« 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
Maybe we need courses in how to be skeptical 101.
Posted by: Floccina at Dec 17, 2007 12:08:44 PM
I've traveled around the world quite a bit, and I have discovered that I (often) enjoy having traveled after the fact more than the actual travels themselves. That is, the memeories ot the experiences are better than the actual experiences. Memories of the plane delays, boorish mobs, disconcertingly unfamiliar food and scary toilets fade much faster than those of the interactions with the people, places and cultures.
Incidentally, the more I travel, the more convinced I become of the superiority of the US as a place to live (and I'm not an American.)
Posted by: Bartman at Dec 17, 2007 12:13:46 PM
I think the diversity and relative quality of thought in the English-speaking world is great enough that from an overcoming bias perspective, you're much better off studying the opinions of English-speaking original thinkers than foreigners. As a Dutchman I can guarantee there are no mysterious insights that you're missing out on by not knowing Dutch. Maybe it's different with less similar (and more populated) cultures, but I doubt it.
Posted by: steven at Dec 17, 2007 12:21:47 PM
I don't think TC meant travel as tourism, but rather to live in a different culture and adapt, therefore understanding and acquiring a different, more cosmopolitan point of view; which is what the entire post is about.
Posted by: Chaps at Dec 17, 2007 12:52:36 PM
I agree with the original post but I would add: 1) take basic courses in statistics and probability. 2) Take the semester /junior year abroad.
Posted by: mt57 at Dec 17, 2007 12:52:51 PM
why didn't you just cut to the chase and title this piece "how to act like you're more important/cultured/intelligent than those around you"?
what do any of these things accomplish other than allowing you to hold your nose higher in the company of others?
Posted by: anon at Dec 17, 2007 1:00:19 PM
I agree with Tyler about the languages. Many comments look at language as a tool. But it is more than a tool. A language is a tradition, part of the culture. Even more, a language is a view of the world. Look at some of the work by Douglas Hofstadter or some essays by Borges for better insights into this.
So there are indirect effects (vision of things) about learning languages beyond the direct ones (communication tool).
By the way, I am a South American who lived in England and now works in Holland and is married to a German woman who lives in France. I do not know if I am less biased, but I have definitely broadened more than one of my points of view ;)
Posted by: londenio at Dec 17, 2007 1:03:46 PM
I have to agree with John S.
Because English has become the de facto international language there is very little incentive for english speakers to learn other languages unless they want to be a translator.
Also english speakers are faced with a problem most non-english speakers aren't. That being what language should I study? Everybody else can pretty much work to get fluent in english since that's what everyone else is doing. While a native english speaker has to choose what language they want to study. I think this contributes to the fact that knowing a different language in this country (unless of course you are a translator) is seen as more of an affectation or hobby given the limited utility mentioned above.
Posted by: apostate at Dec 17, 2007 1:11:16 PM
Regarding views at Middlebury Economics, I confess to being
a bit surprised. However, I suspect that the alternative that
is being pushed instead is math.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 17, 2007 1:13:01 PM
A good reason to learn a foreign language is that it makes you humble. I like to think that my English is pretty good, but I will never be able to master its subtleties in a way a native speaker can.
To illustrate, I read Moby Dick in English (pretty hard), then read it again in German (my mother tongue) to get everything I missed the first time around.
Oh, speaking about it, another good reason, as mentioned by a commenter above, is being able to read fiction in the original language. Richard Brautigan in English and German are two different authors, and that's not because the translations are crap.
Posted by: LemmusLemmus at Dec 17, 2007 1:17:05 PM
I hope Hesse is better in German than in English, because in English he is impenetrable. :-)
Posted by: bartman at Dec 17, 2007 1:36:18 PM
Opportunity costs are the problem with furrin' langwijes - if you learn a language then you are not learning something else which might be a better use of your time.
Also, I spent hundreds of hours not-learning French. I almost certainly could have learned French if these hours had been concentrated into 5 months - but spread over 5 years they were almost useless.
On the other hand, if I _had_ done an immersion course in French then I wouldn't have had time for maths, science, geography and history.
Then again the choice of a second language is almost arbitrary for an English speaker. None of them give an edge, with the possible exception of Mandarin Chinese - but that would take thousands (not hundreds) of hours of study.
No - the only way to learn a foreign language (other than English) is before the age of 7 or simply because you enjoy it for personal reasons.
I semi-learned the dialect of Middle English (eg. Chaucer and the Gawaine poet) in my own spare time aged 15-18 for that reason. In my twenties I did the same for Inglis (medieval Scottish).
