A return to understanding: Making liberal education valuable again

Abstract

Critical literature on liberal education since the 1990s discerns two main trends which pose a serious threat to liberal education in the contemporary world. These are, firstly, the trend of liberal arts colleges offering a more professional curriculum and, secondly, the trend among universities and colleges in general to promote values which used to be inherently liberal. The result is that liberal arts colleges risk becoming superfluous as educational institutions, given that they no longer add anything distinctive in today’s society. This article proposes that a return in their core curriculum to more traditional philosophies of liberal education could supply liberal arts colleges with the necessary measure of distinction to preserve their inherent value to society.

Keywords:

• Liberal education
• vocationalism
• wisdom
• understanding

Introduction

In 1990, David W. Breneman conducted a study entitled ‘Are We Losing Our Liberal Arts Colleges?’ The study showed how, since the 1970s, increasing numbers of liberal arts colleges had changed from focusing on traditional arts and sciences education, and the study of the humanities, to providing programmes which offered a vocational education (Breneman, 1990, p. 6). While these liberal arts colleges continued to express a promise of liberal education, Breneman argued that the focus on vocational subjects undermined this promise entirely (Breneman, 1990, p. 6). A follow-up study in 2012, almost 20 years later, using Breneman’s criteria of liberal arts education, found that ‘true’ liberal arts colleges continue to be in decline (Baker, Baldwin, & Makker, 2012). The decline is for the most part driven by the perceived necessity for liberal arts colleges to offer vocational education. The challenge for these colleges is to survive without offering their students an education which forms a useful stepping stone in the promotion of a career. The concern is that defining liberal education as one that is not vocational will lead to the demise of liberal education. This is why liberal arts education has taken on a different meaning in contemporary society.

In examining the modern definition of liberal education it is useful to turn to liberal education in Europe, where the last 25 years have seen a revival of liberal education. In the Netherlands alone, seven liberal arts colleges have been established since the 1990s. The definition of liberal education held by these institutions seems to stem from their advertised learning outcomes. These learning outcomes emphasise critical thinking, liberal and egalitarian philosophies, and the skills to analyse and solve problems in a way that considers and synthesises different points of view. To a great extent, these echo the learning outcomes stated by the American colleges which continue to profess that they offer a liberal education. Scholars have summarised these outcomes by stating that the chief objective of liberal education is to create ‘wise citizens’.

However, in Western liberal democracies, critical thinking and respect for different opinions is becoming increasingly ingrained in general society from primary education onwards, not to mention the ethos of nearly every university (Delucchi, 1997; Sandy, 2013). As a result, liberal education can no longer define itself through this learning alone; there must be another factor which distinguishes it from other forms of education. This other factor is often held to be the increased potential which liberal arts colleges have to actually transform their students into ‘wise citizens’ through a more intensive educational structure. Liberal arts colleges, both in Europe and America, continue to promise small class sizes, Socratic teaching methods, a residential ethos and close student–staff relationships. However, studies have failed to prove that these structural factors have any significant impact in achieving these learning outcomes (Gamson, 1983).

Having failed to find the distinguishing value of liberal education in contemporary society in what is taught, how it is taught and in what environment it is taught, I must conclude that modern liberal arts colleges have lost their distinguishing value to society. Nonetheless, the resurgence of liberal arts colleges in Europe clearly shows that there is a desire to maintain this ‘separate’ method of education. However, in order to warrant a separation there needs to be a viable distinction. Liberal arts colleges must be able to offer something that other universities are not able to or simply do not deliver. Given that the inherent value of liberal education seems to have been lost in modern liberal arts colleges, this means that the discussion turns from ‘what is the value of liberal education?’ to ‘what was the value and how can we get it back?’

In order to find the original value of liberal education, I return to the roots of liberal education. In examining this core, I find that the principle which has gone missing from many liberal arts colleges, but which is at the very heart of the value of liberal education is that found at the Delphic Oracle: know thyself. I propose that if the learning outcomes at liberal arts colleges were combined with a focus on understanding and self-reflection, which other forms of education are unable to offer, these colleges may actually succeed in educating ‘wise’ citizens, and thus remain highly distinguished educational institutions and of immense value to contemporary society.

