Should Universities Give Liberal Arts Programs?

Havent read thread but ive posted previously that I fully support public institutions biasing support/tuition/whatever for certain STEM programs or majors that have higher anticipated rate of return of the investment (eg economics orobably has good starting salaries and placement rates where the state can hope to regain on taxes) or vocational programs that have a bit better benefit (high placement into work nursing programs, welder, etc)

As far as I know, US states that do have like publically funded scholarships (eg Georgia and HOPE) do not bias between majors. Other things also apply (eg automatic admittance stuff texas used to have, etc)

States do not need to support the (N+1)th psychology major if there are far better majors to push the public towards

This does not change the university's accredidation for programs and such), nor force cancellation of entire prograns. But im fine with bias rather than be major-blind
 
The kind of bias you're talking about already exists. Heavily. There are far more students getting STEM scholarships than humanities scholarships for this reason.
 
The problem with eliminating liberal arts is that we'd all be engineers, and how long do you think that can last before we all just murder each other?
 
Universities are to expand your mind, thinking capacity, and intelligence. In many regards they are supposed to be opposite of practical, because they are, improving your ability to think beyond what's already in practice.

If you think political science or economics is too basic to take classes for, wait how numbing your accounting classes will be :ack: No firm worth their salt is going to prefer an accounting major to an economics major, unless you want to be their accountant and only their accountant. And even still, an economics major can get a job as an accountant without much extra work.
 
The problem with eliminating liberal arts is that we'd all be engineers, and how long do you think that can last before we all just murder each other?

The only difference between liberal arts professors and engineers nowadays is that engineers engineer machines and constructs, liberal arts professors seek to engineer society.
 
The kind of bias you're talking about already exists. Heavily. There are far more students getting STEM scholarships than humanities scholarships for this reason.

This bias does not exist in publically funded programs that I am aware of in the US

Eg HOPE in georgia

I am happy to be corrected for publically funded programs

Private scholarships are independent

I am fully aware such things as the NSF/DOE/other federal agencies have fellowships that are tailored for specific functions, and those have majority STEM bias

My bias is looking at georgia and virginia state programs, and I am not aware of details of such things as pell grant
 
I can give you plenty of reasons to not become an accountant.
 
Scholarships should be reserved for the liberal arts. STEM majors can pay for their trade school certificate with the job they get at graduation.
 
The only difference between liberal arts professors and engineers nowadays is that engineers engineer machines and constructs, liberal arts professors seek to engineer society.
Two pages in and we're already onto the conspiracy theories?
 
Not seeing how political 'science' and economics are either

-'soft sciences' (but they are "soft on -the crime that is- 'soft sciences'")

-liberal arts [itself a misleading term, particularly if it is expanded to include pretty much everything apart from math/natural (observable world) science]

In my view theoretical subjects are very important, as long as they are presented by people who know stuff on those subjects (a good example could be linguistics, anything dealing with epistemology, and i would also name 'philosophy' if it did not have such a bad name and moreover deserved to due to apparently most philosophical departments around).

Fwiw i did have a couple of professors in philosophy at uni who were (in my view) usefull as professors on the subject. But the vast majority of them was less than that. And afaik Essex uni actually is supposed to have a high level philosophy department.

*

Likely the worst uni fields (by now) are political ones, cause chances are the lecturers there are little more than paid ideologues.
 
Two pages in and we're already onto the conspiracy theories?

I wouldn't say it is a conspiracy theory, and in fact those that teach liberal arts - who often happen to have a left-wing/libertarian perspective on things - are themselves unwitting agents of what is often undesirable social change.

The problem is that liberal arts have ceased to be society's moral compass they used to be. It has become self-referential. Some ivory tower's dude cites another ivory's dude who happens to cite the other one as well.
 
I wouldn't say it is a conspiracy theory, and in fact those that teach liberal arts - who often happen to have a left-wing/libertarian perspective on things - are themselves unwitting agents of what is often undesirable social change.

The problem is that liberal arts have ceased to be society's moral compass they used to be. It has become self-referential. Some ivory tower's dude cites another ivory's dude who happens to cite the other one as well.
I'm not really sure what this means. Maybe we could try a practical example: my dissertation adviser is currently working on a book about the Whiskey Rebellion. What sort of prescriptions for social engineering do you think such a text might contain?
 
I'm not really sure what this means. Maybe we could try a practical example: my dissertation adviser is currently working on a book about the Whiskey Rebellion. What sort of prescriptions for social engineering do you think such a text might contain?

That depends on his particular perspective in how he covers it. The problem is that quite a few will present the same tired old narrative about how there was one oppressor and a bunch of proles, but maybe I am misgiven. However, I know from my experience in university that media studies and sociology tend to be full of selfrighteous fools who seek to confirm their social theories and genuinely belief those that they are engaging in genuine scholarly rigour and that those that present contradicting evidence are set aside as hacks.

In other words, the liberal arts suffers from intellectual inbreeding, and because it has such a strong influence on politics and perceptions what is ethical, it can be damaging to society at large.
 
In my opinion, a university that deserves this name should eliminate its accounting program before it eliminates its liberal arts programs. Historically, liberal arts were the only thing universities were for and it is only a very recent (and worrying) trend to see universities as some kind of glorified trade school that should only impart economically useful skills. We certainly need schools for that, but that is not the task of universities.

If your liberal arts courses can be replaced by the internet and (university-run?) libraries, then it is the quality of those courses you should be concerned with and not whether they should exist at all.
 
That depends on his particular perspective in how he covers it. The problem is that quite a few will present the same tired old narrative about how there was one oppressor and a bunch of proles, but maybe I am misgiven. However, I know from my experience in university that media studies and sociology tend to be full of selfrighteous fools who seek to confirm their social theories and genuinely belief those that they are engaging in genuine scholarly rigour and that those that present contradicting evidence are set aside as hacks.