Posted by: Bruce G Charlton at Dec 17, 2007 1:56:50 PM
Why is it that no one has noted here that in Academe the "Liberal Arts" are no longer "liberal," in the classic meaning of that term; although they may be mostly so in the current U.S.political use and application of that term?
R. Richard Schweitzer
s24rrs@aol.com
Posted by: R. Richard Schweitzer at Dec 17, 2007 2:10:02 PM
Easiest way to learn a language? Ensure your parents gave birth in a polylingual metropolis. Or relocate. Grow up in urban switzerland and you will pick up a smattering of French or German. Settle in Singapore ==> Malay or Mandarin will be imbibed by osmosis. I grew up in Bombay and was fluent in 4 languages by the time I was 18. Inherent problem: mainland US does not have many such geographical opportunities. Can't change geography!
Posted by: anon at Dec 17, 2007 3:35:17 PM
"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."
- But how do you market your good judgment?? I doubt just having good judgment will make you rich.
"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."
- Will living abroad and knowing other languages really make you a better marketeer? I doubt it. The important thing is to know your market, surely. Other markets are only of incidental or tangential relevance and so are the languages they use.
Posted by: Hero von Esens at Dec 17, 2007 3:50:44 PM
"....Will living abroad and knowing other languages really make you a better marketeer..."
What if a substantial portion of your market IS ABROAD? Think globalization.
Posted by: anon at Dec 17, 2007 4:10:14 PM
It's been my experience that many people need more intra-national experiences than international experiences. A Northeastern college student visting Paris will only have his bias confirmed. A Northeastern college student visiting Birmingham, Ala., will have his bias challenged.
Living in a small town in northern Michigan changed my world views far more than my friends' semesters of study abroad changed theirs.
I also fail to see where studying a language has any real benefit. A culture yes, but not a language.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Dec 17, 2007 4:24:44 PM
"If the goal is to overcome bias, wouldn't a math/physics education accomplish more? or at least be a fundamental component?"
When I hear "liberal arts education" I think it implies "liberal arts AND sciences". At most universities the english department is in the same college as the physics department. I know that science majors often believe they are superior to humanities and social science majors, usually based on their programs being on average more difficult. However, all "liberal arts" majors are given a chance to develop their critical thinking skills. In fact, humanities/social science majors, since they often have more room for electives, get to branch out more in the way that Tyler is describing. Hard science majors often have no room in their schedule for anything other than req's & pre-req's. This could hinder "hard" science majors' ability to overcome bias.
Believing one is superior to another based on their major in college is a form of bias.
Posted by: GunnerUnit at Dec 17, 2007 5:42:55 PM
Ted Craig is correct. Kids from major metropolitan areas (NYC, L.A., Chi, SF, etc.) already have biases imbedded from growing up and living in such a culture. Studying abroad in other major metropolises (London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong, etc.) will show them some foreign culture but will do nothing to eliminate biases towards non-city folk.
I find the bias against non-city folk to be one of the largest and most omni-present biases in academia today. It is okay in most instances to say really ugly things about non-city folk out loud in university settings.
Posted by: GunnerUnit at Dec 17, 2007 5:51:08 PM
GunnerUnit, indeed. The amount contempt shown towards rural and the non-cosmopolitan populace is shocking, especially when castigating the liberal specter of the "South". I say this as someone decidedly sympathetic to urban life.
Posted by: Riemannian at Dec 17, 2007 6:24:13 PM
"......It is okay in most instances to say really ugly things about non-city folk out loud in university settings......."
At what point does an truthfully observed correlation qualify to be labeled a "bias"? If I had noticed a rural upbringing to be strongly correlated with, say, social unsophistication, or even more benign "a shy persona" am I still guilty of harboring a "bias"?
Posted by: Ross at Dec 17, 2007 6:29:02 PM
I verily agree. And Ted Craig has it half right. Unfortunately brushing off learning a language as non-essential to learning a culture is probably one of the most idiotic statements I've ever heard.
I know a lot of foreigners in Japan who are living in an entirely different country than I am. They don't speak Japanese or understand what is going on around them, they don't understand to what extent Japanese people are xenophobic, they don't have the same repetitive conversations debunking stereotypes about their country that I do. They can't read the packages of the food they eat, they don't understand Japanese rules, they don't realize what their logic is based on. They are still tourists.
I am saddened when people see learning another language as a sign of cultural hubris. America has an enormous amount of power over the rest of the world. And yet its citizens take no responsibility to really understand the cultures with which they have ties. They brush off language as unimportant, when it is the essential fiber of human communication.