Contemporary liberal education

The question, ‘what is liberal education?’ is not as simple as it sounds; to answer it properly we would have to embark on a rollercoaster ride right back through the entire Western philosophical tradition (Nussbaum, 1998). Since the days of the Socrates and Aristotle, the concept has been turned inside out, flipped on its head and changed its face many times; and so, it is unlikely that a satisfactory, overarching definition could be found. It is more feasible to find an answer to the question, ‘what is liberal education today?’ This is a question that has attracted a lot of attention in recent years. The developments in higher education as a result of market changes after the Second World War played a major role in the reforms in liberal education towards the end of the twentieth century. The era of liberal education as an education for the privileged, or an education with the chief end of a love of knowledge, had come to an end, and a new definition had to be found (Davies, 1994).

After the Second World War, higher education began to expand dramatically (Gamson, 1983). An increasing proportion of professions began to seek applicants with a university education. Students were increasingly pushed to pursue university education not, as had been the case in the past, in order to become ‘wise citizens’, but in order pursue a career (Delucchi, 1997). Education for the sake of education was no longer wanted or even particularly respected. Already in the 1970s, economists like Richard Freeman, started to notice a decline in the earnings of liberal arts graduates (Delucchi, 1997). Since the 1990s the job market has become even more competitive. The rates of unemployment or underemployment of college graduates are higher than ever before (Anderson, 2014). These higher levels of financial pressures and uncertainty of employment have led to college students becoming increasingly vocationally oriented, prioritising financial prosperity, or at least stability, over the more traditional ideals of university education, such as developing a meaningful philosophy of life (Baker et al., 2012).

These shifts in values and market changes were and still are uncontrollable for the small liberal arts college and it seems to be an accepted fact that the only means of recourse for these colleges was to give in and align themselves. In the words of Breneman, ‘Many of these colleges shifted curricular focus during the 1970s and 1980s to meet student demands and to maintain enrolments, with the changes occurring quietly and largely unnoticed, campus by campus’ (Breneman, 1994, p. 2). According to Delucchi (1997), it is perfectly justified that most liberal arts colleges have dealt with these changes by opting for a more immediately marketable, professional curriculum.

Today, the curriculum of liberal arts colleges which used to be relatively homogenous has become increasingly diverse as each college attempts to find a way to combine the objective of educating ‘wise citizens’ with a more vocational curriculum (Baker et al., 2012). Some scholars argue that these attempts are futile. Delucchi (1997) argues that, in seeking the perfect combination many of these colleges have passed the ‘tipping point’ and have inadvertently become an entirely different type of institution at the expense of their liberal arts roots. In fact, he contends that the true objective of liberal arts education is incompatible with the offer of a professional curriculum.

Nonetheless, the studies by Baker et al. (2012) and even Breneman (1990) show that the vast majority of the colleges have vigorously maintained their claim of providing a liberal education. Furthermore, the revival of liberal education in Europe has seen an increasing number of universities seeking to found a liberal arts college. In the Netherlands, liberal arts colleges started to develop in the 1990’s as a reaction to the overspecialisation of university degrees and the wish to offer a form of education in excellence (Van Van der Wende, 2011, 2013). Each of these colleges has developed a unique and yet somewhat vocational curriculum. They remain homogenous, however, in two areas: firstly, in their learning outcomes; and secondly, in their institutional structure (University College Deans Network,2017). From this, it can be concluded that contemporary liberal education can be defined by these two elements.

The wise citizen

In order to formulate this contemporary definition of liberal education more precisely, I will now examine the learning outcomes declared by liberal arts colleges today in order to find the common objective of contemporary liberal education.

The book, A New Case for the Liberal Arts: Assessing Institutional Goals and Student Development (Winter, McClelland, & Stewart, 1981), found the liberal arts learning outcomes to be the following:

(1)	Critical thinking and broad analytical skills
(2)	Learning how to learn;
(3)	Independence of thought
(4)	Empathy-seeing all sides of an issue
(5)	Self-control for broader loyalty
(6)	Self-assurance in leadership ability
(7)	Mature social-emotional judgement, personal integration
(8)	Equalitarian, liberal values
(9)	Participation in and enjoyment of cultural experience.

