« Illegal Immigration and local government finance | Main | Demand curves slope downward, even in the humanities »
A simple theory of liberal arts education
At the margin, that is.
Information in the modern world is virtually free, and well-defined tasks can be outsourced very cheaply, if need be. Don't specialize in those.
Bias is everywhere, and overcoming bias yields great gains. Empirically, our biases stem strongly from our nationality, our language, and our cultural background. (It is, by the way, remarkable how much libertarianism is an Anglo-American phenomenon.)
To overcome those biases we should travel, spend some time living in other countries, and learn other languages. In other words, the more knowledge is held in the minds of other people, the more competent we wish to be in assessing who is right and who is wrong, and that requires exposure to lots of different points of view.
Judgment, judgment, judgment. That's the scarce asset which most people underinvest in, and which yields especially high returns. It can't be outsourced very well either.
Marketing is becoming all-important as well. That also requires judgment and the ability to see things from other people's points of view. Again, live abroad and learn other languages.
At the very least, date foreign women (or men).
It is in contrast a common presumption that learning other languages, for English speakers, is becoming obsolete, if only because so many other people speak English. I would think this raises rather than lowers the return to learning other languages. Last fall, while visiting at Middlebury economics, I voiced these opinions and encountered little agreement.
Addendum: Here is commentary from Ed Lopez.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 17, 2007 at 07:34 AM in Education | Permalink
Comments
If the goal is to overcome bias, wouldn't a math/physics education accomplish more? or at least be a fundamental component?
Very smart people with liberal arts educations are often easily biased and even defrauded on technical and scientific subjects -- the pointy-headed bosses, the dot-com promoting stock analysts, WMD intelligence users, politicians ignoring bird flu, not to mention the ability of politicians to sell budgets that don't add up.
And, one of the worst biases i've encountered is the idea among many well-educated ivy-league liberal arts people that math is somehow monolithic and straight jacketed. In reality, the difference between the ways of thinking of two randomly chosen math professors is often greater than the difference in the ways of thinking of two randomly chosen professors from humanities and social science departments. And your world view has to be shaken a bit when you first truly understand uncountability, or the mapping between R^1 and R^2, or the axiom of choice. And that's not to mention how much more variety you get when you include physics or biology or Robin Hanson.
Posted by: DK at Dec 17, 2007 8:07:09 AM
Which of the following better expands one's worldliness and judgment: Dating someone with like politics but from a different country, or dating someone with unlike politics from your country?
If that someone's politics are unlike yours but like your parents', is there a gain in worldliness?
Posted by: Daniel Klein at Dec 17, 2007 8:08:49 AM
libertarianism is an Anglo-American phenomenon
And yet within America, it is a disproportionately Eastern-European immigrant phenomenon. Is this true in Eastern Europe as well or do all the classical liberals in the region emigrate? My travels have not yielded an answer.
Posted by: Amber at Dec 17, 2007 8:22:09 AM
Little agreement at Middlebury? That's sad...Middlebury is known for having one of the best language programs anywhere. Could it be, could it possibly be that academic departments do not talk to one another? Quelle horreur.
Posted by: Andromeda at Dec 17, 2007 8:31:45 AM
Why should you have to date the foreign women (men)? Wouldn't close yet platonic friendships be sufficient or even preferable?
Posted by: DRDR at Dec 17, 2007 8:52:41 AM
My disagreement with those comments would center on questioning the widely held belief that there is ever a benefit or need to judging "who is right and who is wrong."
I would suggest that offering such a judgment in fact creates more problems than it solves, and that one can make all the useful distinctions required of a happy and successful life without ever having to touch "right vs. wrong."
Posted by: M. Hodak at Dec 17, 2007 9:02:50 AM
If the goal is to overcome bias, wouldn't a math/physics education accomplish more? or at least be a fundamental component?
I am not sure of I understand your point. I would agree that most liberal arts people could use more 'exact sciences' knowledge, but I don't see why this has much to do with bias. In my experience exact people are not particularly unbiased on subjects outside of their own field, and if they are can often be more a sign of lack of interest in the topic than real neutrality.
On top of that, I doubt TC was arguing that liberal arts students need more liberal arts education, more that most other people, and perhaps economists in particular, would benefit from it.
About your point on the difference between math professors, it might be possible that is just the effect of zooming in: the more you about a subject and its subtleties, the larger difference in opinon between people seem. And while the mapping between R1 and R2 is in some sense amazing, it is not a topic many people have a vested interest in. It is simply easier to be unbiased on unpolitical subjects where the consequenses of having a certain opinion do not translate to large consequenses for many people.
