It is said that liberal arts education is on a downward slope and too many college students now choose to pursue degrees in fields that are more likely to guarantee them a job. Yet, decades ago, there were simply far fewer people in colleges who composed in larger proportion of the elite (and thus could afford liberal arts). Maybe, if we look into the proportional of all young people (and not just college students) we will find that the proportion has not changed between those who study liberal arts and those who do everything else.

Liberal Arts advocates say that their education has benefits that are not directly tangible. They theoretically create good citizens who think critically and participate. They foster the “soul,” whatever that means. Yet, as these qualities are near impossible to measure, does this not make the whole concept esoteric and essentially beyond the means of academic discourse?

The Cato article probably went a bit far by claiming that all liberal arts can be learned from a computer screen. By its very nature, the disciplines that fall under it require some person to person discussion and help from professors on what is traditionally thought to be the most relevant academic literature on the subject. Yet, now that essentially all of us have access to the “great works,” why do students have to pay the same amounts to study the philosophy and biology, which require much larger investments from the institution?

According to the Nussbaum, lack of liberal arts education today in worldwide higher education is a threat to democracy. This implies that in earlier decades, democracy was in less of a threat because more people received liberal education. Yet, the proportion of people in higher education in general was considerably lower. Does this mean that the lauded people-power of the past was in the hands of a very specific demos? If so, how have we actually changed?

Many institutions in Higher Education attempt to create at least a semblance of diversity through affirmative action because minorities tend to be in worse social and economic situations in the United States and admitting more from their ranks theoretically would help change this situation. Yet, who are these minority students who get into the top notch institutions? Are they actually the poor and downtrodden from the lowest economic bracket?

The Federal Statistics note that at least percentage-wise, there has been an enormous increase in foreign students in the US. The data in that article put foreigners in separate categories from African, Asian, Hispanic, or White Americans. Do other statistics that measure diversity separate these categories? Can excepting rich members of the elites of other countries, who maybe ethnically a minority in the US, skew the statistics in creating a semblance of progressive diversity?

Some articles argued for the economic class to replace race in affirmative action. At current tuition rates, would that really make a difference? If the poor cannot afford college, they may simply not go even when accepted.

All throughout the reading there is great skepticism about the willingness and/or ability of the state and federal governments of the US to help even state institutions financially or regulate them effectively. What needs to change for this to happen?

The military was not mentioned in most (unless I missed it, all) of the articles. Yet, it provides a way for many people from not particularly privileged backgrounds to attain higher education at affordable levels (admittedly with the very real risk of suffering PTSD in the process). What role does this in a way backdoor help from the federal government in shaping higher education? Could increasing this role be a possible way of compromising liberal economic and social economic views of the situation in HE?

Most of the articles described MOOCs and or internet courses in the context higher education as a whole. Yet, is there not an inherent difference between teaching, for example, a beginner’s (Core) class in math, philosophy and advanced biology? Why can we not teach the simpler and more test based classes online and more discussion based classes traditionally?

Kirchner’s described the value of American college degrees to be falling in world rankings? Then what are other countries’ higher education systems doing better?

Though it would  seem ideal for a university to focus solely teaching its students, it does not take a great amount of cynicism to argue that that is not possible or even desirable. Higher education is also the scene of networking, cultural enrichment and possibly even a right of passage. Online teaching can ever really get to that level. For at least these reasons, higher education in the traditional form is probably here to stay. So what is all the hype about?

Is a professor teaching a free MOOC really different for a religious figure or mass entertainer? The professor spreads knowledge (it is hoped) to a mass audience that he cannot physically connect on a person to person level. In the end, the audience may better understand the workings of the human body or the context of the Peloponnesian War but with the vast majority not finishing the course (and those finishing generally not getting academic credit) how is this really different from achieving enlightenment or enjoying good music?

The Economist study noted that many people in the private sector felt that the quality of higher education was sliding. Could this simply be the case because they are hiring more people in for jobs that require a certain intelligence and technological experience (due to massification and changing employment patterns)? Is there a limit to what mass education can do, due to overall intelligence level of a population?

The system or “non-system” of financial support for higher education in the United States is evidently in need of great change. However, due at least in part to its complexity doing so through the inside is like untying the Gordian Knot. Is it time to cut the knot? Should there be drastic reform?

Tuition rates have been increasing at rates that are way above inflation. There are many explanations for this, including the need for new equipment, personnel to handle it, rising wages of professors,etc. However, the rate of the increase is such that it is possible that some of the money is not being used in the best fashion. Do you think that there is rent-seeking? If so, where?

Could the increasing tuition rates be viewed as a bubble from the economic lens? If so, what happens if it bursts? Is it and should it be artificially kept together?

Johnstone (2011), argues that the financial situation of higher education is similar across the world (in terms of measuring productivity, faculty size, ect vs tuition). Is there something to learn from these places? Is there something to copy?

Education statistically leads to higher wages. Should it? Do all of the professionals of today need the degree that they received to do their work? Are too many people attending college?