Learning Japanese has given me more respect for English and for communication between humans of all gender and age.
Monolingual speakers are a global minority. Americans are living in a poor mindset.
Posted by: Pearl Alexander at Dec 17, 2007 6:41:17 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with Tyler's points about the value (in terms of employment opportunities and judgement) of second language acquisition, and familiarity with other cultures.
Some commenters note that Americans' relatively low level of foreign language skills are likely optimal, given the high cost of acquiring them (and presumed rate of return). I think it's important to take into account that US primary and secondary school curriculums almost universally start foreign language study in high school (9th grade). There is extensive research showing that the difficulty of acquiring a second language grows substantially at age 13. So, our public policy on curriculum design is precisely backwards - if indeed we want to encourage Americans to speak foreign languages.
To make it even worse, anyone who learns a second language prior to age 13, also has a much easier time learning subsequent languages. So, starting language education late does even more harm.
The references for the research on language acquisition, as well as a review of OECD countries' language curriculums can be found here. http://www.oecdbookshop.org/oecd/display.asp?sf1=identifiers&lang=EN&st1=912002021p1
Posted by: April at Dec 17, 2007 9:37:48 PM
I agree with everything said here, but wonder how evolutionarily sustainable this "stragety" is. There seems a negative correlation between one's willingness to explore (beyond traditional school education) and his/her willingness to reproduce. What will happen many generations later? On a different note, but along a similar line of thought, I have been wondering whether one should care about global warming at all if he/she does not have children. None of these is directly related to liberal arts education. But they do make me ponder the purpose of education, and on which level (gene, individual, family, society, nation, etc.) and for how long (a life time, generations, etc.) we are to measure its effect.
Posted by: Yan Li at Dec 17, 2007 9:44:48 PM
Distinguishing between an undergraduate education that is either liberal arts or specialized is not useful. Graduates of the class of 2008 will retire in 2051. A specialized education will be indistinguishable from of liberal arts education in 43 years. People overestimate how much a liberal arts education can really encourage creativity and neutrality in a mind if it doesn't exist before the education begins. Middlebury will graduate plenty of seniors that are broadly educated but are in no way more capable of flexible thought or creativity than students of other disciplines. Except a few brave students that embrace their opportunity and venture beyond their discipline, the benefits of a liberal arts education are either overblown or imagined. As a senior at Middlebury myself, I know that most students are happy to pretend they have been liberally educated but have plenty of biases or lack good judgement or both. Undergraduate education is not a powerful predictor of one's ability to move about successfully in the world after graduation. Neither is the number of languages spoken. These two constructs aren't even good approximations for some other, underlying quality.
Posted by: Midd 08 at Dec 17, 2007 10:00:59 PM
"At what point does an truthfully observed correlation qualify to be labeled a "bias"?"
Good question, I don't have an answer. However, I would just like to say that in university settings, people have general license to make insulting "blanket" comments about non-city folks, but if you were to say the same thing about a minority group or women, you'd be burned at the stake.
Many so-called skeptical, critical-thinking people scoff at racial or sexual stereotypes, but find rural stereotypes perfectly acceptable. Since, in my experience, there is no more reason to accept the rural stereotypes than the racial or sexual ones (or more cynically, no more reason to disbelieve stereotypes about any of these groups), I would say that such people have an anti-rural bias.
Posted by: GunnerUnit at Dec 17, 2007 10:06:32 PM
ps, I'm a city dweller.
Posted by: GunnerUnit at Dec 17, 2007 10:08:26 PM
What is with this carrying on about universities having anti-rural
bias? Do any of you know how many of our universities and colleges
are in rural areas? Heck, Middlebury College is in a rural area.
Do they sit around making anti-rural statements at Middlebury? The
idea that anti-rural bias is some major issue in general or in academia
in particular, strikes me as ridiculous, although I am not surprised if
one finds it in certain big cities. But then, some of the most provincial
people I know come from New York.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 17, 2007 11:51:44 PM
Stereotypes have their uses, provided one remembers they're stereotypes, not reality.
As for the demonization of the South, I live in Mississippi, and it's pretty demonic, actually. Y'all think it's so unfairly maligned, come live here, preferably in a small town.
Posted by: Anderson at Dec 18, 2007 12:09:42 AM
Gunner unit:
I totally see your point. Actually I've nothing anti-rural. My point is broader and this: the stifling atmosphere of political correctness has made saying anything uncomplimentary that can be correlated with a minority group (sex, race, rural/urban, disabled, immigrant) suicidal.
