Is a Liberal Arts Degree Necessary?

Developments in technology and recent economic downturn have changed and will continue to change many things in this country, and the education system is no exception. Underfunded and seemingly increasingly obsolete, the usefulness, efficiency, and value of a liberal arts education are being reevaluated, and it is unclear whether most students should even bother pursuing a liberal arts degree for four years. Any young person who is trying to decide whether he or she should enroll in college or begin a career after high school should think about what a liberal arts education entails and whether it is right for them. Charles Murray and Sanford J. Unger offer two different perspectives on the value of studying the liberal arts in college. While each of these men agrees that a liberal education is a valuable thing to acquire, they differ substantially about whether or not college is the appropriate place for most students to acquire one.

The primary purpose of Unger’s article is to refute some of what he says are some of the more common criticisms of liberal arts degrees; however, in doing this, he also puts forward a strong case for the importance of liberal education. The objections that Unger deals with a mainly practical, such as the idea that a liberal arts degree is too expensive for many families, that it is impractical, and that it is outdated and irrelevant in the global marketplace. According to Unger, these criticisms are, in fact, misperceptions, and he addresses each of them individually by pointing out how they are wrong. For instance, Unger points to the fact that a majority of America’s employers advise undergraduates to work toward a liberal education, and that the kind of critical thinking that is developed in the liberal arts is necessary in the business world. Thus, contrary to what the objections above would suggest is perhaps one of the most practical things that student can pursue; according to Unger, the “career education" bandwagon seems to suggest that shortcuts are available to students that lead directly to high-paying jobs,” and this leaves students unequipped in important communication and analytical skills. In a recent article, Christopher Nelson, president of St. John’s College in Annapolis, MD., agrees with this assessment. Pointing out that investors like Warren Buffet stress the importance of liberal education, Nelson claims that this is because “Thoughtfully choosing investment requires the same mental skills as thoughtfully reading a book.” (Nelson) Furthermore, after dealing with the mischaracterizations, Unger closes the article by calling the reader’s attention to the fact that the purpose of liberal education is not simply to provide students with access to employment. He says that the study of the liberal arts provides students with the values and character qualities that they will need in order to live fulfilling lives, solve the problems that they will face in the future, and develop the habits that will allow them to continue learning in the future.

In his article, Murray takes a different stance on the subject. Of the question whether or not more people should be going to college, Murray answers no – at least not for four-year liberal arts programs. In arguing this, Murray does not mean to imply that people should not have a well-rounded education; he believes that it is necessary for people to achieve a level of familiarity with a core body of knowledge in order to be culturally aware and socially responsible. However, Murray refers to research showing that many of the students who attend college for four years are not really capable of studying the complex material covered in a liberal arts curriculum at a college level. Furthermore, Murray claims that most professions, such as teachers, social workers, specialized jobs, do not necessarily require employees to have training in the liberal arts to adequately perform. Young people who want to enter these kinds of fields should not be forced to do so, says Murray. Students still need to have a well-rounded education, but that should be acquired during grade school. That was, individuals who want to specialize in a more industry-related field will not have to spend four years studying the liberal arts, which are probably too complex for them to understand, much less enjoy.

It would appear as though Unger and Murray disagree with one another quite a bit on this topic; however, it seems to me that their varying viewpoints stem one fundamental disagreement. Neither of them thinks that it is ok for students to completely ignore the liberal arts, and both of them point out the multiple benefits that a liberal education supplies. Where they part ways has to do with when, precisely, students should receive their training in the liberal arts. Murray argues that a thorough job can be done throughout one’s grade school, middle school, and high school career, as far as the average student is concerned, so that he or she can pursue career training once they graduate. Unger thinks that a four-year college is an appropriate place for most students to study the liberal arts and that this training will adequately prepare them for future employment. In other words, Murray thinks that fewer people should be attending college to study the liberal arts, while Unger argues that more should be doing so.