In other words, the liberal arts suffers from intellectual inbreeding, and because it has such a strong influence on politics and perceptions what is ethical, it can be damaging to society at large.
Well, that's not really a response to my question, but we'll go with it: do you have any examples of the "self-righteous fools" in question? In what ways are they representative of the academic humanities and social sciences generally?
 
Well, that's not really a response to my question

My point is that university's liberal arts department can be damaging to established social institutions as they nowadays will - unwittingly - seek to identify such social institutions (such as the state, the family etc.) as oppressive, while failing to understand them. There in lies the rub: Of all academic disciplines, liberal arts and social sciences deal most closely with politics, so politics in due course is most influenced by these disciplines.

I do not blame this on malice, but rather on intellectual laziness. Since the trend in the liberal arts is to be focussed on the material and economic, it routinely fails to understand the transcendental aspects of the cornerstones of Western civilisation, upon it which becomes understandable why they view such as oppressive.

do you have any examples of the "self-righteous fools" in question, and that they are representative of the academic humanities and social sciences generally?

Stuart Hall would be a really strong contender.

I think it's in the name: "University". If it doesn't attempt to cover the field of human enquiry and knowledge it isn't a university.

The Netherlands has at least three "Universities of Technology" that as the name suggest only cover STEM subjects.
 
Stuart Hall would be a really strong contender.
No, "Stuart Hall" would be a sentence fragment. I'm asking for an example, here, some sort of description of a person's work and an explanation of how it's representative of contemporary academia. I honestly don't care if you think a specific professor is an ass (I think Niall Ferguson is an ass, but I don't take him for some sort of archetype), I want you to make a case for your position.

(It's rich, all this talk of "intellectual laziness", from somebody who seems to communicate exclusively in generalisations!)
 
Original Post inside Spoiler

Spoiler :

Before I go any further, I do want to point out that I am majoring in economics, which is a liberal art. I am not insulting the liberal arts or anyone who studies them. However, I am planning on switching my major to go into accounting.

Why am I making this decision?

Basically, I believe that most liberal arts programs are either pointless, can be self-taught and are not that in demand because of the two.

I compare the liberal arts programs to the parable of the Ivory tower. Although they often involve intellectual discussion, it is almost impossible to apply them in any practical way, because they are mostly involved in theory or in critical analysis. The focus in liberal arts is identifying the problem, but more often than not, there is no guaranteed solution.

It is true that whoever can provide solutions ends up being very successful, but can you say that every liberal arts student can do the same thing? For example, I doubt there will be another person like John Maynard Keynes who completely changed the way we think about economics.

Most liberal arts programs can be self-taught, and don't require the assistance of the University's resources. For example, if you want to perform scientific research, it often means that you need some specific equipment that you might not be able to afford. So a university helps gather all those wanting to make scientific research and gives them the equipment to do so.

I am taking a political science class, and I found that all I am really doing is reading a book and taking down notes. I read ahead of class, and I often find that the lecture content is just a dumbed down version of what I was expected to read. I can say with confidence that I can pass this class without attending a single lecture. However, I paid for the lecture, so I am going to attend it.

The point is, if I wanted to learn political sciences, all I had to do was just buy the book and read, or rent books relating to the subject from a library. In the past, it was necessary to go to a University to study history, but with the information age, I can research a topic, read books, and then discuss them in public forums like this one, which is essentially what is being done in a University. I do not need to spend four years worth of tuition to become knowledgeable in a subject that could only cost me several trips to the library and an internet connection.

My dad is an engineer, and I can arguably say that he knows a lot about political sciences and economics. He has never studied those in a University, but he just reads books.

My final point is the most common complaint about the liberal arts, that it is often hard to find a job in them. That is again, because these programs are mostly intellectual discussion, and not practical. The STEM programs (Science, technology, engineering, medicine) provide real life examples and situations shortly after learning the theory, and they are in high demand, because they focus on solving problems in real life situations. Being a political scientist, I doubt I can make North Korea a democracy or something like that.

There are a few liberal arts programs which are worthy, such as those teaching different languages. The University excels in being a place that provides an environment for learning a second language. However, majoring in a language alone pretty much does nothing. It has to be accompanied by something else, because if you wanted someone that could speak a certain language, you might as well hire a native speaker. Arguably, even languages can be learned by working in an area that speaks that language and speaking with the locals.

So these are my points. Again, this is not to offend anyone, but I am just placing my opinion on this matter. Can anyone convince me not to switch my major?

It looks like all of your points are reasons to study disciplines such as engineering and accounting as opposed to liberal arts. None of them seem to be reasons why universities should not be offering liberal arts programs. Your final question is if you should switch your major or not.

.....

I can give you plenty of reasons to not become an accountant.

This is probably where your most relevant advice is going to come from.
 
No, "Stuart Hall" would be a sentence fragment. I'm asking for an example, here, some sort of description of a person's work and an explanation of how it's representative of contemporary academia. I honestly don't care if you think a specific professor is an ass (I think Niall Ferguson is an ass, but I don't take him for some sort of archetype), I want you to make a case for your position.

(It's rich, all this talk of "intellectual laziness", from somebody who seems to communicate exclusively in generalisations!)

Perhaps I should rather place exceptions who are NOT representative of modern academia, such as Roger Scruton.

In general, discourse in social sciences and liberal arts can be summarised as something happens, therefore "Oh noes! Oppression! Patriarchy! Racism!". Once something is no longer considered PC, it cannot be studied in a dispassionate manner, only as an object of hostility.

Please note that I don't assume bad faith from you.
 
Back
Top Bottom