Liberal Arts Education Should College Students Be Essay

Liberal Arts Education

Should College Students be required to take Courses Outside of Their Major Field of Study?

An education that lacks of a world view may be more harmful than meets the eye. One could reasonably argue that the question of whether diversified educational background has value is highly dependent on what you value. There are a multitude of monetary reasons for an incoming freshman to concentrate on a specific field of education and not pursue courses outside of their area of emphasis. For one college is expensive, tuition averages over $13,000 a year at public universities and indecisiveness as well as unnecessary credits can drain a college savings account (Ronin, 2005). Furthermore in the modern American world of Enron and Lehmann Brothers, if you're not cheating you're not really trying, it's not cheating if you don't get caught, and I didn't do it, you didn't see me, and you can't prove it anyway, values are worthless, or at least they cost too much if you want to retire at thirty-five. These values are a result of a deficient understanding the qualities of citizenship.

Discussion

The conservative perennial presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan (2011) points out that of 31,000 students given the National Assessment of Education Progress, the so called "Nation's Report Card," most fourth-graders could not identify a picture of Abraham Lincoln or tell why he was important. A majority of eighth-graders could not name a reason the American forces had an advantage during the Revolutionary War, and most twelfth-graders did not know why America entered World War II or that China was North Korea's ally in the Korean War. Dishearteningly, only 20% of fourth-graders 17% of the eighth-graders and 12% of the twelfth-graders attained a "proficient" score on the test.

Buchanan (2011) believes that recent developments in K-12 curriculum have led to raising young people who are "historically illiterate." Textbooks too concerned with being politically correct. Minor historical figures that are currently fashionable are given considerable space, whereas people of major consequence are ignored or not given their due. Jeffery Hart (2006), in article from National Review, says much the same thing, "liberal-arts and social-sciences curriculum since around 1968…is clutter[ed]… with all sorts of nonsense, nescience, and distraction."

Hart (2006) claims one reason why the undergraduate curriculum at most institutions of higher learning is in chaos is specialization. Since World War II, success as a professor has depended increasingly on specialized publication. The ambitious and talented professor is not excited to teach introductory or general courses. "Indeed, his work has little or nothing to do with undergraduate teaching. Neither Socrates nor Jesus, who published nothing, could possibly receive tenure at a first-line university today."

This reasoning, specialization, is also applicable to incoming college students. Many freshman wonder why someone who wants to be an accountant or psychologist, businessman or doctor, should study subjects that have nothing directly to do with those fields. That is a reasonable question, why should you study history, literature, philosophy or any other subject outside of your major? Why study any subject that is nor relevant to the job you are training for?

Why Study History

There….....