OK… let me see if we can tally up the points of agreement. I believe we both agree on the following:

2 classes of calculus
1 class of statistics
2 classes of laboratory science (bio or chem)
1 class of physics

3 classes of history (I’m a big fan of history)

I’m made slightly nervous by your 2 semesters of econ/business for two reasons:

1) While I’ve seen some very good business classes, most that I’ve seen go by are junk.
2) If you aren’t doing a mathematically backed econ (which pretty much entails calculus) you are essentially telling people pretty stories, again, mostly junk. I counter with:

2 classes of calc based econ or accounting

On the english and philosophy requirements… hmm… I think you are overweighting here. I’ll merrily discuss philosophy from Aristotle to Nagel, but I’ve mostly found it of very little utility, other than to be able to chase down the ancenstry of various and sundry types of muddled headedness. I understand that philosophy should challenge assumptions, but *so* many of the assumptions *in* philosophy are so naive or wrong headed I have trouble taking it seriously as a source of that. If you want to challenge assumptions, put a freshman through an angular momentum lab, *that* will challenge his assumptions. So exposure is important, but 3 semesters seems excessive. I’m also extremely skeptical of what passes for english these days. I presume when you say english you primarily mean literature? Consider this counter proposal:

2 classes of philosophy/religion
2 classes of comparative literature or rhethoric

I tend to consider psychology a social science, why do you call it out here? (Note, question seeking to understand, not confront).

My tendency is to agree with your

2 classess of social science

but my past perception was that there were a lot of ‘fluff’ classes on offer in those fields, how would you suggest keeping the social science requirement rigorous? And why do you see social sciences as challenging research abilities? Most of my exposure to social sciences has been related to how amazingly unrigorous and poorly thought out a lot of it’s research is.

I see your

2 classes of performing arts

and raise you

2 classes of fine arts

Likewise, I believe the normal standard for foreign language today is:

4 classes of foreign language

While I appreciate the value of internships/real world learning, I tend to see those as strongly encouraged extracurricular activities rather than requirements. I’d tend to advocate dropping those from the curriculum.

I’d also argue strongly for adding back the

1 class of proof based mathematics

Until you get to that point, what you are doing in math is really more like spelling and grammar than literature.

I’d also argue for at least

1 class of programming

programming does interesting and valuable things to your mind. It changes the way you think about things.

This would leave (presuming I can count, which is always a dubious presumption):

13 classes dedicated to major or electives

you can’t even begin to get a degree in any technical field with only 6 classes to devote to your major, there just isn’t enough space.

This takes you to 40 classes total. Thoughts?

2 classes of calculus
1 class of statistics
2 classes of laboratory science (bio or chem)
1 class of physics
2 classes of econ and business

3 classes of history
2 classes of english
3 classes of philosophy/religion
1 class of psychology
2 classes of social science
2 classes of performing arts
3 classes of foreign language

2 classes dedicated to internships/real world learning
6 classes dedicated to major

That should add up to 32 classes. It’s not as math-focused as your suggestions, but I’ll argue that a true liberal arts focus needs to include a wider array of subjects that aren’t necessarily hard science/math. Good social science should challenge research abilities, philosophy should challenge assumptions, history should challenge worldview, etc.

As I think about it, the real test comes in helping students connect all of these disparate subjects together and this is truly where most LA colleges drop the ball. Maybe there ought to be a bi-monthly advising program which focuses on bringing all the learning together.

Whatcha think?

My basic thesis is that what constitutes an education is shifting, as it has historically. Understanding the world around you today requires a far greater mathematical and scientific literacy than is currently being taught.

Could I interest you in a collaboration on what would constitute an education that is true to liberal ideals?

My opening suggestion would be:

Every student should have minimally:

2 semesters of calculus
2 semesters of a hard laboratory science (chemistry or physics)
1 semester of proof intensive mathematics (this is frequently linear algebra or abstract algebra in todays curricula).
1 semester of statistics

The above would roughly be the equivalent for a liberal arts major of what a science major has to take of the liberal arts today.

Additionally I’d suggest:

2 semesters of calculus based economics
2 semesters of computer programming

I have some thoughts on what ‘liberal arts’ one should take, but I’d prefer to put them forth in augmentation to your thoughts, as I’m pretty sure you know that ground better.

