The modern ‘liberal arts’ education is a joke

The modern liberal arts education straddles a widening chasm of contradiction. College degrees are seen as increasingly risky financial investments, and universities are forced to adapt them to this characterization. The result has been academic disciplines battling each other for survival, with the humanities particularly menaced. All the while, the liberal arts have turned into something contrary to their name and purpose. To understand why, it is necessary to examine their origin.

The liberal arts tradition comes from ancient Greece and Rome, the term referring to the intellectual pursuits worthy of free people. From antiquity through the medieval era, they consisted of seven disciplines which evolved into the numerous liberal arts subjects of today, from the hard sciences to literature and philosophy. While distinct, these were considered part of a complete whole which was vital for personal development, self-expression and civic participation. 

The liberal arts stood in contrast to the servile arts, which trained modes of concrete production and were intended to make money. Herein lies the contradiction: while the liberal arts have, at least so far, stayed robust in content, the degrees themselves are now valued almost exclusively as career prerequisites and have functionally become servile arts.

The existence of particular disciplines is now justified by their profitability rather than their potential to improve individuals and society. STEM fields have had a relatively easy time slotting into this framework, but the humanities have not. 

While the sciences proudly stand on their career applicability and allow powerful corporations to ruffle their hair, the humanities grovel and plead that they, too, can help turn students into useful commodities by making them well-rounded. 

Instead of fighting to the death for the limited space granted by commercial interests, proponents of these disciplines should recognize their intrinsic value to humanity and assert them with solidarity, regardless of profitability.

With the nominally “liberal” arts transformed into servile arts of questionable usefulness, it’s no wonder students often find them so dull. The purpose of spending two semesters learning a language you will soon forget or writing papers on dusty tomes of literature is not to enrich your life; the purpose is to establish that you can complete these tasks when instructed to. I don’t mean to discount the many professors and students who do make these studies meaningful. Rather, I credit them with achieving this contrary to the system’s pressure.

Don’t blame the professors or their institutions; they are merely responding to demand from students. Don’t blame the students either — they are reacting to increasingly bleak economic conditions. The intellectual pursuits of the free can’t exist for students who don’t have the financial freedom to pursue them. 

The ancient liberal arts were reserved for wealthy elites who didn’t need to work for money. If they are to continue existing – and now for society at large – people require the security to concern themselves with things other than finances for several years of their lives. A strong welfare state, therefore, may be the only hope for the liberal arts. 

The choice is ours: give our people the freedom to look beyond their immediate needs and strive to improve the world, or let the liberal arts die alongside liberty.