Genuine correlations get labeled as "biases" or "stereotypes". This hinders progress.
Posted by: Ross at Dec 18, 2007 1:15:26 AM
Barkley,
I attended a liberal arts college in a small town. There is a huge difference between being in a small town and being of a small town. Liberal arts colleges, in my experience, can be extremely insular.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Dec 18, 2007 9:20:16 AM
There are textures of culture and psychology that become perceptible to the polyglot, and to which the monoglot is insensible. So I wholeheartedly agree that learning a foreign language - several - is far better than not learning any.
On the other hand, the only formal language training that did me any good (stuck) were my primary school Hebrew classes and my middle and high school French classes. At home, German was our Exilsprache für Umkindernebelsammlung, and doomed to generational diminuendo, and for me it joined Russian and Italian in my Young Werther literature swots and cultural immersion.
And I didn't keep the Russian because I didn't practice it enough. Practice through repeated regular exposure to foreign languages by deliberate consumption of culture only available in those languages is essential.
And that texture - so rewarding to appreciate it, and to perform one's cultural dance acknowledging it.
Posted by: The New York City High School Math Teacher at Dec 18, 2007 11:20:35 AM
Early in this thread it was suggested that study of physics and/or math should be preferred to liberal arts.
In fact, our studies often later define our politics. The typical liberal generally majors in liberal arts, and after graduating with his/her degree in art history, or American literature, or gender studies, etc. heads out to find one of those high paying jobs. He/she goes to a major employer, who views the resume and asks, "How much can you lift? We have a couple of openings in the shipping department.."
"Huh?", says the liberal.
"Well, your diploma only tells me you know how to listen, read, memorize and regurgitate stuff on exams. I don't see any real world work skills here other than those held by a reasonably competent high school graduate.."
But you hired my room mate Bob, yesterday starting at $85,000 a year!"
"Your roommate has a degree in electrical engineering, and we need him to help design the next generation of widgets for our company. Your education has only given you facts from the past, and you can be replaced with a nice big coffee table book, the Golden Treasury of Art History."
Discouraged, the liberal goes on to finally get a job with the Foundation to Save the Gay Unborn Whales at $15 an hour, and ever after hates the "large multinational corporations" who start engineers at $85K a year but simply use the internet when they want to know something about art history or American literature.
The common denominator among liberals is that an overwhelming number of them derive their daily bread either by public charity or government ( tax ) support in some fashion. That's the world of "education" and the general non-profit community at large.
Posted by: Herkimer at Dec 18, 2007 11:58:22 AM
[The brown-crested idjit, au nature!]
Herkimer -- I'm sure that your POD-personally printed edition of "The Golden Treasury of Art History" is on nice, soft, absorbent paper, because it appears that that would be the only use you would have for such a thing.
If I had a penny for every mentally-stunted, commonsenseless, and socially- maladroit engineer I've met, I'd have a few dollars. (Funny how they all congregate on the Internet. It was true in 1993, and it's true now.)
And for me, it is so satisfying to call myself Dr. Pangloss, to whistle a melody from Bernstein's Candide (yeah, that one), while simultaneously correcting Young Slan's integrals, grammar, and spelling. Which otherwise would have cost $12,000 in extra tooling, and convince J. Random Consumer Products Company of our illiteracy.
(Ivy Liberal Arts Major)
Posted by: The New York City High School Math Teacher at Dec 18, 2007 1:10:51 PM
Ross - if you think that rural upbringing correlates to a shy persona, you definitely have a selection bias going on there. (Social unsophistication I'll buy, but shy?)
Gunner Unit: A student in the liberal arts need take no actual science classes (classes which require math) to graduate. Meanwhile, as an engineering student, I was required to take a number of classes in the "humanities and social sciences". Basic language classes didn't count. At least two of those classes had to be upper-division (junior/senior-level).
How many social-science or humanities students could handle a requirement of two upper-division math, physical/biological science, or engineering classes?
Posted by: Anthony at Dec 18, 2007 1:19:14 PM
Pearl Alexander,
Your comment expresses more hubris than you could possibly fathom. It's nice to think of yourself as the champion and saviour of American humility though, isn't it? Good for you, going somewhere else and learning a language to "understand" people and their eccentricities.
Please tell me why Americans have a "responsibility to really understand the cultures with which they have ties". Do other peoples have that responsibility as well? Or just those of us who happened to grow up speaking English?
