• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does Public Education over emphasize the Liberal Arts?

Does it?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 28.6%
  • No

    Votes: 14 66.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 1 4.8%

  • Total voters
    21
Yes. I think public education over emphasizes the liberal arts. I think students should be required to take more math and science courses versus taking art or music appreciation.
 
Yes. I think public education over emphasizes the liberal arts. I think students should be required to take more math and science courses versus taking art or music appreciation.

I'm assuming you're making a joke since math and science are part of the liberal arts.

The contemporary liberal arts comprise studying literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science.
 
no.

it is important to look at education the way a football player looks at weightlifting. while few of the exercises will be performed directly on the field, the strength gained will be used in nearly every play. in the same way, the mental acuity gained from a diverse educational background can be applied to any career that the student may someday choose. a complete education is intellectual weightlifting.
 
Does this have to be a choice between one and the other? I see many school doing both and doing it rather well.

I have no doubt there are many individual schools that do. I was fortunate to attend a very good public school. our system does not - where the schools do, they are notable because they do.
 
I'm assuming you're making a joke since math and science are part of the liberal arts.

if "liberal arts" are expanded to include all areas of study.... yes. however, typically "Liberal Arts" refers to "humanities", while math and science go by the nomer of "hard" subjects.
 
Yes.

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

on the contrary - our society has a surplus of people who think that their degree in art history qualifies them for middle management. what we don't have enough of is welders.
 
Public education has moved away from servicing the public and providing what the nation needs to be prosperous and thrive. The perception that everyone needs a college education outweighs the need to provide choices for students. Even in the 1970s funds were provided for vocational education that would prepare students for employment immediately out of high school. Now most education dollars are spent on college bound tracts of study.

This country still needs plumbers, mechanics, those skilled in air conditioning and refrigeration, and electricians, just to name a few. These vocations used to be learned via public education, but not as much any more.
 
Last edited:
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.

Quite right. Well said.
 
on the contrary - our society has a surplus of people who think that their degree in art history qualifies them for middle management.
A degree in art history qualifies you for a job that can lead to management. The skills you learn are often more important than the subject matter. :shrug:
 
if "liberal arts" are expanded to include all areas of study.... yes. however, typically "Liberal Arts" refers to "humanities", while math and science go by the nomer of "hard" subjects.

Math and Science tend to be in the Liberal Arts college. As I said, contemporary liberal arts comprise studying literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science.
 
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.

Are you talking about K-12 or college? You have an interesting perspective as the complaint mostly heard about the U.S. educational system is turning out students weak in math and science. Now you are saying we are not teaching critical thought. Sounds like kids are not learning anything.

On this I will disagree. With a son now going through college I have a pretty good sense of what was taught during his K-12 experience. I can say in high school that there was a lot of science, much more writing for English than I can remember a great history program, a jazz band program and sport temas of all sorts. The school also went out it's way to insure that the kids were involved in helping the community with food drives, etc.

The opportunities are there. Kids and parents have to strive to achieve what is available.

P.S. yes he did take a couple of physics courses.
 
Are you talking about K-12 or college? You have an interesting perspective as the complaint mostly heard about the U.S. educational system is turning out students weak in math and science. Now you are saying we are not teaching critical thought. Sounds like kids are not learning anything.

On this I will disagree. With a son now going through college I have a pretty good sense of what was taught during his K-12 experience. I can say in high school that there was a lot of science, much more writing for English than I can remember a great history program, a jazz band program and sport temas of all sorts. The school also went out it's way to insure that the kids were involved in helping the community with food drives, etc.

The opportunities are there. Kids and parents have to strive to achieve what is available.

P.S. yes he did take a couple of physics courses.

It is probably the whole lot. University isn't for everyone and shouldn't be passed off as being for everyone. University really should be the highest of academic pursuits, but I see a lot of idiots out there (business and psychology majors usually). But it's mostly K-12. At the elementary level of education, there's actually a lot of information and academic rigor present, but it starts to slack off in Jr High and by High School it's epidemic.
 
It is probably the whole lot. University isn't for everyone and shouldn't be passed off as being for everyone. University really should be the highest of academic pursuits, but I see a lot of idiots out there (business and psychology majors usually). But it's mostly K-12. At the elementary level of education, there's actually a lot of information and academic rigor present, but it starts to slack off in Jr High and by High School it's epidemic.

Well my son is a finance and accounting major ( no offense taken). Just as an example about the teaching and the students, albeit a standardized test. The median score on the comprehension part of the SAT for his class was about 650. Not sure if you would think it is good or bad but 20% of the kids got 800 on the math part. Not exactly slackers.
 
Well my son is a finance and accounting major ( no offense taken). Just as an example about the teaching and the students, albeit a standardized test. The median score on the comprehension part of the SAT for his class was about 650. Not sure if you would think it is good or bad but 20% of the kids got 800 on the math part. Not exactly slackers.

