Clark: The Value of a Liberal Education
By Charles Clark, Staff Columnist
Published on Monday, October 29, 2012
There are two ways to respond to the argument made by Chandrasekar Ramesh last Thursday (“Overemphasizing the Liberal Arts,” Oct. 25). The first, which helps no one, is to point out that there are many specialized technical institutions for those who want that kind of education. Dartmouth is not one of them (“lest the old traditions fail”). A better response must explain why the liberal arts education has value. What is it good for?
The “liberal” arts are so-called because such was the well-rounded education that the Romans provided for “liberi,” the children of free people, the social elite. Some ancient elites would, of course, acquire extensive technical knowledge, but it was believed that even a scientific genius like Archimedes would benefit from a foundation in poetry and music. This enforced generalism was the stamp of membership in the ruling class. Why?
Every complex society features a division of labor among its members. Farmers who focus on farming can provide enough food for themselves and the non-farmers alike. The division of labor lets farmers focus on farming, builders on building and traders on trading. By cooperating, these various experts free each other up to pursue their individual excellences.
Problems can arise when two specializations collide, because the disciplines themselves cannot arbitrate such disputes. The builder’s craft does not tell him whether a field should be used for new construction or left under cultivation by the farmer. There must be some higher level of organization to appeal to. Coordination problems can only be resolved by those who know enough about each specialization to understand its internal logic, its contribution to the whole social body and its relationship to the other specializations. This is what the liberal arts prepares people to do.
As a liberal arts institution, Dartmouth has an educational agenda. The College does not offer products to be consumed — it is not an intellectual cafeteria. It offers a process with particular rigors and disciplines to create a particular kind of educated person. That process is the liberal education, and its goal is not to produce fulfilled individuals. Society needs liberally educated members at its upper echelons to prioritize between the subordinate specializations and direct the work of the body politick.
Ramesh argues that “solving specialized, narrow problems is incredibly valuable, if not more valuable than solving broad, wide-ranging problems.” But the purpose of the liberal arts is not to train people to solve broad, wide-ranging problems. It is to train them to solve a very particular and important kind of problem — a problem that requires its own kind of expert. Henry David Thoreau spoke of technical excellence as developing “improved means to an unimproved end.” The technical experts suffer from the professional hazard of myopia. An engineer or biologist can endlessly — and perhaps profitably — improve the means of achieving something, but the far more complex task is to determine what ends society ought to pursue. The liberally educated person is an expert on “ends.” The generalists create the blueprint of social progress.
I wholeheartedly agree with Ramesh that a liberal education should not be an economic burden. That the market fails to recognize society’s need for liberally educated leaders is a problem. It is, in fact, precisely the kind of problem that the liberal arts exist to address. The well-rounded are those equipped to critique the experts for missing the forest for the trees. Only those who can see the big picture, not just one little corner of it, can design or implement big changes.
As we rediscover the meaning of the liberal arts, we should also be reminded that our set of skills is different from that of the specialists. They are not as easily turned to personal gain, because they are exercised for the benefit of the whole society. We should use the skill to confer value on society and be rewarded in turn. But even if the rewards are presently small in proportion to our contributions, or the promises of reward are small in proportion to our potential, the liberal arts remain a sacred entrustment.
Charles Clark '11 is a former member staff columnist.
Yay exploitation of the working class! My liberal arts education never taught me this was bad.
By Jordan Osserman ‘11 on Oct 29 | 11:59 am
I think that’s a rather derivative reading of Clark’s argument. The purpose underlying the liberal arts is not to equip elites with the tools they need exploit the working class (one cannot be taught to exploit; rather, exploitations is a primal drive that education seeks to supplant) but rather to facilitate. In an ideal society, individuals with broad and diverse perspectives on the widest possible spectrum of intellectual, scientific, historical, and practical concerns might be called on to synthesize and integrate the complex activity of the socius so that society functions according to its own best interests. In an age bereft of broad perspectives, and a global economy favoring (and indeed, exploiting) the technical expertise of so-called “specialists,” it is not more or better knowledge that will save us; instead, we must renegotiate a space wherein broadly and compassionately informed individuals are given a greater say on the planning, coordination, and envisioning of the future of our world. Exploitation has nothing to do with this.
