The search for Brown's next president sparked a heated discussion about the future of our University. Some view President Ruth Simmons' legacy favorably and want her successor, Christina Paxson, to maintain a steady course. Others, however, take issue with the fact that under Simmons' leadership Brown moved away from its traditional emphasis on the liberal arts undergraduate education and instead began to imitate peer institutions by putting more stock in scientific research and connections to industry.
My purpose here is to neither defend nor criticize the restyling of Brown that took place during Simmons' tenure. Rather, I want to look at an issue below the surface of this present debate because I believe the changes spearheaded by Simmons were not isolated occurrences but symptoms of a growing trend among our nation's colleges: the gradual withering away of the humanities and the liberal arts education.
Amid a struggling economy and a ballooning student debt crisis, parents and students are reevaluating the merits of a college education. Is it a wise investment? There is no simple answer, because the return on investment depends on what you study. The increasing pressure on students to secure a high-paying position after graduation has led many to pursue a degree in a field where job prospects are more promising, such as computer science, economics, engineering, biology, chemistry and so on. In other words, the economy discourages students from concentrating in subjects where employment opportunities are more scarce -- namely, the humanities. When President Barack Obama says the United States needs education to stay competitive in the global economy, he is not suggesting that students should take more Gender Studies courses.
A bit of disclosure -- I am a philosophy concentrator myself, so this issue concerns me personally. But, I think all of us believe that an education should be more than just the acquisition of facts and know-how. It should involve developing communication skills, maturing into a well-rounded adult and becoming a creative and critical thinker. These are the fundamental goals of the liberal arts model. Simply put, the aim of studying the humanities is to produce a better human being.
But here's the bombshell: We live in a society ruled by the principles of market logic and commodification, and there is nothing inherent within that system that gives a damn about producing better human beings. Exchange value determines what is important in our world, and the humanities are on the path to extinction because they lack commercial viability.
The reason is simple. Shakespeare scholars do not generate enough revenue to pay for themselves. The products they create -- namely the preservation and extension of Shakespeare scholarship -- are not valuable enough, in a market sense, to stand alone. Teachers of the humanities must be subsidized, because they are incapable of sustaining themselves. If universities like Brown were eliminated tomorrow, for example, academic philosophy would be swiftly eradicated. Without the insulation afforded by institutions of higher learning, many disciplines would be relegated to competing for shelves in Barnes & Noble.
Some of you are grumbling at this point because I have forgotten to mention that degrees in the humanities often do lead to a wide range of employment opportunities. And while it is certainly true that thousands of humanities degree holders find jobs every year, the point I am trying to make is that this is simply a coincidence. Say you concentrated in art history. Maybe you will end up working for Brown's Alumni Relations Association or the Rhode Island School of Design Museum or a high school. That you studied art history is really nothing more than an interesting detail on your resume. What is important to employers is that you have been properly socialized and are a reliable worker. My point remains -- the economic structure of our society fails to recognize, and thereby promote, the inherent value of studying the humanities.
While many of us ostensibly praise the societal and personal benefits of engaging with the humanities, we tolerate a society where such pursuits are actually discouraged because they don't lead to "practical" careers. Of course financial security is not the student's only consideration when choosing a course of study, but we nevertheless systemically disincentivize students from choosing to focus in the humanities.
The current trend of our nation's universities points toward the demise of all forms of education that are neither vocational nor profitable through research. The very underpinnings of the liberal arts education are under severe attack, essentially because they have failed to appreciate the vulnerability of the humanities in a system of unmonitored capitalism.
The debate about the future of Brown and the praiseworthiness of Simmons' legacy is really a minor issue compared with the larger social crisis we face. If we fail to champion a robust enough humanism and cannot overcome the machinations of global laissez faire capitalism, market forces will continue eliminating livelihoods -- including many forms of scholarship -- that do not generate sufficient monetary returns. For those of us who understand that human life is about more than economic productivity and growth, this is an utterly unacceptable course.
Jared Moffat '13 will philosophize for food. He can be reached at
jared_moffat@brown.edu.
The sciences are the last refuge for the rational student.
You fail to point out what about a liberal arts degree "properly socializes" a person, or makes them a "reliable worker" as opposed to say, my degree in Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences. I'm all for learning social skills, but I joined a fraternity for that.
I'm a well rounded individual myself. In high school I was an accomplished classical musician and I have been to 65 countries and have an appreciation of art history, ballet, opera etc. However, when I had the choice to go to a conservatory for classical music, or get an engineering degree, I chose engineering. You can get a well rounded education without going to college for it.
Also, there is a lot of chutzpah to insinuate that these liberal arts majors are what make a "well rounded individual." Rhetoric majors are not forced to take a Finance class, or a CS class. 90% of your actions daily are enabled by what CS majors understand, and the financial markets make or break economies. Pretty important stuff in my opinion . . . but I'd bet that most French majors don't know the first thing about Computer Science outside of their iPad.
Why do adults need to be "well-rounded"? I hated that term in college. I went into college for a physics and civil engineering degree. At least 2 classes a semester were spent on worthless classes that were a requirement so that I would grow into a "well-rounded" adult. Psychology, Sociology, Fables and Fantasy, Marriage and Family, Personal and Professional Development, Public speaking, small group speaking, Geography of Tourism, U.S. History between 1900 and 1975, and some more I can't remember right now. Each class took my time and money and I can't remember a blessed thing I learned in any of them. None of the classes were difficult, just time consuming.
I went into college wanting to know how to build/maintain roads, bridges, and structures. That's it. I didn't (and still don't) care about the meter Shakespeare used, or what the most popular tourist attraction in Belgium is, or what type of person I am according to Myers Briggs. I'm two years into my engineering career and it looks like I was forced to waste 1/3 of my money and 1/3 of my time in college.
When the wealth is accumulated in very few hands, and the rest of society must fight for the crumbs left, everybody goes into this survival mode and all decisions and adjustments to the various systems of society, like education, are made from this necessity.
As I have warned before, we don't even have to go very far to witness this breakdown of society, where life in the bottom rungs is very cheap and expendable, where crime is about the only income and education is not even on the list. Our neighbor down south, Mexico, where the world’s richest man and a miniscule minority that hold all the wealth seems to be a future which our country is vying for.
There are three essential skills at the heart of a good education: 1. language skills 2. math skills 3. critical thinking skills. These are skills that lend themselves well to self-education, to a certain point.
I think churches and community centers should start programs that try to link tutors with students. I could easily tutor students in language and critical thinking skills to a level that would be far above the college entry level, and I would be happy to do it. I think communities need to give more thought to these kinds of programs. They would be cheaper than college. And if colleges had a system in place for testing students and giving them credit for what they know, then students could save moment and primarily take the courses required in their particular field. It could lead to cost savings.
Judging from the way that the global warming debate has proceeded among our elected officials, it appears that my concerns were well-founded.
It was ever thus -- you might enjoy C.P. Snow's essay "The Two Cultures".
Fully agree about how important that everyone understand how science works, AS PART OF A LIBERAL-ARTS EDUCATION. (sorry for shouting).
On the one hand, people today can be free to meet their physical needs in any number of ways, freeing their minds for higher pursuits. On the other hand, today's world seems to have moved us in just the opposite direction, with less time to devote to thinking about anything that will not directly lead to material advancement.