Click here if you don’t see subscription options
Joseph J. DunnSeptember 19, 2016
(iStock photo)

University presidents and professors of history, classical and modern languages, literature, philosophy, sociology and similar specialties have long commended the value of liberal arts in the education of citizens, whatever their career objectives. But over the past half century business courses have gained popularity among undergraduates. More recently, colleges and universities are responding to renewed interest in STEM careers—science, technology, engineering and math. In the current election campaigns, our political leaders promote job readiness as the main purpose of a college education. A few institutions, however, are taking action to reassert the importance of a liberal education and make it attractive to more students. How did we come to this point, and how is this revival of the liberal arts happening?

The first European universities included courses on grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy, theology and Aristotelian subjects like physics, metaphysics and moral philosophy. The study of these “liberal arts” consisted in reading aimed at discovering truth accompanied by discussion and reflection that might lead to wisdom and understanding.

With the Enlightenment came the thought that one could discover truth by reason, using scientific experiment, as much as by revelation and ancient texts. Studying Newtonian physics became popular among thinkers. Universities respected scientific discovery: The honorary degree that Yale University granted to Benjamin Franklin in 1753 commends his “ingenious Experiments and Theory of Electrical fire.” Harvard University likewise recognized Franklin’s experiments. On their campuses, however, scholarship emphasized classical languages, moral philosophy and memorization.

In 1800, Thomas Jefferson proposed a curriculum for the new University of Virginia that departed sharply from that of the established U.S. colleges. When Harvard was founded in 1636, Galileo was under house arrest for supporting the Copernican model of the universe, and Isaac Newton had not yet been born. Williams College, established in 1793, followed a traditional curriculum. These imitated English colleges like Cambridge, where the mission was primarily to assure an educated elite steeped in the Aristotelian worldview. At Monticello, Jefferson kept his scientific instruments as close as he kept his beloved books. For the new university, Jefferson wanted “Botany, Chemistry, Zoology, Anatomy, Surgery, Medicine, Natural Philosophy, Agriculture, Mathematics, Astronomy, Geology, Geography, Politics, Commerce, History, Ethics, Law, Art, Finearts” and the classics read in their original Latin and Greek. Work toward a bachelor’s degree would be the capstone for many citizens or the foundation for graduate work in medicine, law or ministry. A year after the founding of the University of Virginia, Jefferson wrote proudly,"This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error as long as reason is left free to combat it." This was to be an education for free men living in democracy.

Before the Civil War, a growing number of colleges built observatories, and science labs slowly became important to a truly liberal education. In 1869, Harvard’s new president, Charles William Eliot, announced that “This university recognizes no real antagonism between literature and science, and consents to no such narrow alternatives as mathematics or classics, science or metaphysics. We would have them all, and at their best.”

Eliot pointed to his principal concern: “An unintelligent system of education from the primary school through the college is responsible for the fact that many college graduates have so inadequate a conception of what is meant by scientific observation, reasoning and proof.”

And he proposed a solution: “It is possible for the young to get actual experience of all the principal methods of thought.” Language study has its method, as do mathematics and natural and physical science, as does faith. Without “a general acquaintance with many branches of knowledge…there can be no such thing as an intelligent public opinion…[which] in the modern world…is the one condition of social progress.” Jefferson’s revolution in education had spread to America’s oldest university.

In Modern Times

By the mid-20th century, an educated person had experienced both the scientific and the Socratic methods of learning. Then, somehow, scholars began once again to regard math and science as separable from the liberal arts. Perhaps this trend was an effort by universities to become more customer-oriented. Some students, after all, had no interest in STEM careers. Their aspirations, if defined at all, lay more in the direction of teaching or writing, perhaps journalism, maybe law or not-for-profit work, but surely nothing where employers required competence in math or science. Lecture-format science courses with no lab experiments, often held in high-capacity lecture halls, were far less expensive than constructing new labs and stocking supplies.

To further accommodate, some colleges allowed students to opt out of all math and science courses. Credit hours once devoted to understanding nature were given instead to a variety of new courses. As long as the college had led the students to read good books, to think critically and write clearly and to consider the morality of their actions, had the college not met its obligations to the students and to society?

