Does Public Education over emphasize the Liberal Arts?

Going off Wikipedia, I mean as a methodology that develops rational thought and intellectual capabilities through multiple fields of the study, as opposed to vocational, professional, and technical schools.

My experience in pre-secondary school public education, though admittedly not what most Americans would consider a gold standard, leaves me highly unconvinced of its cost-effectiveness.

Trying to teach students what they don’t want to learn is like Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the hill, and my experience suggests students don’t want to learn the majority of what they are taught. Once someone is introduced to a field of study through a class, retaining adequate knowledge of it requires continual study, and application of theories to real events.

Even A-students usually limit themselves to memorizing material for tests and papers, forgetting about it afterwards. I could ring up my brother, who was Valedictorian and had a very good understanding of mathematics up through Calculus, and drill him about questions on that and other subjects he aced back in the day. Very likely I would receive bemused silence in return. He is not the only successful student who would have such a response.

The basic goal of education should be to transform adolescents into (1) good citizens who can understand and maintain a democratic-republic, (2) productive members of society who can manage their own households, (3) practitioners of humanist morals and habits who are active in their communities; the sorts of things American society desperately needs to survive and flourish and which education is not providing.

Traditionally it is believed the best chance for those things arises from general study offered through the liberal arts, but I think we can develop enough awareness of the limitations of the adolescent mind and our current education system to develop a vocationally-centered system that can direct the youth to the occupations listed above from toddler years to young adulthood.

Of my own experiences I consider most vital to my belief in this theory, they can be summed up in the role geography has played in my intellectual life: at the time I studied it in high school, I had no sense of the purpose behind the class and proceeded through it much in the manner of the A-students listed above (though I think I got a B). It was sometimes enjoyable while I took it, but it didn’t distill much lasting knowledge for the reasons listed above. Later on, I developed a limited (though useful) understanding of geography through independent liberal arts study (particularly the histories of the Ancient Greeks/Romans/Neoclassical texts, and some contemporary scholarship focusing in different historical periods around the globe) and truth be told the Total War series of video games (modified versions of which I believe ought to be utilized in geographic-historical studies wherever applicable).

That knowledge has helped me a great deal in understanding contemporary international relations as they are transmitted through news media, but the fact is it developed as an accessory to a field of study I had a great deal of personal interest in, and very little of it can be traced to the class of geography itself.

Some people would contend something valuable has been lost in emphasizing such practical knowledge over general academic pursuit, but since our current system fails to distill either appreciation or lasting knowledge of academics, I would argue that nothing has been lost and something very valuable could be gained from a reform designed more to appeal to experience and to develop usefulness.

Above all else, I don't want students to lose sight of the purpose of what they study and its relevancy to their own life and experiences. That's the beginning of the end for any form of knowledge.

I don't believe there is enough emphasis on liberal arts. Liberal arts is more than just memorizing a series of data and regurgitating it later. Knowledge retention is and has been looked at extensively, and in my field it's of particular importance since in physics many students who take it will end up retaining nothing. However, there is a more important aspect associated with liberal arts and that comes through the use of critical thinking. And it's here that one can say one of the true powers of liberal arts education lies. Even if we forget what we've memorized, we are able to keep the critical thinking. Liberal arts should teach people to question and think about answers more so than learning which way to turn a wrench to loosen a bolt (I use the right hand rule). The ability to critically think is something which I feel is really leaving the American populace. Too much people want to opposite of liberal arts education, they want to know how what they're learning is going to fit into the cog necessary to do their job; and that's not so much liberal arts as it is more accurately labeled as vocational. That focus I fear has driven away intellectual and academic pursuit and has caused us to lose a lot.

In the end you don't just want a cog. A cog can be replaced with an appropriate robot. You want thinkers, you want people who can analyze and question circumstances, who can weigh out the data in front of them and come up with intelligent solutions. It's imperative not just for the success of the individual to be able to think, but for the Republic as a whole. And on this front, we should be doing more.

Liberal Arts is not overemphasized, but liberalism is.

The methodology is wrong, not the content.

here is how subjects should be taught, in order of priority:

1. Math.
2. English.
3. Biology/chemistry
4. History of the USA
5. History of the World.
6. World religions
7. World cultures
8. Music/art/theater

No physics?

Ikari said:

No physics?

Click to expand...

eh....put that after world history.

I think high school should be run more like community college, where students can have limited input into what subjects they need to study. Students who go into a hard science field can have advanced options in math and physical sciences, while those who want to go into more creative fields (or want to subject themselves to life under minimum wage) can focus more on artsy-fartsy subjects and pursuits.

