I studied political science and history in college. One of my brothers studied English. Another studied art history. The current conversation about degrees earned in liberal arts fields suggests that while we may be well-educated, maybe even interesting people, we also must be mostly unemployable in a contemporary economy. Social commentators today are quick to suggest that the future belongs to those with highly specialized skills and knowledge. A recent Star Tribune editorial applauding the rapprochement of MnSCU leadership and faculty asserted that “employers…need workers with technical and professional competencies as well as the ‘soft skills’ that liberal arts study imparts.”
We do students a grave disservice when we relegate the liberal arts, typically code for study in the humanities and social sciences, to afterthought. The idea that college ought to focus on the development of specialized and technical skills, and that the skills imparted by study of the liberal arts are just “soft skills” is simply wrong.
The liberal arts often are described as the opposite of a “practically oriented” education. The sentiment typically is expressed through the question, “What can you do with that degree?” Art history, political science, English. Dead ends, all. Only my own experience suggests that nothing could be further from the truth.
The best definition of the value of a liberal arts experience I have ever come across came from MnSCU Chancellor, Steve Rosenstone, when he was dean of the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Minnesota. In a 2001 essay entitled The Idea of a University, he described a liberal education as one that enables students to think critically and creatively, provides them with an understanding of the core ideas that shape the world in which they live, empowers them to see the connections among seemingly … Read the rest