Posted by: GreatZamfir at Dec 17, 2007 9:19:57 AM
If the goal is to overcome bias, wouldn't a math/physics education accomplish more? or at least be a fundamental component?
I am not sure of I understand your point. I would agree that most liberal arts people could use more 'exact sciences' knowledge, but I don't see why this has much to do with bias. In my experience exact people are not particularly unbiased on subjects outside of their own field, and if they are can often be more a sign of lack of interest in the topic than real neutrality.
On top of that, I doubt TC was arguing that liberal arts students need more liberal arts education, more that most other people, and perhaps economists in particular, would benefit from it.
About your point on the difference between math professors, it might be possible that is just the effect of zooming in: the more you about a subject and its subtleties, the larger difference in opinon between people seem. And while the mapping between R1 and R2 is in some sense amazing, it is not a topic many people have a vested interest in. It is simply easier to be unbiased on unpolitical subjects where the consequenses of having a certain opinion do not translate to large consequenses for many people.
Posted by: GreatZamfir at Dec 17, 2007 9:21:22 AM
Oh, and to quickly dispose of an obvious exception to the above suggestion, allow me:
"M. Hodak, you're wrong."
Posted by: MH's shadow at Dec 17, 2007 9:29:36 AM
It is too easy to say that we should travel more, live in other countries, and learn to speak other languages. These are luxuries many low to middle class Americans cannot afford. Why is it that we must go out of the country? When right here at home, many Asians, Africans, South Americans, and Africans are just our next door neighbors. Have we alienated our fellow immigrants?
Posted by: AJ at Dec 17, 2007 9:32:00 AM
I'm a believer in the liberal arts education at the undergraduate level. I am personally the product of a BS in physics at a liberal arts school, and have found that background useful to me over and over again. I'd add two other points in favor of the liberal arts education:
1) The economy is increasingly dynamic. A specialized undergraduate experience may not prepare the average student for the diversity of their own probably carreer paths. I personally have done a spot of techinical writing, taught English in Osaka, and worked in finance in both technical and client facing roles. Beware of over specializing.
2) The 4 year degree isn't good at providing specialization in any particular field anyway. As a way to leverage your time, it is better to build a broad base at the 4 year mark and spend the next 2-4 specializing if that is your want.
Posted by: JasonL at Dec 17, 2007 9:36:13 AM
In terms of the value of language learning, I can give you an example from my own narrow field: political strategy.
Every office I've worked in in the past two years has, generally, had one member of staff who incidentally spoke Spanish and - without doubt - they become a MVP coming up to the polling date.
Similarly, I have a friend who studied history and politics and, upon learning arabic after college, was infinitely more employable and was quickly snapped up as a BBC journalist.
Posted by: Noel at Dec 17, 2007 9:38:39 AM
Regarding languages. I've tried two times, and consistently find that it is a time intensive skill that quickly deteriorates for lack of use. My wife has a high degree of fluency in Spanish, and I, after 6 years of study earlier in my life, have almost no ability to generate Spanish sentences and an only slightly better ability with passive comprehension. She is more adept than I at the skill of language acquisition, but she also had a job in which she could speak on a regular basis.
We both spent two years in Japan, and what I acquired there was gone two years after I returned to the states.
I guess I'm saying that the cost of language acquisition is very high once maintenance is taken into account, and I'm dubious about it's practical use for the average American. This is not my predisposition, by the way. I would rather be on board with Tyler here.
Posted by: JasonL at Dec 17, 2007 9:44:12 AM
In a book I liked called Why Men Earn more by Warren Farrell (from memory) he quoted data that seemed to show that people who major in languages at college earn _less_ than people who had not gone to college at all.
So - assuming cultural breadth has benefits, these don't seem to translate into cash.
If so, this is probably because language majors love languages so much they want a job using their language, and and will take a job where they use their language even when it is low paid - ie. there is too much demand for these jobs to support a high salary.
Anecdotally, I find that _usually_ travel narrows the mind. I admit that TC is an exception, in this as so many ways, but I think that a lot of traveling - and frequent, intimate contact with foreign cultures - is usually lethal to productivity, happiness and intellectual depth.
In this matter I am staunchly Thoreauvian...
Posted by: Bruce G Charlton at Dec 17, 2007 9:57:54 AM
I couldn't agree with Tyler's point more, but I fear it's a point those who've never integrated into a foreign culture will never quite grasp.
Also, there are plenty of opportunities for (young) Americans in every socio-economic strata to live abroad--all it takes is five minutes on the internet to find them.