Please feel free to suggest additions or ommisions… I’m quite curious to hear your opinions…

And the thing is that you’ve caught me. I played the system so that I got out of taking any college-level math (did I mention that I really dislike it) and only took biology. Looking back, I WISH that I was forced to take a wider array of different subjects. It would have expanded my world, enhanced my thinking (yes, analytical skills), and probably made me a bit more marketable. Who knows…maybe I would be working in the tech field rather than the non-profit right now. So, I’ll agree whole-heartedly that there is much to love about the liberal art ideal and yet many programs don’t achieve it. Probably doing their students a great disservice at the same time.

The fact is so many college students don’t know what they want to do professionally; and no matter what they choose when they leave college, they’ll probably change career path at some point. All of this points to the need for our universities to prepare students with a broad, yet deep education. It’s curious…it used to be a world of specialization; now it seems that generalization is making a comeback.

Thanks for keeping the dialogue alive

Most science and engineering programs has substantial requirements for liberal arts (history, philosophy, sociology,etc) including requirements to take things above the nose bleed level (ie, poetry for chip heads doesn’t count). Most science and engineering programs also have strong foreign language requirements (in fact where did my undergrad, a science major had to take more foreign language than any liberal arts major not majoring specifically in a foreign language or comparative literature).

It’s hard to buy into the whole ’sure, they can do math, but do they have a broad education’ myth when I’ve been in colloquium of physicists where the talk was titled ‘The incalculable in pursuit of the ineffable’ and the whole room got the Oscar Wilde reference.
Spending long evenings discussing things lik Searles Chinese room and it’s relationship to computability questions in Turing machines over coffee with mathematicians also disuades me from this view. The philosophy students couldn’t come along for that ride, they didn’t have the education to be able to track the conversation…

As to creative… ever watch a scientist groove with an artist? They grok each other quite well, because both are fundamentally about acts of creation. Engineers exhibit this characteristic somewhat less.

My essential point is this: no single skill is going to get you were you need to go, you need a toolbox of skills to thrive. Increasingly the *way* mathematical and scientific thought shapes your mind is an invaluable skill. It’s absence is increasingly like the absence of literacy. Sure, many jobs 50 years ago didn’t require much reading… but you still found a literate person more useful and easier to advance. A liberal arts education fundamentally fail to provide a broad education in the modern world because it neglects mathematical and scientific literacy.

The other skills I kill for in employees are writing/communication skills (which no one seems to teach anymore), people skills (which seem to *mostly* come through experience), and organization skills (I have no idea where these come from ).

Please note, I am NOT trying to knock on the liberal arts ideal here, it’s one I really like. The idea of getting a broad education that prepares you for anything deeply appeals to me. My beef is that I no longer feel liberal arts programs are meeting that ideal.

I would argue that how many folks out there who get just an engineering, economics, or a physics degree also have that background in history, philosophy, or sociology? May be great at the analytical stuff, but when it comes to getting creative how does it work out?

I’d also argue that the modern world you mention seems to veer toward highly technical work. It might be that we’re viewing business from different perspectives. Yes, most jobs require analytical tools, but there are different types of analysis outside of math and science. From experience, I can say that history, anthropology, and philosophy have their own versions of deep thinking that are just as important.

Thanks for the different insight and contribution. Any perspectives from other folks? Honest debate is always appreciated here

While I admire the principle of producing a well rounded well educated person that may have at one point been the driving force behind a liberal arts education, and I find the skills imparted by some subdisciplines thereof (particularly the data mining and writing skills of historians), I find most people I’ve encountered with liberal arts degrees quite narrow.

The modern liberal arts education includes only token versions of mathematics and science, insufficient to develop the analytical muscles needed for many jobs in the modern world. Because of these difficiencies they frequently can’t follow the thought train when economics or business get’s too quantitative either.

If I really need to find someone with a well rounded education, I’ll look for a physicist. They usually have very strong mathematical skills, strong physical science backgrounds, strong analytical muscles, strong capabilities understanding and modeling complex systems, some ability to program, etc. I can ramp them up for almost anything because their minds *track*.

What I would kill for is a person who combines the analytical skills of a physicist with the writing and textual research skills of as historian.

Thanks for wandering on by Rethink(IP) for this weeks installment of the Carnival of the Capitalists. If you are scratching your head trying to figure out what the heck Rethink(IP) is all about head on over to the Blawg…