Current liberal arts curriculum leaves students unready to work

By Sully Lockett

The concept of the liberal arts is, on paper, a fantastic thing. The idea of well-rounded students becoming informed citizens, moving democracy forward into a utopian future as we dance hand-in-hand with strangers in well-choreographed and spontaneous routines in the streets? Outstanding. I was born ready for this. But is that what the liberal arts does for its students? I don’t believe so.

St. Edward’s motto is ‘take on your world,’ and I’m at a bit of a loss as to how our assortment of required random electives is making that happen. Classrooms full of students staring bovine-like as teachers lecture, voices trailing awkwardly into silence as their questions fall on deaf and uncaring ears doesn’t feel like it’s making me a better citizen or inspiring me to form lasting friendships with my classmates.

It feels like I’m wasting my time and the teacher is wasting their effort, which could be better spent teaching practical skills for a rapidly evolving future.

However, what kind of complaining malingerer would I be without offering alternatives? The very worst kind. We can take a page here from the military, of all places. They’re short on liberal arts, but very, very keen on teaching specific jobs very quickly. For example, a military journalist and public affairs specialist, my old job as Marine, goes through a three month course to learn their trade.

At no point are they taught how to be better citizens; the military assumes by and large that you are an adult and you can figure that out on your own. All they were taught was the mechanics of photography, videography, interviewing, writing, public affairs, social media management and editing. 

And they teach this not by talking about something or learning the ancient history of writing or the historical implications, but by pushing you into the deep end from day one, giving you assignments in the morning and giving you hours to turn them around before they tear your work apart, ruthlessly grading and critiquing. Failure resulted in your being dropped from the course, which could lead to you being assigned a significantly less interesting or attractive job.

And it’s all necessary, because you’re expected to be capable of doing the job the second you graduate. You will go from this school to a billet in a unit somewhere, and you will be held accountable for the tasks you are given. There is no ramp-up, there is no training wheels, there is the job, and how to do it.

I think a liberal arts curriculum could benefit from such a set-up, learning by doing.

Want to make valuable and long lasting relationships? Get ready to make them with people you’re going to work in a field with, not some kid you happen to sit next to you in your underwater basket weaving class. Want to be inspired and innovate and things? Sit down with people who work in the industry, see what they have to say, not students.

Of course, is this extreme likely, or even beneficial for a college? I don’t believe it is. I feel like I’ve spent half my life in one history class or another, and I gladly learn more every time. I think the cultural understanding classes are more important today than they ever have been. I even think Capstone has merit, as much wailing and gnashing of teeth as it engenders. 

Could we re-examine a curriculum bloated by tradition and the urge to try and make better people? Could we build something that takes students and turns them out as people ready to seize the world by the throat, people with experience and contacts and work to show for it? I absolutely believe we could.

Liberal arts education makes for well-rounded and creative students

By Sophia Utria

There is a single, common cliche that students hear when they apply for college: be a well-rounded applicant. But should the same thing be expected of students when they get to university?

In a world that is increasingly focused on technology, harder-science fields such as engineering and math and their corresponding majors in universities are arguing for more focused degree plans.

By having the student take less and less classes outside of their major, they are meant to become stronger in the field of their choice, but I don’t believe that is the case. A comprehensive liberal arts education keeps a student aware of the many perspectives the world has to offer both in and out of the major of their choice.

Many schools offer conservatory style education in the fine arts, limiting what students take to only within the arts, and one or two classes outside of that as graduation requirements.  For students of the arts, this can be detrimental to their ability to create. Having classes in science, math, history, writing, etc. bring students of all disciplines together in ways that simply aren’t possible anywhere else. They are able to share ideas and opinions that can inform and inspire each other’s work. Interdisciplinary learning is key to having a campus with students who are connected to each other.

Many students form valuable relationships in classrooms, and the more varied the kind of students they meet, the wider the reach each of their work has. Liberal arts education ought to remain a normal part of university life. There are people who believe that students should not be taught this way in higher education.

Technology is becoming such a prominent part of daily life, it is seen as beneficial to have students who are studying elements of technology to be kept focused on that. Students will advance faster in their studies and be able to participate in the industry much faster.

This plan is meant to bring about more groundbreaking research, discoveries and ideas from younger people. Those students are meant to study the things that have the power to change how they see the world, and nothing else. That kind of intensity won’t work for every student.

I think most find it incredibly helpful to have a class, not just an activity or student organization, that has nothing to do with their major.