According to the 2007 study by King, Brown, Lyndsay and Van Hecke, these outcomes remain much the same today. Students are expected not only to gain knowledge of the subjects which they take, but to approach knowledge critically, to evaluate and synthesise knowledge from many different sources, and to respect the grey between the black and white (Anderson, 2014; King, Brown, Lindsay, Hecke, & Jones, 2007). The common objective seems to be educating ‘wise citizens’ and to cultivate ‘a sense of collective responsibility that will prepare them for wise and ethical stewardship of their world’ (Thomas, 2002, p. 31).

It is interesting to note that these learning outcomes are independent of the subject matter. The contemporary key to liberal education can therefore be concluded to be linked not to ‘what’ is taught, but ‘how’ it is taught. This definition allows liberal arts colleges to continue laying claim to giving a liberal education while still offering diverse vocational programmes.

Loss of distinction

However, this conception of liberal education is problematic in contemporary society. As the ‘liberal’ tag is no longer tied to any specific subject matter, it becomes increasingly difficult to use it to distinguish liberal arts colleges; the tag is neither precise nor very meaningful (Baker et al., 2012). Studies show that the learning outcomes of liberal education have now been adopted into the central ethos of most Western educational institutions, sometimes with the label of liberal and sometimes not (Baker et al., 2012). In contemporary Western society the central values of equality and freedom have created an expectation even in primary education that students learn to consider and respect different views and critically question received opinion. These learning outcomes themselves therefore no longer distinguish liberal arts colleges.

Furthermore, the lack of distinction to be found in the learning outcomes also extends back into the notion of the ‘wise citizen’ discussed above. The definition given of the ‘wise citizen’ through the learning outcomes was a person who is independent of mind, conscious of his social responsibility, critical of society and open to different opinions. However, if these learning outcomes have become inherent to the primary education of all citizens within Western society, then we must conclude that these learning outcomes no longer lead to the education of the ‘wise citizen’, but merely the ‘citizen’. In a society where equality is advocated on a day-to-day basis there is a wish for all citizens to be active and liberal and critical. If liberal education is to make ‘wise’ citizens the wisdom must come from elsewhere.

Some scholars argue that the distinguishing factor of liberal arts colleges is their capacity to actually ingrain these values within their students—‘sure, all citizens are taught these values but only wise citizens internalise them’. This argument relies on the distinct institutional structure of liberal arts colleges. As aforementioned, next to learning outcomes, this is the other factor which makes contemporary liberal arts colleges homogenous, and thus might form part of the essence of liberal education. Being highly selective, residential and often with relatively small cohorts, means that these colleges see the development of very close student–student and student–staff relations (Seifert et al., 2008). This atmosphere closes the gap between studying and socialising, which has a unique psychosocial impact on students (Baker et al., 2012).

It has been shown that the characters of students at liberal arts colleges are more likely to be shaped drastically throughout their college experience. However, studies have not been able to show definitively that this is a result of the internalising of liberal learning outcomes. The structure and intimate relations with peers had the most impact (Gamson, 1983). This lack of definitive proof unfortunately means that liberal education cannot defend its value to society through the intimate and intense structure of liberal arts colleges alone. In fact, in an increasingly liberal and egalitarian society where equal opportunity for the culturally, socially and economically disadvantaged is at the forefront, the elitist image of these small colleges might actually create a negative stigma against them (Davies, 1994).

The dual core of liberal education

If liberal education cannot pride itself on its civic learning outcomes or on how they are taught, the question presents itself as to whether anything remains that liberal education can hold on to as its distinguishing value as a method of education. I argue that the answer lies in the very essence of liberal education. By examining Mary Sandy’s review (2013) of the development of liberal education from its beginnings, I find that liberal education has a dual core, shaped by the philosophers’ paradigm of education on one side and the orators’ on the other. The history of liberal education displays a determined turn away from the philosophers’ paradigm in favour of that of the orators’. I believe that this turn should be seen as an overreaction by critics, bringing with it the mistaken assumption that the two sides are mutually exclusive. I believe liberal education could regain its distinction by consciously seeking to embrace both sides of its core.