In 1967, Harvard-trained economist John Kenneth Galbraith expressed concern about another influence tending to separate the study of language, philosophy and great literature from math and science. InThe New Industrial State he warns: “Modern higher education is, of course, extremely accommodated to the needs of the industrial system. The schools and colleges of business administration…are preparatory academies for the technostructure…the lesser prestige and lesser support for the arts and humanities suggest their inferior role.” Professor Galbraith urged: “The college and university community must retain paramount authority for the education it provides and for the research it undertakes. The needs of the industrial system must always be secondary to the cultivation of general understanding and perception.”

But administrators were hardly able to retain paramount authority while students were, in those days, breaching all historic norms of on-campus decorum, including protesting against the Vietnam War, occupying the offices of deans and presidents and confronting police and National Guard troops. Traditionally white campuses were admitting African-Americans. Men’s colleges admitted female undergraduates. “Paramount authority” was being challenged on campus and in society generally.

Then there is grade inflation. The first studies of the phenomenon of G.P.A.’s rising faster than S.A.T. scores and national literacy scores were conducted in the 1960s. A 2013 study conducted by the University of North Texas’s department of economics summarized: “Studies often discover evidence of differential grade inflation by subject. Most commonly, disciplines that are traditionally more quantitative such as economics, mathematics, psychology, chemistry and computer science exhibit less evidence of grade inflation, while courses such as art, English, music, speech and political science typically have higher rates of grade inflation.”

Many students consider higher grades, and a higher G.P.A., vital to preserving financial aid and competing for future employment. A paper discussing the themes ofWuthering Heights is more amenable to circumspect grading than evaluation of the model structure that collapsed under the required two-kilogram load. The clear liquid sample in the 10-milliliter test tube either did turn blue or it did not, leaving little room for nuance. Accommodating the student who felt that math was too hard or that science was “not my strong point” seemed an easy concession. Jefferson’s passion for broad, liberal education and Eliot’s interest in an educated public opinion and social progress yielded to more immediate and personal concerns. Saving the 4.0 became the paramount consideration.

Finding Our Way

What is an undergraduate to do, and what should a university president endorse, in the quest for knowledge, wisdom and understanding? Can we find a way of proceeding that properly values the humanities and reinvigorates a liberal education? The rising national frenzy to get everyone to go to college, with no objectives beyond employability, will leave us with hundreds of thousands of functionaries in service of Galbraith’s technostructure. The risk is great that they will “live and reason from the comfortable position of a high level of development and a quality of life well beyond the reach of the majority of the world’s population…lead[ing] to a numbing of conscience and to tendentious analyses which neglect parts of reality” (“Laudato Si,’” No. 49).

Yes, some employers want new hires who are “job-ready” for their immediate contribution to the firm. Some entry-level positions, like accounting and engineering, require a bachelor’s degree in that major. But undergraduates who forsake too many humanities courses fail to see an overarching reality: Over years and decades, leadership accrues to the man or woman who understands the human condition. George Washington was highly qualified in the science of fortifications, maneuvers and logistics. But his military skills would have been for naught without the ability to rally his officers with his address at Newburg. With that short speech he poured his sense of duty into their distraught hearts and matched their deepest wishes to his vision. That afternoon they pledged new loyalty.

Franklin Roosevelt won the presidency four times by directing his public statements to the voters’ greatest fears in each election cycle. The warmth and comforting cadence of his fireside chats and the vigor of his campaign speeches embraced the common man, and he responded.

Business confers its laurels similarly. If Steve Jobs had relied only on marketing strategy or engineering, then Apple Inc., and all the other device manufacturers, would meet in commoditized competition where the lowest price always wins. But a calligraphy class at Reed College showed Steve Jobs how the same set of words conveys very different sentiments when different fonts are used. So Apple differentiates itself by meeting human needs in its hardware and software, like commands that follow intuitive logic and anxiety-free customer support.