By Jon Lohse ‘10 on Oct 29 | 1:47 pm
At the same time, I disagree with Clark’s suggestion that Dartmouth’s highest educational mission ought to be the development of “liberal” perspectives that cut across a broad spectrum of disciplines. Such an education may equip students with the intellectual tools necessary to become leaders, but it does nothing to ignite the fire of the soul and transform a leader into a visionary. The highest purpose Dartmouth College might serve ought not to be the liberal arts, but rather the humanities, for it is only through sustained and insightful engagement with the question of “What is a human, and why does it seem to mean so much?” that truly human social progress is possible. If we fail to engage with the mystery of the human — through the study of its creative affect, whether expressed through visual art, literature, or critical thought — then we have learned nothing, and do not deserve the power and influence that we seek.
By Jon Lohse ‘10 on Oct 29 | 2:01 pm
I think it’s rather arrogant to say that people educated in the liberal arts direct the specialists beneath them. I think in general, people resent being told what to do by others who are less technically able than they are. Furthermore, why can’t specialists also be endowed with the same breadth of knowledge that we’re receiving at Dartmouth? Lest we believe that having substance in one type of education precludes the other!
Arguing for the industrial benefits of a liberal arts education is totally missing the forest for the trees, as you aptly put it. What ever happened to emphasizing personal transcendence, self-improvement, and the pursuit of scholarship for its own sake rather than for power, wealth, and an instrument in conversation? People ought to seek improving their own humanity when they apply to schools such as Dartmouth, but understandably, most people going to college these days just want to learn some practical skills.
Developing the individual may not provide returns that are tangible and monetary, but hopefully, one discovers at Dartmouth a far greater sublime that enriches the everyday life and everything else seen and experienced after all is said and done here.
By Andrew Pham ‘13 on Oct 29 | 2:13 pm
Charles Clark states it eloquently, training in the Liberal Arts is valuable, and Dartmouth is primarily a Liberal Arts institution. I hope the strategic planners do not lose sight of this and throw Dartmouth’s uniqueness and excellence away.
By Chuck Sherman on Oct 29 | 3:02 pm
Excellent article. Especially now, when we live in a world of broad complex problems, ultra-specialized study and convergences between unrelated previously unrelated disciplines, the ability to communicate difficult ideas to diverse audiences and to work in a rapidly changing society are critical. Embracing a liberal education is perhaps more important than ever for an institution like Dartmouth. For technical disciplines at the level most Dartmouth students would pursue, written competence and consideration of the broader context of their work are essential. For the humanities oriented student, it is increasingly important to have basic scientific and quantitative literacy, both in the workforce and as a citizen of a technologically advanced democracy.
The value of a liberal education does not absolve Dartmouth’s unbalanced and inflexible distributive system, however. An op-ed in the D last year was spot on in pointing out how easy it is for a student to pursue a variety of disciplines and still fall far short of the narrow distributive requirements. The lack of a petition system for distribs, a widespread underutilization of crosslisting, and large differences in availability of courses between different distributives exacerbate the issue. Dartmouth’s distributive system inelegantly falls between the core curriculums of schools like Columbia and MIT and a more flexible set of requirements such as Dartmouth once had. I think Dartmouth’s goals of liberal education would benefit by choosing one or the other, either a core curriculum (perhaps surveying classical works of civilization on the humanities side and exploring the philosophy of science and mathematics on the technical side), or a far simpler and more flexible set of categorized requirements (such as a writing course + 3math/science/technology courses +3 humanities courses). Either one would leave more than enough room for specialization that Ramesh discusses and many jobs require, considering Dartmouth’s 36 course plan.
By R’13 on Oct 29 | 5:55 pm
The real problem is that the recent consumers of an Ivy education are conflating liberally educated with elite, rich, and powerful. Why will this change?
By DartBored on Oct 29 | 7:38 pm