The Liberal Arts: Do they Matter?

[Vermark]

This came to me from an in-character debate over at the Global Economics and Trade Forum. I believe this is one of the most important issues in education; it's arguably more important than rising costs or public policy.

Is a liberal arts/humanities (i.e. arts, history, literature, philosophy, etc.) focus (i.e. major, minor, concentration, etc.) a worth-while pursuit in a post-secondary education? Should institutions and governments provide funding to the liberal arts to the same extent as the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields?

My Opinion:
I think that the liberal arts are still very relevant. There are really two overlooked aspects when it comes to the benefits of the liberal arts. The first is a materialistic point; the benefit of the liberal arts to one's career and business-life is very underestimated. One of my favorite scholars/journalists, Fareed Zakaria, makes this point beautifully. In his address to the Sarah Lawrence Liberal Arts college, he points out three broad skills that a liberal arts education equips students with: thinking, speaking, and learning. Underneath these categories, Zakaria includes analysis, persuasion, critical thinking, and problem solving. Furthermore, in today's world, the liberal arts are almost essential for corporate success. For example, Apple's iPhone is not a truly distinct product from its competitors; Apple's marketing capabilities, however, are remarkably unique. This marketing comes from the use of aesthetics, rhetoric, and psychology--all are part of the liberal arts field.

The second hidden treasure of the humanities is non-materialistic. This point is much harder to articulate, because everyone is different. However, I think that intellectual enlightenment is an integral part of happiness. In other words, the ability to think and conceptualize are directly related to one's life satisfaction. The point of a post-secondary education is not to equip students to become rich; it is to make students good, happy people and strong contributors to society. Many of you will disagree with me; what I am spewing may be considered liberal hogwash. Regardless, it is my personal belief that the liberal arts produce happier, more ethically mature students.

Source(s):

• Zakaria, Fareed. "Commencement 2014". Sarah Lawrence College. Sarah lawrence College, Yonkers, NY. 23 May 2014. Keynote Address. <https://www.sarahlawrence.edu/news-events/events/commencement/2014/fareed-zakaria-keynote.html>

Be civil, support your argument, and enjoy!

[Mushet]

Sure they matter, they may not be as valued by most, but they matter.

[Empire of Narnia]

Not as much as the Conservative Arts.

[Benuty]

Not as much as the Conservative Arts.

Do you feel proud for that pun?

[Infected Mushroom]

I don't think they matter as much as the practical majors like chemical engineering, computer science, accounting, law, medicine etc but I think that the population would be greatly cultural impoverished if no one ever took any post-secondary courses on literature or philosophy.

So how about we compromise?

The liberal arts will be eliminated as majors.

But every single other major that's left will have a small but compulsory for-credit requirement of taking some optional soft courses (ex German literature or sociology).

This should cause an increase in technological advancement in society overall (all of our intellectual resources would be devoted to solving ''hard'' problems) while at the same time we put in some efforts to keep alive the arts.

[Kelinfort]

Why study what makes us humans?

Because we must.

[Norstal]

I don't think they matter as much as the practical majors like chemical engineering, computer science, accounting, law, medicine etc but I think that the population would be greatly cultural impoverished if no one ever took any post-secondary courses on literature or philosophy.

So how about we compromise?

The liberal arts will be eliminated as majors.

But every single other major that's left will have a small but compulsory for-credit requirement of taking some optional soft courses (ex German literature or sociology).

This should cause an increase in technological advancement in society overall (all of our intellectual resources would be devoted to solving ''hard'' problems) while at the same time we put in some efforts to keep alive the arts.

We already have that. They're called general ed. Anymore than that then I just won't care for it.

[New Werpland]

Liberal Arts is the most important study, but unfortunately it's become a bad thing to get a degree in if you want to make more than an mailman.

[Norstal]

Liberal Arts are the most important study, but unfortunately it's become a bad thing to get a degree in if you want to make more income than an mailman.

Liberal art majors should take up the jobs business majors are supposedly trying to get. They're going to be far better in them anyways.

[Caille]

Of course the liberal arts matter. Not all things that have value to us as humans have to be economic in nature.

Aside from that, law and politics are two powerful forces in society, requiring an understanding of history to facilitate.

[Empire of Narnia]

Not as much as the Conservative Arts.

Do you feel proud for that pun?

I feel exceptionally proud of it. Thank you for asking.

[New Werpland]

Liberal Arts are the most important study, but unfortunately it's become a bad thing to get a degree in if you want to make more income than an mailman.

Liberal art majors should take up the jobs business majors are supposedly trying to get. They're going to be far better in them anyways.

meanwhile in the real world

[United Russian Soviet States]

They still matter.

[Norstal]

Liberal art majors should take up the jobs business majors are supposedly trying to get. They're going to be far better in them anyways.

meanwhile in the real world

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. I'm saying that Liberal arts majors can take up jobs outside their field of expertise.

Of course if they choose to stay in their field they'll get screwed.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

"The world does not need more successful people. It does desperately need more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers, and lovers of every kind."

[Norstal]

"The world does not need more successful people. It does desperately need more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers, and lovers of every kind."

It's so hard to be healer. I have to juggle all the buttons and I keep running out of mana. Not to mention some idiot DPS charging before the tank goes in first.

[Occupied Deutschland]

meanwhile in the real world

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. I'm saying that Liberal arts majors can take up jobs outside their field of expertise.

Of course if they choose to stay in their field they'll get screwed.

One marvels at the capability of STEM majors to operate outside their field, then.