The truth is that when all those parents tell little Timmy he's going to grow up to be a doctor or scientist or President of the USA, the overwhelming majority of them are lying. However, we can't just tell a kid he's too stupid to do anything other than mule labor. Why force that kid into algebra or physics? Just give him basic skills from classes that won't cause smoke to pour from that underutilized brain.

Gipper said:

I think high school should be run more like community college, where students can have limited input into what subjects they need to study. Students who go into a hard science field can have advanced options in math and physical sciences, while those who want to go into more creative fields (or want to subject themselves to life under minimum wage) can focus more on artsy-fartsy subjects and pursuits.

The truth is that when all those parents tell little Timmy he's going to grow up to be a doctor or scientist or President of the USA, the overwhelming majority of them are lying. However, we can't just tell a kid he's too stupid to do anything other than mule labor. Why force that kid into algebra or physics? Just give him basic skills from classes that won't cause smoke to pour from that underutilized brain.

Click to expand...

My high school wasn't far off of that. I took 2 years of each science (Biology, Chemistry, and Physics) and Calculus in high school. They didn't have to. We had some restrictions of course. You have to take Z amount of a, b, and c sort of thing. There were advanced classes for the advanced and remedial classes for the not as advanced. Hell we even had a work study option for seniors. People didn't have to take physics, but they would have to accumulate the proper number years of science. Even if it was "earth science". Algebra everyone should learn. Everyone should learn it in Jr. High as that is the appropriate level for algebra. I can understand people not needing calc (it would do them well to take it though); but algebra is akin to addition and subtraction. Everyone should know how to do it.

In the end, I do think we need to keep up a bit more rigorous academic standard in our schools. Elementary school goes pretty hardcore these days, but it begins to fall off in Jr. High and by high school there's not much gain. It should be kept up through out. Significant focus should be spend on math, science, philosophy, English, history, and civics. Foreign language, art and music should be heavily suggested and some amount required. Probably just do away with study hall, that was a waste of an hour.

Would you know who Sisyphus is without the "liberal arts"?

Ikari said:

I don't believe there is enough emphasis on liberal arts. Liberal arts is more than just memorizing a series of data and regurgitating it later. Knowledge retention is and has been looked at extensively, and in my field it's of particular importance since in physics many students who take it will end up retaining nothing. However, there is a more important aspect associated with liberal arts and that comes through the use of critical thinking. And it's here that one can say one of the true powers of liberal arts education lies. Even if we forget what we've memorized, we are able to keep the critical thinking. Liberal arts should teach people to question and think about answers more so than learning which way to turn a wrench to loosen a bolt (I use the right hand rule). The ability to critically think is something which I feel is really leaving the American populace. Too much people want to opposite of liberal arts education, they want to know how what they're learning is going to fit into the cog necessary to do their job; and that's not so much liberal arts as it is more accurately labeled as vocational. That focus I fear has driven away intellectual and academic pursuit and has caused us to lose a lot.

In the end you don't just want a cog. A cog can be replaced with an appropriate robot. You want thinkers, you want people who can analyze and question circumstances, who can weigh out the data in front of them and come up with intelligent solutions. It's imperative not just for the success of the individual to be able to think, but for the Republic as a whole. And on this front, we should be doing more.

Click to expand...

Yes.

And the point is training the mind to reason critically and solve problems, not to learn a trade.

Nope, it doesn't emphasize them enough.

nota bene said:

Would you know who Sisyphus is without the "liberal arts"?

Click to expand...

You must have one of those cool schools of the future if you're getting to take classes in Greek mythology. After all, school is the only place you can learn that kind of thing!

Need I go on, or have I made my point without poking too much fun?

nota bene said:

Yes.

And the point is training the mind to reason critically and solve problems, not to learn a trade.

Click to expand...

Indeed, that's what trade schools are for. I think that's an important distinction to be made. People will be prepared with the base to enter into any higher ed environment they choose; but there should be emphasized differences between Tech school, College, and University. University being the most academically rigorous, challenging, and diverse of the group.

I don't think it's necessarily bad to try to improve the rigor and scope of our high schools, they've been in pretty big decline. There can be plenty of opportunity for various study above the required and emphasized curriculum. Specific histories (European, Medieval, Asian, etc.) can be electives (but American history and Government would be required), various government studies, sociology, psychology, mythology/theology, etc.

Gipper said:

You must have one of those cool schools of the future if you're getting to take classes in Greek mythology. After all, school is the only place you can learn that kind of thing!

Need I go on, or have I made my point without poking too much fun?

Click to expand...