Let's face it, you're just proud of the fact that you think you're more clever than the other Americans where you live. Would you really find yourself so fascinating if all the other gaijin fit in as well?
Posted by: anon at Dec 18, 2007 2:43:03 PM
Regarding this broader issue of small towns and exposure to
foreign languages, while it is probably true in general that
larger cities are more likely to have more polylingual populations,
it is far from a certain given. Thus, while it is not a small
town, where I am located, Harrisonburg, Virginia, is not a big
city, with its population of about 45,000. However, it is now
Number One in the Commonwealth of Virginia for the percentage of
its school attendees who speak a language other than English,
with Spanish, Russian, and Kurdish being on the hall walls at the
local high school, as well as English, and over 35 languages being
spoken in the school system. The percentage beats out much more
urban Arlington, which is in second place.
So, things are not always so simple.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 18, 2007 5:05:03 PM
To me, the height of American arrogance is to observe some trait that is universally human, and ascribe it solely to Americans. This attitude -- illustrated perfectly by Pearl Alexander's post -- implies that only Americans can be held responsible for their behavior. The same behavior by individuals from other countries can be excused by the fact that they are ... well, they are not Americans. So they really can't help it. Americans, however, should know better.
Pearl, are you so wrapped up in yourself that you can't see that that is exactly what you're saying? Case in point: the California Secretary of State provides voter information in seven languages (one of them is Japanese by the way). There seem to be a whole lot of people -- in California anyway -- who can't speak the language of the country they live in. My mother-in-law is one of them. She says she is too old to learn English. She has a bunch of friends who speak Spanish, and she gets all the soap operas she wants on Univision.
Are you saddened by this fact? Do you think it is hubris that prevents my mother-in-law from learning English?
I think you judge Americans by higher standards than the rest of the world because you think Americans are somehow better.
Posted by: John S. at Dec 18, 2007 7:07:16 PM
Interesting to note that a New York City teacher refers to me as "mentally stunted" when the Princeton Review tells me that "education" majors have the lowest SAT scores of any college major. While he may be a "math teacher" it's doubtful he has the ability to simultaneously solve a coupled set of four 2nd order partial differential equations, which every physicist can do with ease as a mere sideline. ( You can start with the Maxwell Equations, for a warm-up. ) I managed to graduate with national honors in both math and physics, and qualified for Mensa along the way ( that's the top 2% of the IQ spread, folks, and generally not considered "stunted" ). So I don't have to impress anyone with clever quips alluding to whistling classical tunes while grading integrals. I'm also a classically trained Bassoonist, not particularly impressed with simple whistling of the tunes of others at any rate. The world is full enough of intellectual wannabes.
So, time to put up or shut up. Let's compare IQs and let the lesser pay the greater $1000 a point difference and find out who the relatively "mentally stunted" one really is.
Posted by: Herkimer at Dec 20, 2007 8:18:29 AM
Sorry to be back so soon, folks, but that "Teacher" has really pissed me off with his "mentally-stunted, commonsenseless, and socially-maladroit engineer" comment. Beyond academia, I'm a veteran and currently president of a 2,500 man reunion association. I've also coached little league, been a Cub Scout leader, served 6 years on a large union district school board, taught physics, advanced algebra and calculus, parachuted into the arctic circle, and climbed and skied the highest active volcano in the world. I'm well known and highly respected in my community, have served 6 terms as a justice of the peace and on my town's board of civil authority. I was also a national team pistol champion along the way and hold a commercial single and multi-engine land pilot's license with flight instructor endorsement. In short, my experience base is well beyond most, I'm pretty well integrated into my community, and one doesn't get there by being "socially-maladroit".
Posted by: Herkimer at Dec 20, 2007 8:40:30 AM
Herkimer,
So, NY Math Teacher was over the line in making inane
generalizations about engineers. Likewise, so were you
with your generalizations about what "the typical liberal"
does educationally. Such comments simply suggest that
Mensa made a mistake in your case.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 20, 2007 12:15:56 PM
Mensa's sole requirement for membership is an I.Q. in the top 2% of the population. It does not consider race, age, sex, politics, religion or any other criteria.
Therefore, Mensa does not make "mistakes", as they are 100% capable of accurately reading 3-digit I.Q. scores.
But of course, if you were a little smarter, you probably would have already known that.
Posted by: Herkimer at Dec 22, 2007 6:18:04 PM
We mathematicians place fairly high confidence in well-conducted demographic studies using suitably large psuedorandom population samples.
