In today’s economy, the value of a liberal arts education seems to be continually in question. Should students focus on more “practical” studies, or is there reason to maintain the liberal-arts tradition?
Point: Keep the ‘arts’ in liberal arts

In eight days, I will perform the spectacular — truly the Cirques du Soleil — walk of collegiates. I will walk the Carver-Hawkeye Arena stage to receive nothing, not even a piece of paper with my name on it, after waiting hours for roll call to reach my name in the middle of the alphabet (I already offer condolences to those at the end). I take a gander the time will last enough seconds that I can probably count with both hands.

I’ll boot, scoot, and boogie off this campus with an electronic receipt telling me that actual piece of paper I’ve spent the last three-and-a-half years working toward will arrive in approximately six weeks. After these semesters of whittling away at degree and general-education requirements, my name will forever be inscribed on two liberal-arts and sciences degrees.

And I’m pretty damn proud of it, actually.

The controversial UI President Bruce Harreld called the largest undergraduate college at this university as the “core” of the school, in which three of the five fields of study with the highest enrollments come from the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, according to U.S. News. Thirty-five percent of undergraduates pursue coursework in the liberal-arts school, where the widest array of general-education requirements is mandated for degrees — and for an important cause.

I will defend my time pursuing two liberal-arts degrees in how these programs foster and develop diversity in personhood as well as knowledge for engaged students. The college, however, could benefit from broadening those requirements by implementing a new requirement exposing students to Gender, Women’s, and Sexuality studies.

Despite the national narrative push for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math-based curricula, this shouldn’t come at the cost to the arts. And it would appear we have the perfect candidate at the helm of the university in a former businessman to consider the costs of divesting in the arts portion of liberal arts.

In her “Creative Matters” lecture at Englert Theater on Wednesday, a reprisal of her speech at Stanford on Oct. 29, Professor Marilynne Robinson identified the commodification of trades, skills, and knowledge at the college level into a scarce resource, used by the corporatized capitalist machine today. Liberal-arts education is a victim of that, but can also be wielded as the impetus of economic advancement.

The “Creative Matters” series is a part of the UI Office of Research and Economic Development as well as the Arts Advancement Committee, whose mission “seeks to demonstrate that creativity is not only at the core of all research and discovery but also central to our human experience.”

It uses similar diction to Harreld’s (or should I speculate the president borrows from the initiative?). Nevertheless, liberal arts is the bread and butter of this university, and should remain that way. I would go so far as to say the other undergraduate colleges should adopt a general-education program like that of the liberal-arts school.

— Paul Osgerby

Counterpoint: Practical skills take precedence 

When discussing the allocation of money within institutions of higher learning, the division between traditional liberal-arts and STEM fields becomes apparent. However, the issue should not be which realm of academic study deserves preference or embodies the character of the university.

While attending a forum held by the University of Iowa Graduate Student Senate, President Bruce Harreld stated, “We’re a classic liberal-arts college,” and “If we don’t take care of the core, then we’re going to have issues.” This statement brings up two points that speak on a larger issue than the idea of the university’s academic identity.

First of all we should we should examine what constitutes  “a classic liberal-arts college” and what that means in our society. The importance of higher learning has become less about cultivating the mind to engage with the world at a higher level and more about preparation for contributing to society in some substantial way. A college degree is not proof that one possess an enlightened world view but rather a receipt announcing to future employers that a practical skill was acquired in the four or so years spent at an institution of higher learning. This is not a bad thing.

The time and money that must be invested into pursuing a higher education must amount to something more than just a changed worldview. The world we now live in demands practical application. Harreld notes the issues that will come about if we don’t “take care of the core.” As a minority student on scholarship, the largest issue I see looming on the horizon is being asked “So what are you going to do with that?” any time I bring up my major.

The luxury of learning solely for learning’s sake has been stripped from us. It’s not our fault, but it is our reality. It doesn’t mean we can no longer try to do what we love. It just means we either have to do it well enough to get paid, or plan to do it on the side.

The romanticized idea of the leisurely liberal-arts experience will not pay bills or support a family. As important as it is to learn, reflect, and broaden one’s horizons, the time and place for that has been relegated to after a paycheck has been earned. I am not saying we should all switch to STEM majors, but attention needs to be placed on how what you are studying will contribute to society and make money.

It’s not about what you know anymore. It’s about what you can do, and institutions of higher learning should reflect that. The last thing we as college students need are people deluding us into believing that we do not need tangible skills to survive. I am all for the preservation of the liberal-arts ideal, but only if you can explain to me how it’s paid for.      

— Marcus Brown