Considering the changing job market and demands, does the value of a liberal arts degree change? Are there certain characteristics of a liberal arts degree that have become obsolete? Or some that have become more desired?

Many parents that financial support their children through college discourage a liberal arts degree. These parents stress the need that students graduate and are placed in a steady job. Supporters of the liberal arts, such as Humpherys, believe that the liberal arts provide the necessary career readiness skills. What defines career readiness? Is it only related to a student’s major and proficiency in specific classes? Or does it involve other skills learned from the experiences inside and outside the classroom?

Andrew Coulson wrote that the liberal arts “perpetuate a 15^th century approach to higher education.” Do you think the liberal arts are becoming outdated and irrelevant to higher education? Can the basis of the liberal arts be preserved while modifying some of the practices used?

A new approach to higher education, the “practice-oriented” study, was suggested. This practice involves a hybrid of liberal arts studies and pre-professional training. This can be achieved with 3/2 programs and co-op programs. Does this seem like a fair balance for higher education?

Many people involved in higher education believed that liberal arts schools are producing strong graduates, who land success job and have fruitful careers. Despite having statistics in their favor, many liberal arts schools are not drawing the number of students they need or want. Do you think the emotional language of the literature that emphasizes the “demise of the liberal arts college” affects too many people? How can liberal arts colleges stress their supportive data and appeal to the emotions of students facing the college process? Should liberal arts schools avoid all pre-professional program or is this change necessary to continue their growth?

Definition of Liberal Arts:

How does the recent developments of internet redefine liberal arts education? How can higher education keep up and keep it fresh? (even though the idea of liberal arts education goes far back in tradition it should-in principal- live and breathe with social developments.)

How are student-faculty relationships facilitated?

In comparing the Value of Liberal Arts with its crtitique:

How are our values of education changing with the economy? Are there ways of incorporating the lofty ideas of liberal arts with a more grounded and practical element?

Is the idea of liberal arts “outdated”? How can it be revitalized?

Nussbaum:
Does education “prepare us for meaningful lives?” If so, what are the consequences of wittling this down?

How are resources becoming classified as liberal arts becomes less emphasized?

-Alannah Fehrenbach

1.What is the meaning of a liberal arts education? How do colleges define it today? Is it just a tool to promote an idea they want to sell? Does any college truly embody “liberal arts education”?

2.Who decides that a liberal education matters more than a career-oriented one? Or vice versa? Is it politicians? Policy makers?

3.Humphreys claims that within the next few years, there will not be enough college-educated people to fill the necessary jobs. Isn’t there a decrease in hiring at this point in time? Is that expected to continue? If so, how are we to understand these two pieces of information?

4.It seems that there is a new movement to assess competence and not just hours spent in classroom. Should there also be a way to test for competence in regards to liberal arts knowledge, ie reasoning, social responsibility, practical skills, etc?

5.Are employers expecting too much by wanting employees who have a broad and wide depth of knowledge? Is this an unrealistic expectation?

6.The critique on liberal arts education claims that one can teach himself all the things that a liberal arts education is said to impart and it is therefore a waste to give money to colleges to do just that. Is this a valid argument? Can people learn reasoning and civic responsibility from online classes and self-motivated learning?

7.Coulson seems to be bemoaning a lack of initiative on the part of today’s generation and not so much the “myth” of a liberal arts education. What exactly is he trying to say here?

8.We’ve spoken about mission creep, but is it possible that colleges are trying to be something they’re not because that’s where the money is? Some colleges have expanded their scope because they weren’t pulling in enough applicants by having such a narrow niche. Is it possible that the real crux of the matter here is economics? Is it also possible that student demand is part of what drives the mission creep we see?

9.Is the new focus on vocational training a result of the current economic situation or has it been years in the making? Why is this push happening now?

10.Employers want people who can work well with others, but this isn’t necessarily something a liberal arts education can impart. Even vocational training can do this. Is this skill a relevant part of the LA arguments?

11.It seems that colleges are doing a poor job of effectively conveying to the public what they are really saying. For example, small private colleges may have a huge price tag but the actual price you pay is much less. Or, for example, these small colleges often promote liberal arts education, which some studies have shown increases income after college. Yet, somehow, the public does not know this information. Why is that? What are these colleges doing wrong?

12.Is higher ed in crisis or not?

13.A few articles (and Nussbaum) have compared the liberal arts argument and rhetoric to religious rhetoric. How true is this claim?

14.Does economic growth need a liberal arts education or not? Nussbaum is arguing that employers decry it as useless but surveys of employers indicate that they do, in fact, want the skills most people are supposed to get from a liberal arts education. What is the reality here?