Great businesses, those that last for many decades without scandal, are built on functional excellence in the cause of human betterment. Their leaders see business as“a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and improving our world. It can be a fruitful source of prosperity for the areas in which it operates, especially if it sees the creation of jobs as an essential part of its service to the common good” (“Laudato Si’,” No. 129).A student who has devoted real effort to discovering how humans have thought about and acted on the great questions of life has pursued the ultimate business skill—understanding human customers, workers, investors and suppliers. To paraphrase Eliot, there is no antagonism between the humanities and business.

How should colleges and universities strengthen a liberal education to prepare graduates for the challenges that must be decided by democracy today? A model can be seen in my alma mater, St. Joseph’s University in Philadelphia. While preserving the core requirements of theology, philosophy, language and history, St. Joseph’s now includes one year of mathematics and one year of laboratory science as minimum requirements for a bachelor’s degree in any major in the College of Arts and Science. Today, decisions of guilt or innocence often hinge on scientific evidence. We rely on models to predict next year’s economy and global climate change in coming decades. The citizen who would truly promote social progress needs an appreciation for math and its method of thought and an adequate concept of scientific observation, reasoning and proof. And the first lesson of the science lab is humility, which is a prerequisite to wisdom.

At the request of the university’s student senate, class schedules are being changed so that liberal arts majors will be able to take elective business courses, acknowledging that many of these students will seek careers in the private sector. This basic fluency in business language can help the new employee connect the work of her small team to the larger mission of the company. Business, too, has its method. That understanding can jump-start advancement up the corporate ladder. In large corporations, decisions that affect customers, workers, investors, the neighborhood and the environment are often made far below the C.E.O. level. Equipping the humanities student to understand the language and functions of business, and its role in society, seems a proper objective of the university.

