Analysis Of Sanford J. Ungar 's ' The New Liberal Arts '

Andrew Simmons published his article for The Atlantic, “The Danger of Telling Poor Kids that College is the Key to Social Mobility” on January 16, 2014, which raises his concerns that higher education is only being promoted as an opportunity to increase their economic status, when it should be an opportunity to experience an education (Simmons). Through the use of students such as Isabella, Simmons disagrees with the way students now look at higher education and blames the educators through the students’ lives for this view. Instead, Simmons views education as an intellectual opportunity rather than a way to elevate ones economic class which is all people see when they see “higher education.” He believes that education, ambition and work ethic is how you have a satisfying life, not with how much you make. He makes the point that when economics becomes the main goal of education it’s all children begin to think about and they might not pursue something that they are truly passionate about or what they want to learn about, which then does not create an intellectually awakening experience (Simmons).

One view that Ungur argues is false in Misperception No. 1 and 7 is that with the increasing prices of higher education in America, a liberal arts education isn’t as relevant in society due to the cost and that it has become a luxury to obtain, and students should focus on “career educations”. He does this by taking an Logos appeal, arguing that demand of liberal arts education will increase in the workplace in order to understand “the complex influences that shape the world we live in”. He states that a liberal arts education isn’t as

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.

When Shorris explains his goal to the prospective students he indicates, “You’ve been cheated. Rich people learn the humanities; you didn’t. The humanities are a foundation for getting along in the world, for thinking, for learning to reflect on the world instead of just reaction to whatever force is turned against you.”(Page 4) That the rich have had the opportunity to buy that type of learning and embrace it, while the poor have had more things to deal with like getting food on the table from day to day. Therefore, Shorris believes that a liberal education will provide poor students with a new kind of lens to outlook the world. With the knowledge of philosophy, poetry, art history, logic and American history, Shorris trusts that these students will begin to uncover hidden talents and interests that will inspire them and help them to not only solve problems, but also seek plausible solutions. He believes that these qualities would provide the poor with an escape route from the ongoing cycle that have them trapped and it will provide them with “a certain kind of life, a richness of mind and spirit.” (Page 5) After his first thriving year teaching this class, sixteen of his prospective students completed the course, which then some went on to universities.

The essay “A New Liberal Arts,” which was written by Sanford Ungar, first appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education on March 5, 2010. In his essay, Ungar uses many different rhetorical strategies to convince his reader that a degree in the liberal arts is not a lost cause but can actually be very beneficial and lead to success. In Ungar’s opinion, there are many wrong ideas and misunderstandings about the usefulness of a degree in the liberal arts. In the essay there are seven specific misperceptions that he addresses specifically. By listing out these misperceptions, Ungar is addressing them individually in order to give each one proper attention. He offers explanations to why people may think these things and why he believes that they are incorrect. Ungar’s use of style, format, and emotional and logical arguments help him to create a persuasive and influential essay for his audience and convince them to agree with his opinion.

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

Ungar was the president of Goucher College in Baltimore, Maryland from 2001 to 2004. He has been published in Newsweek, The Economist, and The Washington Post. This particular essay was first published in the Chronicle of Higher Education. His extensive work in a college setting, as well as his background in writing for prestigious publications all help contribute to his credibility. As a college president, he would have in depth knowledge of what a liberal arts education entails, along with the costs and benefits associated with higher education. He also would have experience with the specific misperceptions he is addressing in his essay. This may create a bias in his writing, because he obviously favors a traditional college path, as opposed to technical or vocational school, but his piece focuses on misconceptions associated with the liberal arts, and is not a pro-con of the different areas of study, so I do not believe the bias is relevant. There are many more important aspects to this essay that make it

“What Is College For” by Andrew Delbanco, shows the need for both a universal college system; one which caters for all of society, and one which provides a liberal education. Delbanco gives many reasoned thoughts on how, and why the college system has become restricted, to purely those of a higher socio-economic background, rather than being exclusive to people of all backgrounds. The idea of college being a platform for people to learn, advance their skills, and become whatever they want to be has seemingly diminished over time. The ideas in favor of such an educational system are put forward, but they are foreshadowed in my opinion, by the notion that people should have the same educational opportunities in life; regardless of their economic or social background. A universal education system is needed for our society to prosper, especially if it provides a liberal education; this is not just for the individuals that make up a community, but for the community, as a whole.

Ungar believes that the new Liberal Arts program is powerful because it develops character, lifelong learning, and values. He further explains that creating confidence and developing positive patterns is essential to life. He believes that, “Through immersion in liberal arts, students learn not just to make a living, but also to live a life rich in values and character”.On the other hand, Gitlin believes that learning from history ensures common ground and helps people socially accept their lives as well as those of others. He states that “Students need “chaff detectors.”They need some orientation to philosophy, history, language, literature, music and the arts that have lasted more than 15 minutes”. He does agree with Ungar that Liberal

As we move out of the 20th century into a world where technology is changing the way we work and play and are educated, college enrollment is at an all time high. But based on the SAT and ACT scores, academic achievement has declined leading to the question in Joyce Baldwin's article, "Liberal Arts for New Millennium", of whether or not a liberal arts background should still be included in the definition of "an educated person".

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.

Sanford J. Ungar’s article “The New Liberal Arts” identifies multiple misperceptions there are about earning a liberal arts degree, showing the inaccuracy in each.

“Misconception No.1: A liberal arts education is a luxury that most families can no longer afford. ‘Career-education’ is what we must now focus on.” (Ungar, 2010, pp.191) As Ungar has claimed, there is a recent misconception that a liberal arts education is no longer a necessity but luxury because it doesn’t provide an instant career launching education. With so many people having to a need to spend as little money as possible, they are determined to only spend money on preparation for their future career. For this reason they go to college only to take courses that are necessary for their future. “She is in college to take vocational training. She wants to write computer code. Start a business. Get a job in television. She uses college to take vocational courses that pertain to her career interest.” (Murray, 2008, pp.228) Murray explained the story of a girl who is in college solely for preparation for her career. Because of this, she isn’t interested in a liberal arts education. If the course doesn’t directly pertain to her desired career, she prefers not to take it.

Martin Luther King Junior said, “Intelligence plus character-that is the goal of true education.” Higher education does not exist for the sole purpose of preparing students for future jobs; it’s there in order to prepare individuals for life where they are expected to participate in their community, their government, and the lives of those around them. Liberal arts, in particular, exist for the broadening of students’ minds in order for them to be successful not only in their chosen career but also in their lives outside of it. Liberal arts lost their past popularity during the last few decades, but they shouldn’t be disregarded in favor of technical and professional degrees because they still provide students with skills that are perhaps less tangible, but no less necessary for life in modern world.