Studies show that "likely Democratic voters" lag 8-11 I.Q. points behind "likely Republican voters, and science and math majors exceed liberal arts majors in SAT scores by 200-300 points. The spreads are based largely on geographic differences. Democrats are generally associated with liberal politics, whereas Republicans are generally branded as conservatives.
I, incidentally, am an Independent - where the statistically highest I.Q. group resides politically.
This leads one to suspect that some folks tend to major in liberal arts because such memorize-and-regurgitate majors are much simpler than majors which require a high degree of cognitive skill and analytical reasoning ability.
The exception to these general results are music majors, who rank high in both intelligence tests and SAT results. Music is generally considered a "liberal art".
Posted by: Herkimer at Dec 22, 2007 6:35:26 PM
Herkimer,
Yes, I knew about Mensa's requirement. I was being sarcastic, in case
you were too stupid to figure that out. In the crowd I tend to hang out
with, 98th percentile is pretty far down the scale.
BTW, it is also known that intelligence and education among Dems tends to
be more bimodally distributed than among Republicans. So, most people with
undergrad degrees only are Republicans, while high school dropouts and those
with terminal graduate degrees are more likely to be Dems, with there being
more of the former than the latter, hence the outcome regarding means that
you cite.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at Dec 23, 2007 1:57:24 AM
Professor Rosser,
True enough. Interestingly enough, Republicans with degrees of any level tend to have much higher incomes than their Democratic (liberal arts ) counterparts. And statistically, Republicans even without degrees also enjoy higher incomes than Democrats sans diploma. That's why liberals hate "big business" ( even though 95% of all American business is "small business" ).
Statistically, Democrats outnumber Republicans in sheer number of college diplomas, and greatly outnumber Republicans in number of Doctorates. But again, the diplomas are predominately of the meaningless liberal arts variety, thus the much lower incomes gained as a result.
I recall being required to take many liberal arts "electives" in undergraduate school, the argument being they were necessary for me to have a "well-rounded" education. This I did gladly, as they were all very simple read/regurgitate type courses, and were in fact a blessed relief from my major course work in physics, chemistry, and mathematics... sort of like recess. We always thought of them as an "easy A" - requiring little or no study.
Funny, I never saw one liberal arts major in any of my core science or math classes. I guess liberal arts majors don't need to be "well rounded".
A fresh B.S. graduate in EE will generally start at or above the salary level of a liberal arts Ph.D., and generally above the average terminal salary of a public school teacher.
I run a small but highly successful technology company which I started from scratch and which now largely runs itself - leaving me plenty of time to play around on the web, as I am now doing. Of our 58 full-time employees, 3 have liberal arts degrees ( including one M.A. in Education, who does data input). The engineering staff typically has either a B.S. or M.S. in physics or engineering (I have only 2 Ph.D.s other than myself on staff ) and no one makes less than a 6 figure income except the clerical and manufacturing personnel. Our one lone M.A. in Education makes less than $100K but is not too far away from that point given the rather handsome annual bonuses we have been recently giving via our profit-sharing plan. The Bush "tax cuts for the rich" actually gave a nice bounce to Subchapter S corporations like ours, giving us reinvestment capital which ultimately led to some very nice employee bonuses. She says she's doing about twice as well as she could in teaching. She's bright, and trainable, and a valued employee (although nothing in her formal education prepared her for any type of work in the real world). I once made the mistake of hiring a fellow with degrees in Economics, thinking he would likely have both general business and math skills. He turned out to be an ultra devout post-Keynesian and virtual worshiper of John Kenneth Galbraith - but I could never get him to sit down and discuss a potential future demand curve for our principal product line. In the real world, he was functionally useless. I finally had to let him go, and I think he finally found a home in academia somewhere.
I suspect your claim that the 98th percentile is "pretty far down the scale" in your ivory tower gang is based on wishful thinking rather than measured fact. If you look closely at the Gaussian distribution of human intelligence you would find that if you were "pretty far up the scale" within the top 2%, then you and all of your colleagues would be at the Einsteinian level and above. Forgive me, but that claim is highly suspect.
Intelligence alone does not guarantee success in life. Hard work and above all, the willingness to assume risk are far more significant factors. Academics assume no meaningful risk, and thus can never achieve a high level of wealth. Liberal arts students assume virtually no risk, as the course work is simple and straightforward and an "easy A" for anyone of reasonable intelligence.
