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?