Blogs > Cliopatria > What we do and Why we do it

Nov 30, 2005

What we do and Why we do it




Via our ever-topical Breaking News link, I just noticed this story on Post University's decision to eliminate their majors in both History and English.

Sadly, this isn't a terribly unfamiliar situation for me. The tiny History program I tought for at Livingstone College was threatened with disillusion on an annual basis by the administration on the grounds that we didn't have enough majors. The letter informing us of this risk always offered that faculty from the program would be given the opportunity of being"retrained" to serve the college in some other fashion. Oh, joy.

Even at my beloved

NKU, the faculty fought long and hard a few years back to defeat a General Education revamp which effectively wrote History, Philosophy, and Literature out of the (required) curriculum. The new plan was to replace them with a series of"interdisciplinary" courses which (I thought) boiled down to"University 101, University 102, University 201, Univesity 202... etc.).

All of this, however, raises a much more important point, which is the place of Liberal Arts in the curriculum of non-elite public institutions (for reasons that should become clear, I have no fear at all that the Liberal Arts will vanish from the halls of elite institutions, public or private, anytime soon).

If you look at the comments in the Post U. story, you will see a lot of familiar arguments for why the Liberal Arts are so important. They make us deeper and more thoughtful people. They teach us critical thinking skills. They make us productive citizens. All true, methinks... or at least mehopes.

But, I would like to add another argument to the pile. The Liberal Arts also train people to be leaders. When it comes down to it, the ability to identify a problem, gather information, analyze that information, formulate a solution to said problem, and then create a persuasive case for how and why your solution should be implemented, is the essence of what the Liberal Arts seeks to train people to do. As academics we tend to apply these skills in fairly obscure and esoteric locations in time and space.

For the most part, though, I hope my students will apply the same skills in the real world. I want to give the the opportunity to become leaders in whatever they do. I don't expect all or even most history majors to become historians. That would be absurd. But, if they go on to work in a bank, I would hope that rather than remaining a teller forever, they would use their skills to move up the professional food chain. The same goes for just about any "real world" job you can think of. A technical school or vocational program can teach you to get a job. A university is supposed to give you the tools to be a leader in your field, if you so desire.

Thus, what frightens me about the process of"privatization" which we are witnessing in American Higher Education (not only in the form of for-profit schools like Post, but also in the ongoing shift of the costs of Higher Education to tuition) is that it forces even public institutions to act like for-profit institutions.

And here is the crux of my argument. I believe that perhaps the greatest revolution in American education during the 20th century was the expansion of a university system that made the Liberal Arts available to children of non-elite families. Thus, in my view, the Northern Kentucky Universities and similar second and third tier schools are our country's truly radical institutions -- and places like Yale and Berkeley are the old guard, still training, by and large, the rich and connected. Inexpensive, high quality public institutions thus gave common folks access to the tools necessary to challenge their wealthier peers. Not only might they become managers or movers and shakers in the private sector, but ideally they might also become leaders in the public and political sectors as well.

Of course, not all students at schools such as NKU understand matters, especially as Freshmen. Many came to college simply in hopes of racheting a notch or two up the professional scale. Nothing wrong with that. But, it is when I see the gleam in a student's eyes that says he or she understands that a Liberal Arts education can be a transformative experience that can open up a world of opportunities and provide access to a rare and beautiful sort of individual sovereignty... that's when I know I'm doing my job.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Andrew D. Todd - 12/1/2005

It's not as if Post were particularly competent in the useful arts either.

Take a gander at this little lot:

http://www.post.edu/
http://www.post.edu/academics/programs/index.shtml
http://www.post.edu/academics/programs/cis.shtml
http://www.post.edu/academics/programs/cis.pdf

http://www.post.edu/cgi-bin/dars/registrar/courses.pl?SUBJECT=MAT
http://www.post.edu/cgi-bin/dars/registrar/courses.pl?SUBJECT=PHY
http://www.post.edu/cgi-bin/dars/registrar/courses.pl?SUBJECT=CIS

There is no degree program in math, physics, or chemistry. The highest math courses are a three-hour calculus sequence, just barely freshman level if that. The highest physics courses are sans calculus. There's no engineering school, of course, nor a computer science department per se. There is a computer information systems program, but it is so primitive that Visual Basic is an elective. On The whole, the general standard is thoroughly high school rather than college, and maybe not a very good high school either. I very much doubt they're going to train people who are even good at the technical skills of business administration, things like accounting.


John H. Lederer - 11/30/2005

I am reminded of something.

In the early seventies I had the honor of meeting an elderly weaver on the Isle of Harris. Mrs. Campbell made her fabrics on a loom made in the 1800's, dyed her yarn with dyes made from lichen she scraped off rocks with a spoon, and was generally regarded as one of the best in the world. She confessed that she had orders for decades of output and suspected that she would never catch up (she was in her eighties). Royal Appointments dating back to George V adorned the walls of her boatshed.

She was a delightful lady to talk with, intellectually sharp and with a wry self deprecatory wit. When I asked her how she had become so good a weaver she explained that she always concentrated on the basics, and strived to become a little better in each step. Modern weavers, she explained, were distracted by fads and paid attention to things that were attractive because they were new rather than that they were better-- much, she confided, like men with women.

I wonder whether something similar might be the case in the liberal arts.


John H. Lederer - 11/30/2005

To what degree is the decline in the status of the liberal arts programs the result of a decline in the perceived quality of the programs?

I know that my sons who went to the same university I did, had courses that were, in my opinion, substantially less rigorous, less informative, and less defined than I had. Neither particularly liked nor thought that they had gotten much out of their courses.

Curiously, one of the two, now long out of school is an avid reader of history books-- a pleasure in no way sparked by his formal education.


Something isn't right.