School is the most probable place for those things to be learned.

nota bene said:

Would you know who Sisyphus is without the "liberal arts"?

Click to expand...

That knowledge is mostly from personal interest and independent study.

I'm not saying we shouldn't retain some ideas from the liberal arts in our education, but equally emphasize singular studies in a wide range of disciplines, and expecting productive citizens to arise from it, is a bad strategy.

History, economics, geography, civics, politics, for example, shouldn't be taught separately, but as interdisciplinary programs developed around the theme of good republican citizenship. You should focus on specific time periods in human history and develop an understanding of all these disciplines from those time periods.

Morality Games said:

That knowledge is mostly from personal interest and independent study.

I'm not saying we shouldn't retain some ideas from the liberal arts in our education, but the fundamental notion that we should

History, economics, geography, civics, politics, for example, shouldn't be taught separately, but as interdisciplinary programs developed around the theme of good republican citizenship. You should focus on specific time periods in human history and develop an understanding of all these disciplines from those time periods.

Click to expand...

To degrees. It was never required, but I did take a Greek Mythology class in high school, it was a fun and interesting course. I just don't think that the idea of school should be to produce cogs. Cogs are non-thinkers. Human society needs thinkers, particularly to uphold a democratic Republic. Being a "good Republican citizen", what's that even mean? I'm not sure I want government schools enforcing ideals like that. I'd rather teach people to think and let them figure out for themselves what a "good citizen" is.

Ikari said:

To degrees. It was never required, but I did take a Greek Mythology class in high school, it was a fun and interesting course. I just don't think that the idea of school should be to produce cogs. Cogs are non-thinkers. Human society needs thinkers, particularly to uphold a democratic Republic. Being a "good Republican citizen", what's that even mean? I'm not sure I want government schools enforcing ideals like that. I'd rather teach people to think and let them figure out for themselves what a "good citizen" is.

Click to expand...

Good republican citizens are supposed to be able to think, but empowering people to think requires discipline and focus that doesn't come naturally and which our current method of education does not distill.

Is the purpose of education to provide a citizenry best able to make political choices for itself, or to produce a citizenry capable of succeeding in the workplace?

because an argument can be made for both, and currently we are not providing for either - at current schools do not overemphasize liberal arts so much as they overemphasize self-esteem.

Morality Games said:

Good republican citizens are supposed to be able to think, but empowering people to think requires discipline and focus that doesn't come naturally and which our current method of education does not distill.

Click to expand...

This is true, but I don't believe it's due to too much liberal arts. I think it's the exact opposite. I think the rigor of school is toned down after elementary school and continues to decline until about 2nd year in college. Instead, we should not allow that decline but rather keep it rigorous throughout. We should emphasis MORE liberal arts, not less. As time marches on and human society expands its knowledge and technology, there will be more and more to learn. It's how it works with us. We aggregate our knowledge base to push forward current technology. "If I have seen farther than any man, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants" the saying goes. We continually must climb higher and higher as our aggregated knowledge increases. Is it necessary for everyone to know the intricacies of quantum mechanics? Not from a cog perspective, most certainly not. But from a human perspective it is good to have some knowledge of quantum even if it's remedial.

To learn is to be human.

cpwill said:

Is the purpose of education to provide a citizenry best able to make political choices for itself, or to produce a citizenry capable of succeeding in the workplace?

because an argument can be made for both, and currently we are not providing for either - at current schools do not overemphasize liberal arts so much as they overemphasize self-esteem.

Click to expand...

Does this have to be a choice between one and the other? I see many school doing both and doing it rather well.

I wish I had been taught hard lessons, rigour, and most impoprtantly, self examination and self discipline.., at all stages of instruction. The few classes I had that were relatively strict, organized, and disciplined, I learned a crap-ton from, and actually remembered much of it. And I disliked them the most at the time...

I don't oppose liberal arts in schools. I just think we have so much more we can be doing in the non-liberal arts side, that has a far greater impact on our lives, our culture, our economy and prosperity, etc. Someone else mentioned it's liberalism, not liberal arts...I can see some truth in that. Babying kids is not what kids need.

Gipper said:

You must have one of those cool schools of the future if you're getting to take classes in Greek mythology. After all, school is the only place you can learn that kind of thing!Need I go on, or have I made my point without poking too much fun?

Click to expand...

I took Mythology class. I loved it. We had a toga party and banquet at year end to boot.

It was also a complete waste of educational time. I knew most of it already by reading a handful of norse/greek mythology books, and watching all of the Jason and the Argonauts, Clash of the Titans, etc., type movies. It was like a social group...not education.

