weight to simply being smart and well-read as they will to a college degree, even if it is a ridiculous degree from a third-rate school.
A personal anecdote, if you please: After I got out of the service in 1971 I went to the local community college for two years, then decided to work full-time and go to school at night. I took the Federal Government's aptitude test (the "PACE" exam) and scored so high that, with my 5% veterans preference, my score was 104%. And I still was not able to convince the interviewers that I was as capable as other applicants who had "nothing" degrees from third-rate colleges. It was only because they had to hire me (because of my status as a Vietnam Vet) that I was hired. They were amazed when I performed as well as the college grads who were hired at the same time.
For better or for worse, it still makes sense to get a college degree if you can.
There isn't really much question about the value of a "professional" or "pre-professional" education at a college or university. If you are studying accounting or engineering or even Business Administration, you are making an economic assessment that this formal education will have some value to you in life. In some cases you can't even work in the field without a degree. You may be right and maybe not, but it is a decision that can be made rationally.
But that is not really the case for a degree in Philosophy or History, or English Lit - the formerly-called, "Liberal Arts."
For the most part (at least based on my personal experience) these courses are not terribly rigorous. You read the assignments, listen to the professor, talk about the subject, maybe consult a secondary source for some insights, and that's about it. You understand the assigned book or philosophy or concept, and you parrot it back on your exam. You take your A or B and move on. A year from now, you have forgotten most of it.
But let's be generous and assume that you go through your programme, get your degree, and as a result of this education you develop a talent for "critical thinking." You have a healthy skepticism about new concepts and people, and you learn how to investigate, compare, evaluate, and ultimately draw your own opinion on the subject matter. You learn how to distinguish valid, reliable information from the crap that you see from most public resources, and you have learned how to access the most reliable information fairly quickly.
You learn critical listening, thinking, and communicating skills, both orally and in writing. You could, for example, prepare a cogent and informative PowerPoint presentation or a "white paper" on an issue that your company, agency, or organization is confronting, and defend it against - let's say - fairly aggressive challenges. You could make an oral presentation before a dozen co-workers and not make a complete ass of yourself - after all, you did it in Communications class.
For today's world, you have the intelligence and resourcefulness to locate government regulations that impact something your employer is doing, and at least get a general idea of what is required to comply with those regulations, and what agencies you will be dealing with.
It is not unreasonable to expect all of this from a Liberal Arts education. Maybe some people don't get there, but they should.
So the questions are: (a) Could you have reached this point in your intellectual development WITHOUT having gone to college? and (b) If you have reached this point, will you be able to convince any typical employer that you are as "educated" or "valuable" as a college graduate?
These are not easy questions. There is a difference between me reading Shakespeare, and me attending a university course that is focused on Shakespeare. The professor brings not only his own insights into the classroom, but also the insights of the most renowned experts in the field for the past 200 years. You will hear and read other peoples' viewpoints on the subject matter - people whose opinions have stood the test of time.
Can you possibly "get as much" from a personal reading of Shakespeare as you could in a college classroom? I don't think so. It is just as likely that you misinterpret what he is trying to say, or miss out on some significant points that were not obvious just by your reading of it. This is just one example, but I think the same principle applies to history, philosophy, literature, and certainly the "soft" sciences like sociology and psychology. Reading books on your own just doesn't get you there, and I don't care what Good Will Hunting had to say on the subject. A library card doesn't get you the same education as four years at Harvard.
The second thing is, can you convince some employer that you are as "smart" or valuable as a college grad? Probably not. No matter what position (or promotion) you are going after, very few employers will give the same weight to simply being smart and well-read as they will to a college degree, even if it is a ridiculous degree from a third-rate school.
A personal anecdote, if you please: After I got out of the service in 1971 I went to the local community college for two years, then decided to work full-time and go to school at night. I took the Federal Government's aptitude test (the "PACE" exam) and scored so high that, with my 5% veterans preference, my score was 104%. And I still was not able to convince the interviewers that I was as capable as other applicants who had "nothing" degrees from third-rate colleges. It was only because they had to hire me (because of my status as a Vietnam Vet) that I was hired. They were amazed when I performed as well as the college grads who were hired at the same time.
For better or for worse, it still makes sense to get a college degree if you can.