I think that Murray’s viewpoint makes more sense, If it is true that most students would not be able to comprehend the complex material that is covered in a liberal arts curriculum, and these students would rather be learning the ins and outs of the trade that they plan on practicing, and they do not want to focus on topics like philosophy, English, and sociology for four years, it does not make any sense for them to do so. This is particularly true if these students have already achieved a level of proficiency in the basic, core knowledge that Murray claims should be part of a student’s education throughout primary school. It is a waste of the student’s time, the tax payer’s money, and valuable resources like land and buildings for someone who wants to be a computer draftsman to be forced to take four years’ worth of coursework in subjects like biology, mythology, and art history. Murray seems to be right in claiming that the liberal arts should be focused on during grade school for many people, and that, after graduating high school, they should be able to concentrate on developing the skills and knowledge that they will need in order to be successful and productive workers in their chosen professions.

Murray’s position in this article, however, is certainly not entirely above criticism from neoliberalism advocates. One could object that Murray’s expectations for what a student can learn, how much of it they can learn, and how well they can learn it. For example, The U.S. Constitution is an extremely complicated document, though it is doubtless one of the items on Murray’s list of topics that should be covered by a liberal education. However, it is possible that the Constitution is too difficult for many students in middle and high school to meaningfully understand it. Furthermore, While, Murray’s point that younger students should be receiving liberal educations throughout their academic career from grade school on is definitely ideal, this plan might not be practical in reality. First of all, it seems as though Murray would like younger students to be taught a great deal more than is currently being taught in America’s public school system. Therefore, in order for the body of knowledge that Murray’s ideal education would consist of to be adequately taught, it would seem as though the public school system would need to be revamped. The new curriculum would presumably require, among other things, students to learn in smaller classrooms and more highly trained teachers. This would, of course, cost money and may, therefore, be impractical to do. Finally, in objection to Murray’s argument, one might claim that he does not understand the importance of a liberal arts education. As Laura McMullen points out “The skills that these graduates bring to the table may well be very important for the employer but are more difficult to define and identify in a short-hand, database-driven process.” (McMullen) Thus, If the in-depth study of the liberal arts at the college level really does, as Sanford claims, enable individuals not only to function in society, think critically, and acquire the skills necessary for lifelong learning but also to lead richer and more values-driven lives, then perhaps Murray’s argument, though possibly correct from a practical point of view, is a bit shortsighted. After all, a person need not perform well on an exam in order for him or her to grow as an individual during the class. If a student is not able to write A-level philosophy papers, that does not mean that studying Aristotle is a waste of time for them; they might still get some of the benefits of a liberal education that Sanford mentions, even if their ultimate career goal is not to be a professor but to manage a restaurant or work as an accountant.

The recent economic recession and the constant developments in technology have impacted almost every area of American life and continue to force our country to adapt, and higher education is no exception. The traditional model of education as a four-year study in the liberal arts is being reevaluated in light of these changes, and academia will undoubtedly have to make some changes in order to stay relevant and function efficiently. While Unger is correct in stressing the importance of a liberal education, both to individuals and to society in general, Murray’s argument is more ideal. If it is possible to equip younger students with the core body of knowledge that they will need to function as good citizens, think critically, and lead rich, fulfilling lives, then we should do so. This will be more cost-effective for society in the long run, and it will allow students to graduate and begin their careers sooner. Any person who is weighing their options between college and trade school would do well to read these two articles, as their choice could mean the difference between four years of commitment, intensive and difficult study in subjects that they may not be at all interested in, possible student debt, and a later start to their careers.

Works Cited

McMullen, Laura. "4 Tips for Making the Most of a Liberal Arts Degree." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 28 Oct. 2011. Web. 26 Feb. 2014. <http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/10/28/4-tips-for-making-the-most-of-liberal-arts-degrees>.

Murray, Charles. "AMERICAN.COM." Are Too Many People Going to College? — The American Magazine. The American, 8 Sept. 2008. Web. 22 Feb. 2014. http://www.american.com/archive/2008/september-october-magazine/are-too-many-people-going-to-college>.

Nelson, Christopher B. "Investing in a Liberal Education." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 03 Oct. 2013. Web. 26 Feb. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-nelson/investing-in-a-liberal-ed_b_4032666.html>.

Unger, Sanford J. "Commentary." The Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 28 Feb. 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2014. <http://chronicle.com/article/7-Major-Misperceptions-About/64363/>.