Beyond The University: Why Liberal Education Matters By Michael S. Roth

Deresiewicz believes that “The purpose of education in a neoliberal age is to produce producers.”(1) In his introduction, Deresiewicz compares the ideologies of colleges from the 1920s to today’s thoughts. He concluded that “College is seldom about thinking or learning anymore.”(1) He also believes that there is only one value of education now and that is commercial. The other values are tolerated only when they pertain to commercial value. With the new beliefs in neoliberalism, Deresiewicz determines that “The world is not going to change, so we don’t need young people to imagine how it might.”(3) This leads to education just being about information rather than free thinking. He then goes into discussing how there are others who have come to the realization that not everyone can have high paying jobs as well. Deresiewicz concludes that students only care about the skills needed to start their career not obtaining general knowledge. Colleges teach their students to be leaders for their own benefit not the benefit of others. The neoliberal society, Deresiewicz believes, has begun to give students “a sense of helplessness”(5) so they have no

Today I read an article by Lane Wallace in The Atlantic. She titled it “Liberal Arts and the Bottom Line.” It was a critique of Milton Friedman’s business philosophy that decreed, “the business of business is business.” The implication seems to be that anything that drives the profit down (i.e. all ethical business practices–fair wages, environmental impact, etc.) was antithetical to the definition of business. Numbers, Friedman said, were the ultimate measure of the success of the business and of individual employees as well. Wallace points out that this model has serious flaws. A singular focus on ‘the bottom line’ can have an incredibly detrimental effect on workers’ lives, the economy, and the environment. She attributes the recent economic downturn and BP oil spill in large part to this philosophy.

Mark Edmundson speaks out about the apparent decline of college level education in his article, “On the Uses of a Liberal Education: As Lite Entertainment for Bored College Students”. Edmundson believes liberal education is declining due to students losing passion and colleges selling students what they want: a good time.

Higher education in modern day America has become a debated topic, with some saying that it is not worth it due to the debt it leaves upon leaving, and some saying that it opens opportunities that surpass the results of obtaining one. A resulting view from this conflict is that certain forms of education aren’t as beneficial as others. A primary example of one of these less valuable educations is the study of Liberal Arts. Author Sanford J. Ungar discredits this view in his article The New Liberal Arts where he discusses the many misconceptions that have come to form this interpretation. To convince the reader of these misunderstandings, Ungar uses the appeals of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos, with heavy appeal to logic (Logos) over the other two. Each misconception uses and focuses on more of one appeal than others, and by doing this, he is very successful in influencing the reader into considering that these misunderstandings are present.

Published in Harper's Magazine’s September 1997 issue, Mark Edmundson’s essay, “On the Uses of Liberal Education: As Lite Entertainment for Bored College Students,” presents a very personal argument for an apparent crisis in liberal education–the lack of passion in students. According to Edmundson, a professor at the University of Virginia, “liberal-arts education is as ineffective as it is now…[because] university culture, like American culture writ large, is, to put it crudely, ever more devoted to consumption and entertainment, to the using and using up of goods and images” (723). He believes that consumer culture is responsible for students’ dispassionate attitude towards his class because they view liberal education as a paid service or product that should cater to their wishes. Further, he writes that universities feed into consumer culture, maintaining a “relationship with students [that] has a solicitous, nearly servile tone” (725). In this way, Edmundson lays out the reasons for why he thinks liberal education is failing.

In the 1997 article, “On The Uses of a Liberal Education: As a Weapon In the Hands of the Restless Poor,” published by Harper’s Magazine, the social critic Earl Shorris described how political power could be achieved by a rather non-vocational educational discipline, the humanities. He emphasizes on how the knowledge of a liberal Education can be used as a form of weapon within the lives for the poor.

He received a Bachelor of Arts degree from Yale College, and during his time there he was in various political organizations. He also received a degree in government at Harvard University. He wrote this essay to convince the American people that a more general education such as liberal arts has more productive outcomes. He is trying to reach the American population, so that they can change the educational system. He tries to connect to them by giving examples such as Mark Zuckerberg’s success through liberal arts and statistics on countries with a liberal arts education versus those with a skill-based education.

