Ramesh: Overemphasizing the Liberal Arts
By Chandrasekar Ramesh, Contributing Columnist
Published on Thursday, October 25, 2012
While most countries begin specialization early in high school, the United States has a unique tradition in liberal arts education. In India, students begin to specialize in their “plus two” years, the equivalent of their junior and senior years of high school. Based on the track they choose, they apply to colleges for a specific program. Computer science majors would not take any literature courses, and business students would not take biology classes. Most proponents of the liberal arts argue that a well-rounded education provides broader tools to tackle a wide range of problems, and, presumably, such personal development also plays a crucial role in happiness.
However, from an employment perspective, a liberal arts education is disastrous. With 53 percent of all college graduates under the age of 25 unemployed or severely underemployed, this economy does not offer the luxury of postponing specialization until graduate school. According to Payscale, the top 10 schools with the best starting salaries were all technical schools, with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, California Institute of Technology and Loma Linda University topping the list. Many students know from the beginning that they want to pursue a field in a hard science, and for them the “liberal arts” education is nothing but an obstacle. As these fields have shown, solving specialized, narrow problems is incredibly valuable, if not more valuable than solving broad, wide-ranging problems.
For good reason, most countries do not share a similar program. Schooling is often expensive, especially in the United States. A liberal arts education often forces prohibitively expensive costs on students. Becoming a doctor in India takes just three years. After high school, students can enroll in medical school immediately. According to the New York Times, the average American student loan debt is up to $26,500. Forcing a student to graduate in debt just for the opportunity to go to medical school is discouraging for many students from less fortunate backgrounds.
However, even ignoring for a moment the economic costs of a liberal arts education, the underlying assumption that taking courses in literature, arts and humanities is fundamental for well-rounded development must be examined more deeply. No person is a flat, one-dimensional character without any interests besides her major. Certainly, people should feel free to take classes that suit their interests. In the same vein, I took Japanese last year simply because it had been an interest of mine for many years, and I never had the opportunity to study it until coming to Dartmouth. Mandating from an ivory tower that humanities courses are crucial for being “well rounded” is another matter entirely.
Casting aside the absurd argument that the registrar knows more about my personal development or happiness than I do, the corollary to this line of thinking is that studying a single field cannot possibly lead to personal development. Are all problems in computer science really so monotonous that all creativity and passion are drained from me? Perhaps artificial intelligence is so similar to databases or operating systems that no more knowledge could really be gained from studying them. After all, how can computer architecture possibly hope to compare to a beautiful poem by Henry David Thoreau? There is an incredible diversity even within a single field that, while to an outsider may seem incredibly boring, offers a range of applications in many different areas.
A fundamental arrogance surrounds decisions regarding what qualifies as a legitimate field of study. As students and people involved in academia, we should be concerned with who sets these legitimacy guidelines and why they should be upheld. The greatest myth sold to the educational system is that of the “well-rounded” person. We are all sufficiently “rounded,” and we do not need a liberal arts education to make us so.
I’m not espousing the superiority of hard sciences over all other fields of study, nor am I claiming that the humanities are not worthy of study. Rather, if a student wishes to pursue the humanities or the sciences, then let him do so without mandates. Not everyone comes to college with the hope of earning an enormous starting salary, and that is perfectly understandable. Those who believe in a broad-based approach to education will continue to take classes from a variety of departments, but those who want to utilize their four years in specialization and honing their talents in a field should be offered the same opportunity.
You are likely comparing apples and oranges. Schools like MIT and CalTech are full of engineering majors and engineering majors generally have the highest starting salary. Many Dartmouth students major in things with much lower initial earnings potential like English and History. Thus, you cannot really say too much about how a liberal arts education (which you seem to define as having distributive requirements) by comparing Dartmouth to these schools.
A much better comparison would be Brown, which is more like us in the distribution of majors students tend to follow. Brown has no distributive requirements, so students are able to completely immerse themselves in their chosen field if they so choose. Yet Brown generally ranks below us on the starting salary rankings. Does this mean that distributive requirements increase earnings potential? No. What it does suggest, is that Dartmouth students probably do not incur a penalty for having to take 7 or so courses outside their chosen field of study.
By ‘14 on Oct 25 | 8:28 am
This would be a much better piece if you hadn’t chosen to come to Dartmouth yourself [perhaps], because most people know what they are getting into when they select to attend. If there are students who do prefer to hone their specialization at 17 or 18, then let them apply to MIT just for that reason.
By Fellow ‘14 on Oct 25 | 8:59 am
There are a host of other universities that offer the types of educations you mention here. My advice is that if you think you are wasting your money on having to read Shakespeare and Hegel, Kant you go elsewhere?