My pious hope is that someday every box of Cheerios will someday contain a diploma in Education, or Literature, or Economics and such, so that everyone in America can relax in the ambrosia of the educated class. Perhaps it is best that the Democrats run the government, so we can all live off entitlement programs and no one will ever have to assume any risk.
As an Independent, I'm planning on voting for Hillary. Maybe she'll return the White House silver....
Posted by: herkimer at Dec 31, 2007 12:58:02 AM
Herkimer, please cut Professor Rosser a little slack. He is obviously quite upset with you and there is nothing more dangerous than a rabid Liberal being attacked by a Conservative in Independents' clothing. You're obviously very intelligent and very successful and I'm sure your shit doesn't stink as well.
I will admit I liked your comment on the benefits of the Bush Tax Cut to small business. Most people do not know that the vast majority of small businesses such as Sole Proprietorships, Subchapter S Corporations, and other Mom 'n Pop operations are taxed at the personal income tax rate, and thus any drop in the personal income tax rate is a boon to the small businesses which are the backbone of America. Like yourself, the unexpected tax cut allowed my small company to acquire a much needed piece of capital equipment, which subsequently increased productivity to the point that our bottom line improved about 22% overall. We were able to give a small Christmas bonus to our 12 employees - our first ever - and we owe it all to Bush's "tax cut for the rich".
Please note that the top 5% wage earners pay about 50% of all personal income taxes, and the top 50% wage earners pay about 95% of all personal income taxes. I'm no mathematician, but that suggests that about half of the country is paying little or no personal income tax at all. Thus, a "tax cut for the poor" doesn't seem to be a mathematical probability, since you can't give a tax cut to someone who is paying no taxes.
Posted by: Boss Hog at Dec 31, 2007 1:28:00 AM
Well, Boss Hog, your points are well taken. But I have to ask: What is a man who actually works for a living and has to meet a payroll doing here in a liberal blog? OK, before you ask back, I'll explain that I came here originally to explore some notions on liberal arts education, and found myself reading onward through the threads because there appeared to be a number of Middlebury College graduates opining. I happen to be a fan of Middlebury, which has a world-class undergraduate science program in addition to the usual liberal pap.
And, my dodo does stink a bit.
I would have been long gone by now, except for Dr. Pangloss, who brags about whistling a melody from Bernstein's Candide while simultaneously correcting integrals, etc. That would naturally impress some of his fellow liberal twits, but of course anyone with a math background knows you don't "correct" integrals because integrals are integrals... and all you can "correct" are the solutions to them evaluated at the boundary values. Having recognized in Dr. Pangloss ( see previous threads ) the classical symptoms of ivory tower elitism, I stayed to bust his balls for a while. Now he's claiming that he and all of his chums are ubermensa geniuses who look down in scorn at all below them. This tells me he's not even half as bright as he thinks he is. Elitist talk like that makes me want to roll a frag under his rack just to see if he can still whistle a melody from Bernstein's Candide with his guts hanging out.
Golly, am I getting angry again?
Posted by: Herkimer at Dec 31, 2007 6:02:56 PM
Herkimer, you tend to get your skivvies in a bunch over that insulting fellow, but answering insults with insult is no positive solution.
While it's true that the liberal community doesn't contribute much to the gross national product, in many ways they enrich all our lives with contributions in music, poetry, and the like. Yes, students often choose the liberal arts in college because it is far simpler academically, but many often choose that path simply because they genuinely enjoy history or African studies, or whatever.
Every person doesn't need to be a rocket scientist or find a cure for cancer. There should be a place at the table for everyone, and if we working folks have to shell out a few extra bucks for entitlement programs so that liberals can feed their families, I'm more than willing to do so. What would you have them do, turn to knocking off convenience stores?
Posted by: Boss Hog at Jan 1, 2008 10:19:55 AM
No, Boss Hog, I wouldn't want them to turn to knocking off convenience stores, but neither do I care to have my tax dollars spent supporting failed liberal social engineering programs.
As a recent example, the Department of Health and Human Services released a 20+ year study of the Head Start program, which basically said, it doesn't work. After 2-3 years, the kids are right back where they started as if they had never been part of the program.
An intelligent congress would simply shut the program down, and admit it was just another failed social experiment. But we both know that will never happen, because today the program provides thousands of jobs for liberal social workers, and the results would be a catastrophe when large quantities of folks with diplomas in "early childhood education" or whatever went looking for somewhere else to suckle the government.
