- This topic has 7 voices and 30 replies.
-
Posts
-
Our superficial scholars This editorial by a member of the Rhodes Scholar section committee raises the intriguing question of whether undergrad courses of study are too narrow and getting away from what a traditional Liberal Arts degree used to be. After reading it I started thinking about my BA in Military History and how much of a Liberal Arts Grounding required of me. I have to say that she has a point. Of the 120 hours I needed for my degree, well over 80 of them were in history classes and almost 50 were specifically Military History. Perhaps it would have been a good thing if I were required to take a more balanced array of classes, especially in my first two years and only concentrated on the military history side in my upper level courses with perhaps one or two non-subject upper level courses. What do you guys think?
For writing skills and reading comprehension, maybe more courses for that. But does a history major really need more math and science courses? I don't think so.
Why not? Isn't knowledge in those areas also part of having a well-rounded education. I can tell you for a fact that math has come in handy writing my thesis for calculating things like ratio of rates of fire, rates of march, and casualty rates. A grasp of classical literature and science is also helpful. We focus too narrowly at our peril I think. Do we really want our college grads to be idiot savants that know one thing very well but lack the skillls to grasp the larger picture? I think the argument she is making is that education is making newer college grads miss the forest for the trees and I think she has a point.
I can tell you for a fact that math has come in handy writing my thesis for calculating things like ratio of rates of fire, rates of march, and casualty rates.
But do you need calculus, trigonometry, physics, etc for that or would a general math class or two suffice?
As someone who went to an undergraduate institution that had a liberal arts core curriculum which spanned the field, I am in favor of the broad approach to education. The way we did it, most of our classes in our first two years were fulfilling requirements, and then the classes in one's major became more important in the last two years. I think it's a means of educating the whole student for life, rather than just for a particular profession.
I can tell you for a fact that math has come in handy writing my thesis for calculating things like ratio of rates of fire, rates of march, and casualty rates.
But do you need calculus, trigonometry, physics, etc for that or would a general math class or two suffice?
I have used all three in history papers. Luckily, the High School I went to made me take all four of them, Physics twice because it was assumed that all the students would go on to college and would need it there. I actually think I got a more well-rounded education in the Catholic High School I went to while at AMU I was more narrowly focused on Military History with some Liberal Arts stuff thrown in for flavor. I am not knocking AMU, it taught military history very well and I am satisfied with my Grad program so far; I just think a little more variey, especially in lower division stuff would not be a bad thing..
I don't think it's a bad thing either. I just think, IMO, it should be major specific. A history major doesn't need all types of math classes for example, but the student would benefit from more literature classes. The opposite would be true for a finance or science major.Would/should a student's age be a consideration? Should an older student like myself who is interested in history have to take math and physics to be more "well-rounded?" How is calculus going to prepare me for grad school in classical history.
I believe History students should be made to focus in more on methodology rather than topic related courses. Yes one needs to be very familiar with whatever historical subject one majors in, but if one is out to teach at the highest level, one needs to understand the discipline itself in much greater detail. Seminars on historiography, historical method, and research application should be stressed much more than they currently are.
Would/should a student's age be a consideration? Should an older student like myself who is interested in history have to take math and physics to be more "well-rounded?" How is calculus going to prepare me for grad school in classical history.
You have a point, but also remember that college is not necessarily simply about launching students to graduate school in their fields. Math may not directly help you prepare for graduate history courses, but it will help you to become a better citizen. I am in the camp that says liberal arts colleges have a primary responsibility for educating the whole individual for life.Besides, I would think that most colleges offer enough opportunities for elective study so that a student could ramp up on miscellaneous history courses if so desired after fulfilling a set of required courses.
Perhaps age and life experience should be a consideration but not when it comes to basics. Just because someone is not 18 does not mean they would not benefit from academic study outside of their specialty. I guess my position in this is that the traditional liberal arts curriculum is one of the things that helped make the west the engine of innovation it ha been for the 200+ years, why are we changing it now? A good example of if it aint broke don't fix it to me.
I think changes to the traditional liberal arts curriculum are likely due to economics. It's harder to justify such a traditional education to the MTV generation nowadays, especially when the economy is in the tank and administrators want to assure students that they will be prepared for a job. The traditional vocational/technical school model has the appeal of “specialization”, and I think liberal arts schools have moved in that direction over the decades.Ski, I would have thought you would be open to the broader liberal arts curriculum if only because the Greeks would have also been open to it. In fact, it would have been quite natural for them.
Like I said, it's not a bad idea, I just think it should be more major specific. A history major would get more benefit from a History of Math course rather than trigonometry.
Guys, I have to disagree with some of you.I believe that a liberal arts education is an essential part of a college education. Afterall, what is the purpose of a bachelor's degree? Is it training? Some would argue that some programs such as a BS EE or some IT degrees really are more like training programs - preparing graduates for a certain path in life.My take on the subject (possessing a liberal arts education for my bachelor's degree) is that the purspose of a liberal arts education is to produce a well rounded, functional adult who knows how to think, how to reason, and has an understanding of the human condition. A liberally education person understands perspective and should have a sound foundation in a number of disciplines.One of my favorite quotes is from Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale. Some will always remember Admiral Stockdale as Ross Perot's vice presidential running mate, but he is a recipient of the Medal of Honor, was one of the most highly decorated U.S. Naval Officers of the Twentieth Century, and was the highest ranking American POW in North Vietnam. After the war, he served as the president of the Naval War College. Here are his comments on the value of a liberal arts education:
I was always being asked by the Navy brass what a destroyer skipper needs to know about Immanuel Kant; a liberally educated person meets new ideas with curiosity and fascination. An illiberally educated person meets new ideas with fear.
In my mind, a liberal arts education teaches one how to think, not what to think. It teaches one how to learn and how to apply context for knowledge. It recognizes the role of diversity and complexity in the universe, as well as faith. It teaches us to recognize wisdom, rather than just knowledge through interaction with the wider world - science, math, social science, literature, religion, humanities - honing social responsibility, critical thinking, problem solving, application of theory and practice. It gives us a perspective on connecting the future with the present and with the past - with a recognition of continuity. It hones our ability to respond to change, as well as to seek and embrace change. And it does all this recognizing the importance of values and morality in society - recognizing the importance of their presence and the consequences of their absence.I've already written a small novella here, standing atop my soapbox, so let me wrap it up like this - a technical or specialized education gives one knowledge, while a liberal arts education gives one wisdom. I will be interested to see everyone's thoughts on this. And since I quoted Admiral Stockdale above, let me finish with the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes:
It is the province of knowledge to speak, and it is the privilege of wisdom to listen.
I'd like to invite all you guys to visit me and let's go hang around the coffee shops near Brown, RISD, etc, then we'll go do the same at the schools in Boston. If liberal arts is supposed to teach kids how to think critically, then those institutions have failed miserably. With some rare exceptions, these kids and adults are told WHAT to think, not how to think. I'm not saying it will change your minds, but it will help you see why I have the point of view that I have.
Vulture, I think you hit the nail on the head.Ski, I don't think that a true liberal arts college will automatically turn students into Tea Partiers upon graduation, but I think it does give them an appreciation and respect for what Western Civilization has to offer (so in that way, the education as a whole is un-liberal/progressive). As for Brown - well, I don't think that all liberal arts colleges are in the same boat. Some have more required courses than others, and some have professors who simply want to impress their socio-politics onto their students. I would say that for the most part, liberal arts schools have watered down their requirements this may lead to a distortion of what "liberal arts" really means.