As was discussed previously, institutions which profess to offer a liberal education have become increasingly heterogeneous in terms of the subject matter taught. Nonetheless, the introduction of vocational programmes has had no impact on the claim itself. Many institutions still believe they offer a ‘liberal education’. From this it can be concluded that that which makes an education ‘liberal’ is not the face it wears (the subjects, the curricula, the vocations), but something more essential. A ‘liberal’ education is no more and no less than a certain form of education in and of itself. This explains why liberal education has (had) the capacity to change and adapt to meet the demands of society without changing its nature.

Today’s understanding of liberal education is closely tied to the orators’ paradigm of education, where emphasis was placed on learning for the public interest. However, to understand the orators’ tradition, as with all things, it is important to understand its roots. The public-oriented orators were preceded by the more private-oriented philosophers. Often these two traditions are juxtaposed as though polar opposites. However, this denies the fact that one developed out of criticism of the other. The two are therefore actually closely interlinked. I argue that contemporary liberal education too often forgets that it is not only based on the educational beliefs of the orators’ paradigm but by extension also on those of the philosophers.

This philosophical tradition, first established in the times of Socrates and Plato, emphasised the importance of studying the essence of things and pursuing the truth (Sandy, 2013). The aim of such an education was to enable the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, to gain knowledge of reality in a vacuum, in order to better understand oneself (one’s self) and, through this, the world. In the Phaedrus, Socrates says: ‘I must first know myself, as the Delphic inscription says, for to be curious about that which is not my concern, while I am still in ignorance of my own self, would be ridiculous,’ (Plato & Rabinowitz, 1956, 229e). It was very much driven by the belief that wisdom is gained through true understanding rather than the accumulation of vast amounts of knowledge (Sandy, 2013). This paradigm continued to be central to higher education during the Age of Enlightenment. Liberal arts in this form—focusing on the humanities in and of themselves—remained in high regard as the most prestigious of all academic specialisations throughout this period and thus also became the core of higher education in the United States (Sandy, 2013). In order to do so liberal education limited the numbers of students, so as to allow time and space for deep conversation. It valued the education of few great minds over that of many mediocre ones. While it revolved around a belief of essentialism, it also recognised that in order to know and understand the essence of things, it is important to look at all that we think we know with some scepticism.

However, in time, the approach of the philosopher tradition, the analysis of the abstract essence of things with little link to the physical world, was increasingly criticised for distancing itself from real world issues, for not concerning itself with useful knowledge (see: Kimball, 1986; Fine, 1945). Those undertaking a liberal education, being the most privileged persons within society, were also more likely to enter into public service. It was thus seen as necessary that their education should revolve not around the contemplation on the private matter of soul-searching but around the interests of the public sphere (Sandy, 2013). This criticism prompted liberal education to concentrate its teachings on more useful knowledge. Learning the practical ways of the world rather than its true, value-neutral essence, was also important in respect of another criticism: that essentialism denied or masked the inequalities which exist in the real world where culture and human history have inevitably impacted the perceived reality (Sandy, 2013).

A return to understanding

Contemporary liberal education shows us the result of these criticisms: turning itself from private contemplation to the preparation for public duty drew liberal education away from the contemplation of ideas in themselves and established a focus on studying and critiquing history and contemporary society (Sandy, 2013). By ‘turning’, I refer to a relatively complete conversion from one to the other. Yet the aforementioned criticism by no means considered the pursuit of truth and essence as bad. It merely considered it as insufficient for those who were likely to lead a public life or whom society needed to take a civic role because of their nature, talent or status. There was a need for the students of liberal education to learn skills which would make them useful to society. But there was no need for them to stop studying knowledge for its own sake, or to do away with contemplations on the soul and the essence of things. In fact, the key to wisdom has traditionally always been understanding. Today the focus of liberal education seems to emphasise criticism and analysis to such an extent that little attention or time is spent on actually understanding any particular subject in and of itself before criticising it (Sandy, 2013). The criticism that studying things in a vacuum is ignorant of reality and useless is definitely well-founded but surely criticising before understanding is just as foolish.