The question at hand is, should all of those who have the academic ability to absorb a college level liberal education get one? Murray’s point through out his essay is not to discredit eduction, it is simply to question if the traditional path of obtaining a degree is necessary for all career paths. He uses the persuasion technique of credibility to back this claim by citing E.D. Hirsch Jr.’s book, Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. Hirsch’s book hits three main points which are that full participation in any culture requires familiarity with a core body of knowledge. This core knowledge is an important part of the

In the article, “Only Connect: The Goals of a Liberal Education,” by William Cronon, William lists and explains the qualities of an educated person that he admires the most. While reading this article, I related to a lot of the points that he listed. William lists qualities that I value in myself and in others around me. As I read through the article, I also noticed that I am starting to see these qualities in me and that they are growing as I get older and as I complete a higher education.

Mark Edmundson, the author of “On the Uses of a Liberal Education”, is an English teacher at the University of Virginia who expresses his concerns about the trajectory of the universities and colleges in America. Edmundson depicts how college students today have “little fire, little passion to be found,” towards their classes (4). In an effort to find the source of this lack of passion, Edmundson describes contacting other professors about this issue while refining his own ideas. Ultimately, Edmundson comes to a conclusion. He believes that the consumer mindset of college students has hindered American universities as a whole. My target audience is my professor, Professor Chezik. Looking closely at his wording, formation of sentences, and idea structure, one can see a recurring theme throughout Edmundson’s essay. Edmundson uses fragments, specifically at the beginning of his paragraphs, to start his point, pose counter arguments, and to have a poetic refrain.

To discuss the value of liberal education, there should be a mutual understanding that investing in college means to invest in oneself. Furthermore, while some consider this investment to be a critical stepping stone to success, others dismiss it, explaining that school simply cannot prepare someone for the “real world.” Sanford J. Ungar and Robert Reich explore both of these subjective values in their essays “The New Liberal Arts” and “College is a Ludicrous Waste of Money.” Ungar, the president of Goucher College in Baltimore, Maryland, discusses why a liberal education should be sought after; he does so by introducing common misconceptions about liberal arts and, using argumentative persuasion, proves their insignificance. On the other hand, Reich, the former secretary of labor, argues against the conventional belief of college being the only road to financial wellbeing; rather, he explains why a two-year education may better accommodate many college students, especially those in need of immediate work or those that simply cannot afford a four-year education. In all, although both Reich and Ungar generally discuss liberal education, their perspectives differ when it comes to its practicality in the current economy. Also, to express their different views about liberal arts, the authors use contrasting tones to present their ideas to different intended audiences.

He wrote, “The career bandwagon seems to suggest that shortcuts are available to students that lead directly to high-paying jobs—leaving out “frills” like learning how to write and speak well, how to understand the nuances of literacy texts and scientific concepts, how to collaborate with others on research” What he means by that is there is no shortcuts to a high-paying jobs. He also implies that liberal arts education is the only right way to prepare an individual for their future career because it equips ones with the abilities to write and speak formally, and understandings on scientific matter or how to cooperate with other people for your work, etc. However, I do not think he can deny the fact that the starting salary for a liberal arts graduate is approximately $32,500 while for an engineer is $75,000, (http://www.mtu.edu/engineering/outreach/welcome/salary/). For instant, what can a person possibly do with his philosophy degree right after graduating? He will probably have to go for more schooling before he can find a high-paying job at some big firms or he will have to struggle a lot before he can open his philosophy shop or publish his book. In short, a liberal arts degree will take longer to see its worth than career education or vocational training.

In, “Liberal Arts for a New Millenium,” by Joyce Baldwin explains the issues presented in education prior to the G.I. Bill of 1944. Prior to 1944, degrees were sought out only by the elite and those who were privileged.” She also shares the evolution of degrees and changes in the selection of the degree people obtained. The G.I. Bill made college education accessible and it helped reshape the colleges and university. The author shared that 65 percent of high school graduates attend college and thirty years ago, half of all the baccalaureate degrees were awarded in liberal arts including science. Today, nearly 60 percent of degrees are in pre-professional or technical field. In the

While the term liberal education is heard from the most prestigious university to an inner city community college, the phrase itself has a hazy definition at best. While educators across America struggle with the definition of the phrase, William Cronon uses purpose, structure, and appeals in his essay "Only Connect: The Goals of Liberal education," to define a liberally educated being and the characteristics that such an education should impart. Cronon capitalizes on inductive structuring to lead the reader along, gently building each new statement upon a foundation of previous ideas. This effectively leads the reader to a strange

In James V, Schall’s A Students Guide to Liberal Learning, he addresses the idea and importance of an authentic liberal arts education. Schall inquires about books and scholars of which centralize around the idea of a liberal education and of which has shaped our society. Schall examines the works of several authors who are in his opinion the guides to learning, and his essay serves as a fundamental building block for the creation of a “Personal Library”.