Ikari said:

This is true, but I don't believe it's due to too much liberal arts. I think it's the exact opposite. I think the rigor of school is toned down after elementary school and continues to decline until about 2nd year in college. Instead, we should not allow that decline but rather keep it rigorous throughout. We should emphasis MORE liberal arts, not less. As time marches on and human society expands its knowledge and technology, there will be more and more to learn. It's how it works with us. We aggregate our knowledge base to push forward current technology. "If I have seen farther than any man, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants" the saying goes. We continually must climb higher and higher as our aggregated knowledge increases. Is it necessary for everyone to know the intricacies of quantum mechanics? Not from a cog perspective, most certainly not. But from a human perspective it is good to have some knowledge of quantum even if it's remedial.

To learn is to be human.

Click to expand...

Currently our solution, from the liberal arts regime, to shortages of scientists and engineers, is to cast out nets among the general population by compelling general study of the sciences in hopes of attracting some interest. Rather, we should mandate science courses (like those introductory level courses in college) that increase knowledge and appreciation of the scientific method and the most debated ideas of the scientific community rather than commonly agreed upon facts and theories used by scientists and experiments that displaying them. That's because the only function most people will need to perform when it comes to science is evaluating its socio-economic and political implications. There is no perfect way for a non-scientist to do that, but actually trying to teach students to fiddle around with physics is pointless, because most of them don't want to learn it. Actual physics study should be for people who display show potential as natural scientists during different 'testing periods' incorporated into the vocational study method; students who choose is as an elective, or because of government incentives (to increase the pool of scientists and engineers).

Morality Games said:

Currently our solution, from the liberal arts regime, to shortages of scientists and engineers, is to cast out nets among the general population by compelling general study of the sciences in hopes of attracting some interest. Rather, we should mandate science courses (like those introductory level courses in college) that increase knowledge and appreciation of the scientific method and the most debated ideas of the scientific community rather than commonly agreed upon facts and theories used by scientists and experiments that displaying them. That's because the only function most people will need to perform when it comes to science is evaluating its socio-economic and political implications. There is no perfect way for a non-scientist to do that, but actually trying to teach students to fiddle around with physics is pointless, because most of them don't want to learn it. Actual physics study should be for people who display show potential as natural scientists during different 'testing periods' incorporated into the vocational study method; students who choose is as an elective, or because of government incentives (to increase the pool of scientists and engineers).

Click to expand...

What "liberal arts regime"? I'm not aware of one.

Morality Games said:

Currently our solution, from the liberal arts regime, to shortages of scientists and engineers, is to cast out nets among the general population by compelling general study of the sciences in hopes of attracting some interest. Rather, we should mandate science courses (like those introductory level courses in college) that increase knowledge and appreciation of the scientific method and the most debated ideas of the scientific community rather than commonly agreed upon facts and theories used by scientists and experiments that displaying them. That's because the only function most people will need to perform when it comes to science is evaluating its socio-economic and political implications. There is no perfect way for a non-scientist to do that, but actually trying to teach students to fiddle around with physics is pointless, because most of them don't want to learn it. Actual physics study should be for people who display show potential as natural scientists during different 'testing periods' incorporated into the vocational study method; students who choose is as an elective, or because of government incentives (to increase the pool of scientists and engineers).

Click to expand...

I don't wanna pay taxes, but I still got to do it. By relaxing the standards such that kids don't have to take tough courses because they have no interest in being challenged isn't, IMO, a good thing. People should have some understanding of base biology, chemistry, physics, and math. These are some of the most important things along with philosophy, art, and music, that humans have come up with. It in essence defines our species a bit.

Your method is very much closer to the Japanese method wherein career is decided by the time someone hits Jr. High. There's a reason their teen suicide rate is so high. My method of broad range, but evenly applied works with people being able to make up their own minds when they are getting out of High School or are in College as to what career they want. All doors are left open, not shut because we are interested in making cogs only. Cogs suck. They cannot adapt, they fit only one place. To be a cog is essentially to be nothing more than a monkey. However, we are human and humans learn and adapt. Rigorous liberal arts education teaches that. It is the reason why we should pursue it to a greater length than what we do now. Now we have the cog machine, but it's not that great of a system and we already see its failings. We've let academic standards slide already, and this is what we have because of it. We do not need to exacerbate the decline by creating weaker standards and teaching cog mentality. The solution is in fact the opposite. We should be more rigorous, more complete with our liberal arts education.

Learning is not a bad thing. Maybe kids don't want to do the tough stuff sometimes, but this is part of being human. You will not see anything until you learn to stand on the shoulders of giants.