Posted by: Herkimer at Jan 1, 2008 6:34:07 PM
OK, Herkimer, I've just re-read all of your posts. My summary judgment appears to be that you consider a liberal arts education a waste of time, because it does not prepare anyone for work in the "real world". We should all major in something that prepares us for the world of industry and commerce, something "productive". Then, presumably we have no need for music, art, poetry, literature, or just old-fashioned philosophy.
Did I get it right?
Posted by: Boss Hog at Jan 2, 2008 5:24:40 PM
No, Boss Hog, saying we don't need basket weaving as a college major is not the same as saying that none of us may enjoy it as a hobby or sideline. But most liberal arts are easily learned on the side simply by reading books on the subject in question.
To understand what has gone wrong with the whole education system, you have to take a peek back at the history of "higher" education.
Prior to WWII, colleges were primarily involved in training the "professions" - science, math, business, engineering, medicine, dentistry, veterinary science, and such. A few majors in the classics and humanities were offered, with the tacit assumption that those pursuing these majors would likely become teachers.
After WWII ended, millions of returning GI's had the GI Bill available for college, but the system was not ready to accept such a large number of new students. Junior Colleges sprang up overnight by the hundreds, as a temporary holding place teaching introductory courses while the 4-year colleges expanded accordingly. But after the "Pig in the Python" passed through the system, suddenly there was excess capacity in the system, so rather than dismantling large parts of it, the system began expanding their course offerings into areas which traditionally had not been in the curriculum. They also began lowering their entrance standards to attract students which had previously been classified as "not college material" into the growing liberal arts curriculum.
This resulted in the absurdity of today, with liberal arts now dominating the curriculum with majors in "gender studies", "liberal studies", "African studies", and other such pap one could easily master with a few evenings on the internet. These majors have become a magnet for the lower-IQ applicants who had no prayer before of ever mastering organic chemistry and such. You can now even major in "Hip Hop Culture" and one minority university now offers 60 points on an exam just for showing up... calling it "participation credit". Guess a few correct answers on the test, and you, too, can become a "college graduate".
I enjoy art and music as much as the next person. I'm a classically trained Bassoonist ( private lessons originally ) and am a self-taught guitar player and banjo picker. My wife is an accomplished (self-taught) guitar and mandolin player, and a talented stained glass artist.
So why tie up valuable and expensive classroom space learning history ( poorly, it would appear ) when all one needs to do is visit the local library and read on, McDuff? I'm a Civil War buff and far more knowledgeable on that period than any college-trained "history teacher" I have ever met.
Posted by: Herkimer at Jan 3, 2008 9:31:35 AM
So, you advocate eliminating liberal arts from the college curriculum, since they all be easily learned "on the side", as you say? How about sports? We can play football and baseball in the back yard just as well.
Posted by: Boss Hog at Jan 4, 2008 8:20:29 AM
No such recommendation, Boss Hog. Liberal arts have value, and core courses in such should be offered as electives ( as they are "required" for our science majors today ) But introductory courses in science ( say physics, chemistry and biology ) should also be required for liberal arts majors along with math through beginning calculus, so we don't have the enormous number of mathematically and scientifically illiterate graduates we have today.
I took 4 semesters of English in undergraduate school, and enjoyed them thoroughly ( and made straight A's, to boot ) Mastery of the English Language is critical to success in American culture. One could also argue ( based on current demographics ) that at least one year of Spanish should also be required.
But why are we graduating thousands of majors in Art History each year for every job out there in the real world actually requiring such knowledge? Why waste valuable and expensive time taking virtually nothing but courses which have no compelling application in the real world?
As for sports, I've never heard of a major in football or baseball ( yet ) but "physical education" has long been the jock's major. Participation in college level sports has traditionally been voluntary, and it's nice to have a full-sized baseball diamond or soccer field nearby on which to enjoy the game to it's fullest extent.
I think what I'm trying to say is, why don't folks just use common sense in course selection, include some training ( business, economics, accounting, etc. ) which might help land them a decent job upon graduation, and then we could eliminate so many of the social engineering programs which actually accomplish little for society except provide make-work jobs for liberals?
Posted by: Herkimer at Jan 4, 2008 12:12:07 PM
hi,I University majoring in the legal profession.After graduation,I 徵信 the work of the strong interest.Has worked in several徵信社.Has a wealth of experience. Now I immigrants France,Hope to continue to engage in the work of徵信 credit.
now, is to wake up every day to drink 咖啡, shopping. I hope that early awareness of Boles.
thanks,thank very much.
Posted by: Tonny at Mar 18, 2008 3:19:23 AM
Posted by: Alii at Apr 3, 2008 10:42:43 PM