Not everyone is going to be bad. Certainly there are some very good students in all disciplines. But there is a reason why there are so many students taking psychology and business as majors.
 
Math and Science tend to be in the Liberal Arts college. As I said, contemporary liberal arts comprise studying literature, languages, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science.

I got my Bachelors in the Arts from a Liberal Arts College. I took "Math for the Non-Mathematical Major", a "Biology" course that was basically a review of High School, and a "Computer Science" which involved very basic programing in a format whose name I don't even remember. It was understood that these were all ticks in the box of my "Gen Ed" that I had to fill in order to get to the important classes in which we discussed Latin American Feminists.
 
Last edited:
Not everyone is going to be bad. Certainly there are some very good students in all disciplines. But there is a reason why there are so many students taking psychology and business as majors.

My sense is that kids are using college as their trade school. Colleges seem to be pushing this as in a lot of schools you had to apply to the specific college versus the overall university.
 
My sense is that kids are using college as their trade school. Colleges seem to be pushing this as in a lot of schools you had to apply to the specific college versus the overall university.

Yes, I think that we should make use of the various higher educations models. University, College, and Tech.

University should be the highest. It should be the hardest to get into, the hardest to stay in, it should require extensive and diverse education. No "physics for people who can't do math". If you can't do math, you don't get in. Required courses should cover everything from the hard sciences to music, art, and foreign language.

College should be slightly more focused that University. It wouldn't be the highest and most rigorous of higher education academia. But it would have some diversity (some gen ed courses), and allow students to focus more on their majors than being forced to take a lot of extra classes. Physics majors can focus on math and physics classes, etc. I think in many ways how "University" is run now, I'd be more inclined to say it's closer to my idea for College than University. It's admissions should be well more lax than University, and the more focused curriculum should make it easier to stay in.

Tech colleges are as they sound. They teach a trade. There's no extra stuff involved, you go to learn to fix cars you learn to fix cars and that's that. Still important designation.

I feel that if we held to these sorts of definitions and standards we could improve higher education significantly as well as encourage those in Jr. High and High School to perform under more intense rigor particularly if students wanted a shot at University.
 
Yes, I think that we should make use of the various higher educations models. University, College, and Tech.

University should be the highest. It should be the hardest to get into, the hardest to stay in, it should require extensive and diverse education. No "physics for people who can't do math". If you can't do math, you don't get in. Required courses should cover everything from the hard sciences to music, art, and foreign language.

College should be slightly more focused that University. It wouldn't be the highest and most rigorous of higher education academia. But it would have some diversity (some gen ed courses), and allow students to focus more on their majors than being forced to take a lot of extra classes. Physics majors can focus on math and physics classes, etc. I think in many ways how "University" is run now, I'd be more inclined to say it's closer to my idea for College than University. It's admissions should be well more lax than University, and the more focused curriculum should make it easier to stay in.

Tech colleges are as they sound. They teach a trade. There's no extra stuff involved, you go to learn to fix cars you learn to fix cars and that's that. Still important designation.

I feel that if we held to these sorts of definitions and standards we could improve higher education significantly as well as encourage those in Jr. High and High School to perform under more intense rigor particularly if students wanted a shot at University.

Good thoughts, as you know that is not how it works right now. For example it is harder to get into the Wharton business school than UPENN. Even at MIT, the business school only accepts something like 40 kids into their business school. At the school my son attends, they accepted 160 kids out of over 3K applicants into the business school. It would have been earier to get into the university than the business college.
 
A degree in art history qualifies you for a job that can lead to management. The skills you learn are often more important than the subject matter. :shrug:

Just curious but what management or leadership skills do you learn from studying Art History? I have a friend with a Ph.D. in Business Administration who teaches MBA and Ph.D. students at a major University who I'm sure would disagree.
 
Last edited:
Good thoughts, as you know that is not how it works right now. For example it is harder to get into the Wharton business school than UPENN. Even at MIT, the business school only accepts something like 40 kids into their business school. At the school my son attends, they accepted 160 kids out of over 3K applicants into the business school. It would have been earier to get into the university than the business college.

That's because so many people want to go into "business". It's not a hard subject, and attracts a lot of people. I've heard it claimed many times in the scientific community that one of the worst things that ever happened to science was Harvard Business graduates.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1059822258 said:
Just curious but what management or leadership skills do you learn from studying Art History? I have a friend with a Ph.D. in Business Administration who teaches MBA and Ph.D. students at a major University who I'm sure would disagree.
I didn't say an Art History degree could get you a middle management job. I said it could get you a job that could lead to middle management...which is true. Although depending on one's extracurricular's it could lead directly to middle management.

Skills: Communication skills, strong writing ability, independent research ability, critical/analytic skills and creativity among others.
 
Back
Top Bottom