By Bill Quirk on Oct 25 | 9:16 am
The “liberal arts” are not the same as “the humanities.” Math, geometry, and astronomy are all liberal arts. The humanities, in contrast, embrace those subjects that have to do with human culture—literature, religion, etc.
By Anonymous on Oct 25 | 10:11 am
This is a classic shortsighted student-written piece, exemplified by this line:
“According to Payscale, the top 10 schools with the best starting salaries were all technical schools, with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, California Institute of Technology and Loma Linda University topping the list.”
This statistic is pointless when you’re deciding what college or career to pursue. For a long time, Dartmouth was ranked #1 in average mid-career salary (what you earn in your 30’s and 40’s). Right now, I believe it’s Princeton that is #1 in this department. This is the statistic that really matters if you’re trying to compare value of degrees.
So it turns out maybe the liberal arts matter after all
By Dumb on Oct 25 | 10:45 am
80% of facts “learned” are forgotten after one year. The point of “the liberal arts” is not to accumulate stuff from class in your head, but to raise the ship a little bit in the Panama Canal of your mind, until you emerge suddenly in the Pacific, a 1000 feet higher.
Paul Keane
By theantiyale on Oct 25 | 10:46 am
Having chosen Dartmouth over Caltech myself and currently interning in the Tech space in Silicon Valley, I understand your argument. Whenever I go to a lecture on the future of “Big Data,” it’s populated with extremely smart, savvy programmers (most of who immigrated from India). They’re sharp, passionate, etc. However,there are many many people at these meetings who are all similarly qualified. The person that has exposure to arts, literature, other interests and are personable, are the ones who will ultimately be able to set themselves apart from other freakishly smart engineers/programmers. It’s not about the difference in intelligence between two people who are both part of the top 5% in their field. True, higher education in America is very inefficient and wasteful, but I think it functions on the assumption that those who are interested in tech, math, etc. will surely pursue that on their own. Personally, I have taken many classes in STEM subjects, but looking back at my Dartmouth experience, my “useless” classes sparked many interests and hobbies that have enriched my life so much more in my ability to relate to others, etc.
By mirandoz on Oct 25 | 1:43 pm
I second the comments made by several others: If you don’t want a liberal arts education, don’t go to Dartmouth. Dartmouth prides itself on being an incredible liberal arts institution, which anyone applying should be aware of.
By Kathryn E. Arion ‘11 on Oct 25 | 2:48 pm
The fact that you think Henry David Thoreau wrote “beautiful poem[s]” indicates your complete lack of training in the humanities. Of course that isn’t of interest to you. After all, the humanities (and as others have noted, you conflate the liberal arts with the humanities) don’t represent any value in the market. But is that really what we are up to at Dartmouth? If Dartmouth is worth anything, anything at all, it should be a liability rather than a signifier of greater earning power. Your education should lead you to question your own desires and those of the world in which we live. Of course, it should be self-critical too but to give up on critical thought—and this is what remains of wide learning of the liberal arts, which as a side note is much older than any “educational system” that you invoke—means ignoring the really important questions. The most important questions, after all, have no “application” for they extend far beyond the contingencies of the present moment and take up deep histories, struggles, and dreams.
By Anonymous Commmenter on Oct 25 | 4:16 pm
We do not learn to become employed, we learn to become human. By becoming human, we become real, and powerful, and discover new ways of impacting and affecting the world we live in. Students all throughout human history have found ways to continue and extend their commitment to understanding how, and why, one ought to become a human being, often in far worse economic circumstances than we currently face. This column is shameful.
By Jon Lohse on Oct 25 | 5:41 pm
The column is excellent. When one graduates with the debt burden of modern times, one needs a reasonably well-paying job. Things that can be picked by reading in the central library of a major city (viz humanities) are not something on which one can afford to spend 65K a year.
By anony on Oct 28 | 1:49 am
You seem to be frustrated by having to take courses you’d rather not to. If that is so, you should look for a way, or maybe another institution, where you can find yourself. An American liberal arts education is what has made this country what it is, for better and for worse. And the entire world knows that even when America fares worse, it still is much better than the rest. After all America’s constant self-examination and self-criticism—precisely the results of a liberally-educated population—is what makes this country great. Your argument is valid inasmuch as it is based on the fallible evidence you provide. However, the American dream is that you should pursue your own happiness; whatever and wherever it is, my friend, go out there and find it. In America, there’s a place for you, because liberal-minded individuals can understand your point, though, critically speaking, you fail to make it here.
By Harvard Undergrad on Nov 4 | 10:27 pm