That fount of conventional wisdom, National Public Radio, aired a segment this morning on pressures faced by liberal arts colleges during the current economy, though it could have run anytime in the last 25 years such did it trot out the tried-and-true elements of a good news story:
Liberal arts schools have long had a rap of being a kind of luxury, where learning is for learning's sake, and not because understanding Aristotle will come in handy on the job one day. But economic pressures and changes in the world of higher education have now put them more on the defensive than ever.
"There's been a lot of hand-wringing for a long time about the relevance of a liberal arts education, but I think those worries have heightened over the last couple years," says Bowdoin College President Barry Mills.
There has been a lot of hand-wringing, certainly, but there has been much more than that. Why do students continue to attend these elite colleges? Why do parents (and donors) continue to support them? How is it that students even at large Research-1 universities end up as history majors? Could there be some greater value to understanding Aristotle than initially assumed? Ah, the 17th paragraph, or several minutes in, if you were driving:
[Wellesley Provost Andy]Shennan says a liberal arts education that teaches kids lifelong skills of how to think and how to be adaptable in whatever job they end up doing is actually more important now than ever.
"We are not giving up in any way on the basic beliefs that we have about the long-term value of a liberal arts education," Shennan says. "But we also don't have our heads in the sand, and I think we have to continue to make the case as persuasively as we can."