I would argue that it's perhaps more important for students in the sciences to take courses in the humanities than vice versa.  The sciences are where ethical problems can multiply very easily (cloning, weapons R&D, etc.).  I would want scientists, engineers, and doctors to realize that just because they can do something does not mean that they should do it.  In other words, I would want them to know how to weight their actions correctly.

Ah, there's the rub.  Just as we want these folks to have a grounding in the liberal arts and the humanities in order to establish a moral and ethical foundation, is it not also essential for the liberal arts majors to have a similar foundation in the sciences?  At a minimum, shouldn't the liberal arts major at least understand the scientific method and foundational theories?I think we need to take a look at what Scout said above - the purpose of a college education - in the classical sense - is to produce a well rounded functional adult who can contribute to (and lead) society.  In general, this used to constitute two years of general education in the arts and sciences, and then two years of focused study in the desired "major" curriculum.  Then there was further advanced studies within the discipline (graduate school) for further specialized education.  Over time, some schools morphed into offering more focused curriculum at the expense of the first two years of general (liberal) education.  Academia caved in to the demands of scientists stating "what do I need to know about a book written 500 years ago or who won a battle 100 years ago?  How will that help me as a scientist?"  The unintended consequence to that is that many traditional liberal arts degrees followed suit and either abandonded  science and mant requirements or just opened over half the curriculum to elective credit - assuming that the true student would pursue the areas that he/she believed would be most beneficial to their overal education.  Instead, in many cases, it has become a way of simply padding the GPA.I believe that in many ways, this is the root of the many ethical problems that we now face in science, business, and government - as well as society as a whole.I think I've posted on this before, but the most recent census data that I have seen states that less than 28% of Americans over the age of 25 hold a four year college degree.  I would go one further, and ask that of that 28%, how many possess a well rounded, liberal arts degree that included courses in ethics or philosophy?

Just looking to my personal experience, a liberal arts curriculum usually requires everyone, regardless of major, to take a certain mix of foundational courses.  While there are generally accepted “norms” – schools frequently put their own marks on the degree.  My experience was something like, two science classes, two religion classes, a composition class and a literature class, two humanities classes, two math classes (and yes, “Math for Liberal Arts Majors” was one – the other was a non-calculus based statistics class), two social sciences, I know I took two philisophy courses – although they were probably electives – and most of the rest were history courses.Now, I'm currently a graduate student at AMU, so I went back and looked at their required undergraduate curriculum (AMU is designated as a liberal arts institution - I believe one of only two 100% online liberal arts schools).  They require:2 English classes (one must be composition)1 Humanities class2 History classes1 Literature class1 Math class1 Political Science class1 Science class (with lab)2 Social Science classesThat's pretty much regardless of your selected major - that's the minimum that everyone must take.The intended result is that every graduate, regardless of discipline, will have a solid foundation  in fundamental courses and subjects.

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:

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:

Ah, Mary Beard.  When you say that you might have heard of Mary Beard, you're probably thinking of Mary Ritter Beard.  She was a noted historian and women's suffragist in the early 20th Century.  If you haven't exactly heard of Mary Ritter Beard, you've probably heard of her husband, the Columbia University historian Charles Beard.  Charles Beard was one of the most prominent American historians of the first half of the 20th Century, re-interpreting many of the accounts of the founding of America with an economic / populist eye.But seeing how both Mary Ritter Beard and Charles Beard are both dead, and have been for 50+ years, the article is probably referring the noted British / Cambridge classicist Mary Beard (very much alive).The first two surfaced in my Historiography course a while back, and the latter was recently noted in one of my wife's humanities courses.

Hey Tito – I'm an AMU grad student in the Mil. History program.  I have a few friends who completed their bachelor's degrees in history at AMU who have been admitted to (and are attending) law school – one is at University of Mississippi.

My driver was busy trying to get people to sell him one and only one of their shoes.  He had a pretty good collection and would drop one on the face of insurgents after we killed them.  Now that is an insult, almost akin to putting the Ace of Spades on a VC.

I like it.My exposure to Iraqi culture is, uh, less than minimal.  I dealt with Muslim cultures in East Africa, Indonesia, and the Philippines.  Of course, I spent plenty of time  in Central America, Korea, and Japan as well, and it has been more than a few years, but somewhere that Uncle Sam sent me, that's the "A**hole" symbol.

In the little town where I live in Northern Virginia, we have always had a manger scene set up on the court house lawn.  Last year a group of athiests sued, so now we have a total of 14 holiday displays set up on the court house lawn.  They were selected on a “first-come-first-served” basis and they represent, I think, three Christian churches, a Star Wars themed “Church of the Jedi”, four or five athiest groups, a Saturnailia display, a “Festivus” display, a solistice display, and a handful of crackpots, fruits, and nuts.In my favorite, an athiest group compares Christ to Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, labelling them as "myths for young and old" -- but the best part is that the group behind it then published a letter to the editor of the local paper stating that they are pleased to be able to exercise their First Amendment rights and do not intend to offend anyone.  Not offend anyone?  Express your opinion, sure.  Mock the religion of millions...  no, I'm sure there is no offense intended or received.I'm waiting for the day when Athieism is declared a recognized religion.