Posted by: Jeff H. at Dec 17, 2007 10:04:21 AM
Look at the college guide for Middlebury or similar top liberal arts school. They all emphasize: international studies, racial diversity, and interdisciplinary. With large enough endowments some schools are actually able to build student bodies with 10% international and 10% US minority students so white kids from the midwest get a well rounded experience. Is the middle Vermont or Iowa (like my Alma mater) the best place to pick these skills up, even with millions of dollars spent. I'm not so sure.
Although the Profs might be mostly liberal, small class size and writing intensive exercises not found at larger universities, might help make less biased students. Plus most top liberal arts school encourage a study abroad.
Posted by: Seth Gitter at Dec 17, 2007 10:15:03 AM
Miss Belgium could have benefitted from this post.
Posted by: mike at Dec 17, 2007 10:18:43 AM
I like your result (date foriegn women), but I am not sure I agree with how you get there.
Posted by: mthomas at Dec 17, 2007 10:21:47 AM
"Anecdotally, I find that _usually_ travel narrows the mind."
I have seen this as well, though I'm less of a cynic than the rest of Bruce's comment suggests he is. In our trip to Nepal, we were horrified at the backpacker culture we kept encountering. They really didn't seem to get it. Faced with the stark poverty of Kathmandu, they'd say things like "It's so nice to see a place Nike hasn't spoiled yet! These people are in touch with nature!"
One of the missions of a study abroad program should be 'how to travel'.
Posted by: JasonL at Dec 17, 2007 10:22:02 AM
"Why should you have to date the foreign women (men)? Wouldn't close yet platonic friendships be sufficient or even preferable?"
No, strictly worse.
Posted by: Aaron Fix at Dec 17, 2007 10:48:53 AM
Learning another language is great for personal satisfaction, but as a professional tool I think it is vastly overrated. As an engineer who is fluent in Spanish and French, i speak from experience. I can count on one hand the number of times these languages have been useful to me in a professional setting -- and I've traveled a lot in Europe and Latin America in my job.
Most Europeans, and most educated Latin Americans, speak excellent English. The fact is that most international meetings are held in English. If they were held in Finnish or Urdu, I would be happy to learn those languages. But they're not. So my limited time is much better spent learning more about my profession than in learning other languages.
Some reasons to learn another language: ordering in a restaurant, dating local women, reading their literature in the vernacular. All excellent reasons, but unlikely to impact your professional life, unless you are a translator.
Posted by: John S. at Dec 17, 2007 11:07:02 AM
I am a recent Middlebury graduate, and I wonder about the "little agreement"... During my studies there as an undergraduate and in three language schools (Russian, German, and Spanish), I can honestly say that I did not know a single monolingual person there, neither among the students nor the faculty. I think that this American narcissism regarding language and culture is at the center of the socio-cultural and political problems that we face today. I agree wholeheartedly that Americans need to expose themselves to other cultures and languages in order to gain perspective. Knowledge brings change. Unfortunately, a great part of this country's population buys into the xenophobia that has been the baseline of the current administration. A great part, but not everyone... Sure, it is not enough, but in the past decade, enrollment in language courses at US universities is up and more university students than ever are serious language students. Perhaps it is my own bias, but maybe many econ students at this somewhat elitist, private New England college conform better to this American narcissism. I am more hopeful about those students that I knew who spoke several languages and dialects, studied things that will probably never get them a 6-figure salary and a beemer, but who spend their breaks in Costa Rica building houses for the poor and practicing their Spanish. We need more people like this and a louder voice.
Posted by: midd_polyglot at Dec 17, 2007 11:09:38 AM
Marketing is becoming all-important as well. That also requires judgment and the ability to see things from other people's points of view. Again, live abroad and learn other languages.
You know your own culture best; what you need is to view it objectively. The best place to do that is in the opposite hemisphere. You don't necessarily need to learn the language if you are immersed in learning the history, philosophy, and culture. Also, after a period of time, turn back to your own culture and study it from abroad.
Posted by: 8 at Dec 17, 2007 11:23:35 AM
midd_polyglot: I think it's naive to assume that Americans are narcissistic. Look at this from an economic viewpoint: people here don't spend much time learning other languages because there's little advantage in doing so. Why do you think people all over the world learn English -- to expand their minds? So they can spend their summers building homes for the poor in Appalachia? Give me a break. They do it because it confers benefits. In other words, they do it for money -- to get the beemer and the six-figure salary, things you seem to disdain.
Americans are perfectly capable of learning other languages when there are real benefits to doing so.
Posted by: John S. at Dec 17, 2007 11:33:17 AM
What does the title of this post have to do with the body? That is, what does traveling and mixing with other cultures have to do with a "liberal arts education"? Do people and elite liberal colleges really believe they are exposing themselves to diversity?
Posted by: Robin Hanson at Dec 17, 2007 11:42:04 AM