I therefore argue that contemporary liberal education must make a greater effort to embrace both sides of its core. I agree with Mary Sandy (2013), that reintegrating divine philosophising into civic education might offer liberal education the distinction which it is losing. If liberal education still seeks to distinguish itself in the kind of individuals it nurtures, then a significant part of the education should surely be spent on considerations of that individual. Nussbaum argued that liberal arts education served the ‘cultivation of the whole human being for the functions of citizenship and life generally’ (Seifert et al., 2008, p. 111). Returning to an education in philosophy first, and in oratory later, would allow students to grasp a sense of themselves and the world, before they venture to propose necessary changes (Sandy, 2013). Patricia M. King et al. (2007) argue that the distinction of liberal education lies not in its learning outcomes (these have been widely adopted) but in its capacity to apply these not only to vocational subject matter but also to the person. For example, learning to understand others should ideally be preceded by understanding oneself (King et al., 2007, p. 4).

In more practical terms let me quickly conceptualise this definition of liberal education in terms of curriculum. As discussed, in contemporary society it is understandable that a liberal arts college should offer vocational majors. However, in many liberal arts colleges, students first spend one year following a core curriculum before they decide to follow one of several vocational majors. At this point in time, this core curriculum often centres on giving all students a ‘taste’ of each of the disciplines so that they may make an informed choice. From the first day students are therefore met with an abundance of disciplines to be critically cross-analysed in order to make a decision as to which one may best suit their talents and desires. All the while, students spend little time studying their own natures and learning how to understand, two ingredients which may be helpful in making a decision as to how they may best contribute to society. According to my argument in this article, I would propose that the first year core curriculum focuses more emphatically on private contemplation. Ideally, if students were to gain an understanding of themselves and the world around them in the first year, making a decision as to which vocational major to choose should be possible without taking full courses in each possible discipline. Alternatively, given that the key values of the philosophers’ paradigm, much like the orator’s learning outcomes, are not tied to any specific discipline, skills such as self-reflection, or discussing subjects for the pure purpose of understanding them essentially without criticism, could be included in every course taught at liberal arts colleges.

Concluding remarks

Spellman argues it is the inherent ability of liberal education to change its face in accordance with the ever-developing world that will ensure its survival on the scene of tertiary education (Baker et al., 2012). The mobility of contemporary society (both in thought and in physical reality) creates not only added pressure for liberal education but also becomes the foundation for its necessity. Liberal education has the ability to change the actual subject matter which it teaches according to the demands of its surrounding society, but its nature and values lie deeper within how the matter is taught (Anderson, 2014). Because of this we need not worry about the necessity for liberal arts colleges to adopt professional programmes. What we do need to be aware of, is that the civic, liberal learning outcomes through which liberal arts colleges distinguish themselves, are now inherent even to general primary education. We therefore need to take a look back into the philosophers’ tradition of liberal education, the tradition which we seem to have forgotten. Perhaps by returning the emphasis of understanding to liberal education, the liberal arts may once more become distinguished and valued as a truly exceptional education: the education of ‘wise’ citizens.

Notes on contributor

Clara Haberberger was born in Germany in 1994. She moved to Melbourne, Australia in 2001 where she completed her primary and secondary education. Since 2013 she has been living in the Netherlands where she is pursuing a career in international law. Currently a student of law at Leiden University, she attended Leiden University College from 2013 to 2016, graduating with a degree in Liberal Arts: Global Justice. While her main area of study is international law, Clara has a keen interest in philosophy, specifically the ideas of justice and the education of the human soul. She presented a previous version of this article at the 1st European Liberal Education Student Conference in Lüneburg, Germany in May 2016.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Acknowledgements

I would like thank Jacob van de Beeten for getting me involved in the debate on European Liberal Education and who first prompted me to write this article. I would also like to thank everyone who participated at the 1st European Liberal Education Conference for interesting discussions in general and the feedback they gave me on my article in particular. I would also like to thank Jakob Tonda Dirksen and Nigel Tubbs for reviewing my article and for encouraging me to submit it for publication.