Thomas Jefferson saw the need for a citizenry of broad education to sustain a republican democracy. Charles William Eliot believed that understanding and wisdom might be achieved by studying a variety of subjects. Pope Francis wants people who can help develop “decisions, programs, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral promotion of the poor” (“Joy of the Gospel,” No. 204). These men challenge our colleges and universities to deliver the wisdom of ages and knowledge of today’s world, to help students fit themselves for service to others.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Richard Booth
7 years 5 months ago
I really loved reading this article, probably because most of what the author said is what I believe to be true! It seems to me that, in the domain of higher education, as well as other parts of life, we have forgotten the idea of "being" versus "doing." That is, who are we as human beings and what do we need to grow and flourish (being)? On the other hand, what do we need to know in order to "do" something effectively? I suspect, though I do not know, that many young people who read the author's article or my comments may perceive us as anachronisms hanging on to the past. However, what human beings require has not altered very much over time, whereas what we are required to do has obviously moved to a post-industrial reality. It seems to me there is still a difference between what should be taught in the university and in the vocational college. Society needs both people who are educated and those who are trained. But, how is this idea to pass muster in a culture that falsely believes everyone needs to go to college and that everyone must have the same kind of intelligence and ability? Many universities have tried to meet the needs of both, which is bound to reduce the commitment to one or the other. Everyone has gifts; the question seems to be "what are my gifts and where are they best utilized?" I have no absolute answer to the very important questions this article raises, but it is certainly worth another look. It would be nice if we could look at the issues without regard to economics but, alas, what is left that we can examine without monetary concerns? Such is the world we have made.
Jim MacGregor
7 years 5 months ago
As a retired Army officer (1961-1982) and later a Government contractor (1982-2013) working on National intelligence systems, I have seen the erosion of what a lot of us would consider "common sense" and ethical behavior regarding our relationships to one another and to the agencies and companies that we work for. I see this as largely due to strictly technical training of Gen Xers and Millennials by the institutions that produced them. It becomes really scary when we see those same people promoted to mid-level and senior management positions in our companies, and see them, not manage, but manipulate people. It becomes threatening when some of us have to justify not lying to the customer or hiding the truth. It becomes a-productive when many cannot write clearly so that the customer can understand what they are being asked to buy. It becomes a-productive when many cannot read the functions that customers expect to be developed. The shuttle "O" ring thing was but one example of what I am alluding to. For an example of ability and courage based on Christian ethics and Jesuit (i.e., liberal arts) training, please google "Ray McGovern". jim macgregor
Vince Killoran
7 years 5 months ago
I appreciate the author's essay and agree with the very real for a liberal arts education. I teach at a liberal arts college). We have a business major and, while I really like my colleagues in that department, a business major just doesn't fit what we do.
Dave Orintas
7 years 5 months ago
Colleges are not job training schools. If the value and absolute necessity of the liberal arts is not self evident, then we are faced with an absolutely total academic and moral disgrace. Then they should just teach busyness and have parties. Look at the bright side: ignorance is bliss.
Charles Erlinger
7 years 5 months ago
One of the subtly most persistent influences that we, in the West, have inherited from the Enlightenment, in my opinion, is the influence of Utilitarianism, sometimes called a branch of Consequentialism. The influence has almost imperceptibly creeped into that seemingly most altruistic of all secular, humanistic concerns, the concern for the waning obtainability and perceived desirability of a liberal arts education. It is sometimes said, perhaps accurately, that the waning obtainability is related to the waning desirability as supply is related to demand. And demand, in this case, is controlled by the student, who in turn is attempting to survive in an environment essentially beyond the student's control, containing elements as variable as parental means, current and future personal obligations incurred just in the process of living life, and all sorts of exogenous factors such as the state of the economy, technological change and war and peace. A student of even moderately mature judgement will have figured out that the education on which he or she has embarked really ought to help, and not hinder, survival, certainly at least, to the extent that incurred obligations can be met. So the thoughtful student's dreams and ambitions turn towards the useful. And the useful is defined by the job market. A simplified and abbreviated description of the behavior pattern once these facts are realized, is that philosophy, literature, music, art and their respective production and expression techniques are categorized as unaffordable in view of the time and money constraints that obtain. So demand decreases, which eventually forces a decrease in supply. But, say those who see the liberal arts as an essential component of the common good, there is a way to intercept this vicious circle. Prove to, or at least persuade, the student that some minimal exposure to the liberal arts is indeed useful, whether it be in sales or marketing, analytical insights related to product design and production, or in developing a deeper understanding of our fellow humans which certainly won't hurt in acquiring leadership skills with which to climb the corporate ladder. The student will then at least consider a liberal arts course if it can be squeezed into the schedule otherwise dominated by science or engineering labs or business case study reports. And demand will then increase prompting a response in the supply department. Is utility a good fit with the liberal arts? There is a thin strand of consistency running from Athens to Rome to Alexandria to the post-Roman and pre-medieval monasteries to Paris to Oxford and so on, in the general idea of the liberal education. First, the idea rarely envisioned that large numbers of a population would ever be encouraged or expected to obtain one. Secondly those elites who were schooled in the liberal arts