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?

The article on sticker price says that parents don’t understand how much money they can receive from financial aid, and therefore unfairly restrict their child’s college options. Isn’t it more than fair to assume that maybe parents don’t want to take the risk of underestimation of the expected financial aid that they are quoted at time of FAFSA filing?

Are advancements in technology and media coverage of successful moguls who lack high school or college educations strong contributors to why people don’t feel that college educations are necessary anymore to get a good job?

In the Critique of the Liberal Arts, there is a claim that even computer engineering students can cheaply teach themselves all they need to know without going to college. However, it’s assuming that all the information on the internet is true and that the easy availability/accessibility to these resources are common knowledge among these students.  Are blatant overlooks like this one in the article a measure of how inaccurate much of its criticism is?

Nussbaum claims that parents view a pursuit for a degree in the arts or literature as a wasted one because there is no money/job in it. She also says that education in these fields are also necessary to advance democracy. What are some features of an education in these fields (which an education in science lacks) that can help advance democracy?

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?

For Ace

Is high school education preparing us for college, particularly with regards to poorer areas and states? Why do we feel an obligation to uphold affirmative action even today?

For Lederman

What are the negative effects of affirmative action? Is it unrealistic to impose restrictions on the current policies as the belt straps tighten and admission in general becomes more competitive?

For Lavin

The definition of undergraduate is changing: more and more they are working jobs and supporting themselves for the most part. As the financial burden becomes more strenuous on parents, students are more expected to hold their own. How is this affecting their ability to study?

For Grutter

What could the possible “social implications” of affirmative action be? Looking at the dissenting opinion, in reference to the state of California, is it necessary to for “elitism” to look at all prospects rather than focus on minority numbers?

-Alannah Fehrenbach

1. Why do government policies mostly reflect the concerns of the “stereotypical” kind of student (full-time student living in a dorm on a college campus, financially supported by parents), when they have become a numerical minority?

2. Do you think it is a good idea for students to work (whether it be out of choice or necessity) at the same time that they go to college? Is there any way (i.e. programs available, advisement) colleges can assist students in this type of situation? Do you think it’s smarter for these students to take out loans, so that they can focus more on their studies, or do you think they should work so that they can take care of some of the financial burden?

3. Why do you think so many students delay going to college after high school? Do you think this is a good idea to take this gap year between high school and college? What can students do during this gap year to prepare them for college that they would otherwise be missing had they not taken the gap year?

4.Why is it that only half of the students who start off their college career in 2-year colleges and aspire to 4-year degree actually transfer successfully?

5. Is it truly fair to measure the performance rate of a school (whether the school is perfoming well or badly) by using the school’s graduation rates, considering the fact that there are so many factors that can affect graduation rates, such as cycling in and out of college, attending part-time, and transferring from one college to another for financial reasons/familial circumstances? Is it fair for policy makers to reward shorter “time-to-degree” students and put such a heavy emphasis on higher institutional graduation rates? Does it seem that they are serving the more affluent students and paying less attention to low-income and minority students?

6. Instead of looking to an institution’s graduation rates as an objective measure of students’ college performance, what other measures can be used in its place?

7. Undergraduates across the social class and institutional spectrum see college as a key step toward finding a well-paying job, and so many students pick their majors with their careers in mind.  Even among private liberal arts colleges, there is no strong preference toward academic/liberal arts majors. Do you think liberal arts major will continue to decline in the future? Does having a liberal arts and humanities-oriented major serve as a disadvantage or an advantage in attaining a career? How so? What types of students tend to choice career vs. academic majors?

8. What would be some of the consequence of rolling back broad access to higher education?

9. Why is it that degree completion rates at less selective colleges are low; and that the majority of students do not complete a degree, whether at the associates or bachelor’s level? Does this relate to the type of curriculum offered at these less selective colleges? Should students in less selective colleges take an entry to college exam test their skills, and should those that fall below be required to take remedial or developmental coursework before proceeding to college-level courses?

10. With regards to affirmative action, do you think it would be best for the court to uphold the current affirmative action law, “impose modest limits on the consideration of race in the admission process,” or “impose major limits” on the use of race in admissions? Why?

11. Why do presidents have a significantly more favorable view about the upside of the prior learning assessment, competency-based academic credit, and adaptive learning than they do about MOOCs?

12. Why is it that private college presidents (36%) were twice as likely to support the elimination of merit-based aid than were those at public institutions (16%)? Should financial aid focus on the neediest students?

13. What are the social implications of changing the definition of affirmative action from correcting the effect of historic discrimination to, as Justice O’Conner stated in the Grutter v. Bollinger case, “obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body?”