In all honesty, this is dependent more heavily on the individual choices, opportunities, and willingness to work outside 'their' field than the degree itself. STEM majors just tend to have more opportunities for in-field work. Liberal arts majors have few opportunities 'in-field' (you can manage a McDonald's!), but are perfectly capable of expanding outside of that.

Liberal arts matter, as do vocational skills and STEM fields. It's all dependent upon individual's courses. Liberal arts get too rough a rap from their critics, and too rosy a picture painted on them prospect-wise from their defenders.

"The world does not need more successful people. It does desperately need more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers, and lovers of every kind."

"I'd say a world without successful peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers and lovers of every kind would be pretty fucking shitty."

[Prussia-Steinbach]

"The world does not need more successful people. It does desperately need more peacemakers, healers, restorers, storytellers, and lovers of every kind."

It's so hard to be healer. I have to juggle all the buttons and I keep running out of mana. Not to mention some idiot DPS charging before the tank goes in first.

but you have to try norstal

you have to fucking try

*pushes game restart button*

[Tierra Prime]

My degree is irrelevant if they don't matter.

[Arglorand]

As a soon-to-be liberal arts student, I sure do fuckin hope they do, otherwise everything I genuinely love in life doesn't much matter.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

The hard sciences tell us how we can do things, and the soft sciences tell us why we should do things.

[L Ron Cupboard]

Ever seen how much money the arts and entertainment industries generate?

[Keyboard Warriors]

I don't think they're irrelevant, but at the same time their contribution to the community is a lot less tangible than the contribution made by a teacher or a nurse and as such, if we're going to prioritize who should receive government subsidies for their education, liberal arts is a little way down the list. Fortunately, they've the opportunity to undertake a highly successful career in the private sector in almost any industry they choose whereas teachers and nurses are confined to public sector wages.

[Jute]

I don't think they matter as much as the practical majors like chemical engineering, computer science, accounting, law, medicine etc but I think that the population would be greatly cultural impoverished if no one ever took any post-secondary courses on literature or philosophy.

So how about we compromise?

The liberal arts will be eliminated as majors.

But every single other major that's left will have a small but compulsory for-credit requirement of taking some optional soft courses (ex German literature or sociology).

This should cause an increase in technological advancement in society overall (all of our intellectual resources would be devoted to solving ''hard'' problems) while at the same time we put in some efforts to keep alive the arts.

Why make everyone take natural sciences or engineering as a major if that's not even what they're good at? And don't you think Hollywood, publishing houses and the like (not to forget schools) wouldn't need people specifically trained in them? They're also important in politics, as advisors, so communication and understanding between to cultures runs smoother and isn't relying on prejudices and stereotypes. And that's not nearly everything, of course.

[Forsher]

Not as much as fine arts!

To be honest, I feel the distinction that people make when they speak of arts is somewhat, er, meaningless. The real divide is between technical and non-technical areas. Technical areas are about learning things to be able to do something (e.g. medicine, engineering, accounting etc.) and are, generally speaking, better paid than their non-technical equivalents, which are about learning how things are (and if you learn how to do something, such as work with the likes of R, it's towards that end point of understanding how things are) and include most of what we understand as arts and sciences. Things like law and statistics (which, funnily enough, is the field in which R is used) are not as easily categorised.

Of course, the distinctions of arts, sciences, business etc. would make more sense if the whole point wasn't seen as: how do we make money? That is invariably the perspective that people take (see, in this thread, here as part of the argument, here, here, here, here although this is not serious and here), so it makes sense to really work with a basis of differentiation that is relevant. STEM is bunk. The money really lies in the E and the T (which is, to an extent, not academic). There is a reason why people doing PhD's in the algebra of complex numbers tell their early stage pure maths students to supplement what they're doing with the odd stats course...

That being said, the other use of STEM is also bunk, i.e. those are not the only useful fields. If you accept that understanding how the world is, is useful (i.e. why science is useful; when it's applied it's really technology or engineering, yes?), then it's a little inconsistent to decide that not all things are worth understanding (which, given that curiosity is seen as a desirable trait in a scientist would be odd in that respect too). Furthermore, there are the ideas mentioned earlier in the thread re: communication and whether or not we should do things. Although that latter is more or less an application of understanding how something is, so it really comes back to that first part.

tl;dr - I find distinguishing things on whether or not they are technical, in the sense that understanding how something is, is done to further one's ability to do some thing, is more meaningful, and if we look at it like this it becomes more clear that the question is really pretty silly.

Apple's marketing capabilities, however, are remarkably unique. This marketing comes from the use of aesthetics, rhetoric, and psychology--all are part of the liberal arts field.

Two things.

One, why bother putting your opinion in a box? Your opinion is a fundamental aspect of the OP and shouldn't be marked apart. This is an irritating recent trend in NSG OPs.

Two, there is a field of study known as marketing. That is really where this happens. Of course, like most "business"* subjects (technical ones aside and also those that aren't really, i.e. economics) marketing by itself doesn't strike me as being particularly useful in the sense that without an additional are of knowledge (in this case, some further statistical or psychological knowledge (obtained via a conjoint degree?)) it doesn't exactly capture the whole picture. If you want to define use in terms of future earning potential, the same really goes.

*I mean, seriously? Management is a subject? It strikes me that managers generally come to be managers not because of their familiarity with motivational theories, ethical problem solving skills and other such things but because they are what buzzwords might term "subject experts" and are capable in their role.

I realise there is some inconsistency here but, in general, I am just as happy to discuss usefulness of degrees etc. with the default metric of employment opportunity as the next.