could reasonably be expected to be employed in landed estate management, government at various levels, or the church. Thirdly, the general idea, while undergoing very slow transformations as time passed and societal conditions changed, has been that a liberally educated person was as close to being a good person in humanistic terms as we humans are likely ever to encounter. So if we twist around the end-state desired by Utilitarians which originally was expressed as an individual hedonistic one, and say that the reasoning still applies, but to a different desired end-state, namely, a good person at least in humanistic terms, then it is possible to posit that there is some rather strained line of reason leading to acceptance of fitting the idea of utility to the idea of the liberal arts. Having done all of that reasoning, we still have the issue as to whether the idea of the good human being is practically related to large segments of the population finding a job and succeeding at it. Personally I think that the jury is still out on that one.
JR Cosgrove
7 years 5 months ago
A few comments: 1. The cost of a college education today drives one to be proficient in some area that is economically desirable. Thus, business and STEM will dominate as employers are willing to pay extra for these skills. Why not recognize that the incredible increase in the cost of education is what is driving the choice of courses in college and will continue to do so and prevent students focusing on a liberal education. These high costs should drive a typical student to alternatives sources of learning. But it doesn't because the typical student is not primarily after an education but the experience of college life living away from home (this is a different sort of an education) and then a ticket to the good life from their desirable degree. The real culprits in the lack of a liberal education are the universities themselves by driving the cost of education so high that it is crippling a large number of graduates and their families who might consider a liberal education if the costs were lower. Jesuits look at yourself in the mirror because you are complicit in all this. 2. There are an incredible number of not too expensive alternative ways to get an in depth education, especially a liberal arts one. But it is unlikely a typical college student or recent graduate would take advantage of these inexpensive ways to learn. There is too much else to do with one's life than learning history and philosophy.. It is possible to get a college degree for very little money if one wants to. For about 10 thousand dollars (maybe less), one can take remote classes from many good universities and get a degree. No keg parties, no basketball games or social interactions in a dorm but an education all the same. Arthur Brooks, president of American Enterprise Institute, got a bachelor's degree remotely and never saw his alma mater. I had a friend who was able to get a Ph.D in nuclear engineering from U. of Tennessee and only visited it three times, one to get his diploma. He would watch a video of the courses as they were happening and be able to ask questions during lectures through a remote hookup. I have watched several videos of biology courses from the University of California, Berkeley that are free on line but there was no credit involved. For liberal education post graduate, there are a plethora of opportunities. One I highly recommend is the Teaching Company or The Great Courses. I am currently listening to Fr. Joseph Koterski's course on Natural Law. Whether it is history, economics, philosophy, science or business one can learn almost anything. There are courses on Aristotelian logic which I highly recommend for any high school student let alone a college graduate. But it takes one who is interested to pursue this. There is no immediate financial reward. 3. The author stated:
When Harvard was founded in 1636, Galileo was under house arrest for supporting the Copernican model of the universe, and Isaac Newton had not yet been born.
This is inaccurate or misleading. Galileo was indeed under house arrest and his science works were censored but the reason was that he was involved with a man who tried to depose Pope Urban. It is a complicated story but essentially he betrayed his mentor, Pope Urban, and made the Pope's ideas sound like they were foolish. At the same time, Ferdinand, the Duke of Tuscany, was trying to depose Urban for not supporting the Hapsburg's in the 30 Year War. Galileo's treatise on the movement of the planets was published under Ferdinand's seal. Urban had actually suggested the idea for the treatise to Galileo but made Urban look like a fool in the treatise. So little wonder when Urban shouted out that he was betrayed. Galileo was lucky. If he had done the same thing in England, his head would have been separated from his body. Instead he got to write in the comfort of his home until he died. Source: Teaching Company course on Science and Religion.
William Rydberg
7 years 5 months ago
Let's face it, using today's scientific and history-critical standards, many of the florid prejudices about the Spanish, Italian, South German and French Church would be automatically dismissed as English, Danish and North German Xenophobic propaganda. The Galileo story is largely propagandist fiction (lived after Columbus founding of America, and others). Bottom line, one ought to strain out the gnats and camels before partaking of a true liberal curriculum. Finally, it's almost a truism these days, but Liberals tend to be most illiberal with their descriptions of their opponents views. Words that we hear too much of tend to proliferate IMHO. Just my opinion, in Christ,
JR Cosgrove
7 years 5 months ago
There is a school of thought that most of the history of Spain was influenced by English and American historians and writers. England was especially anti-Spain and so were her colonies. So they wrote disparaging works about Spain that made it into English language literature and history books. One of these writers was Washington Irving.

The latest from america

Thanks to Jack Serio’s direction and playwright Ruby Thomas’s script, “The Animal Kingdom” falls into the category of a difficult but necessary watch, and the questions we are left with inspire us to think more critically about our mental health and relationships.
Michael O’BrienMarch 01, 2024
A letter criticizing Pope Francis for promoting “ambiguities in matters of faith” and at the same time ruling the Catholic Church with an iron fist, is circulating in the Vatican.
In an exclusive interview with Gerard O’Connell, Archbishop Jorge Ignacio García Cuerva explains why his first three Masses in Buenos Aires were celebrated in a shanty town, prison and cemetery.
Gerard O’ConnellMarch 01, 2024
The gifts of men and women are “fruitful” together, and to erase the difference between men and women “is to erase humanity,” Pope Francis said.