When A Degree in Underground Basket Carving is Worth Something

By Nick Paulson

Let’s play pretend for a little bit. Suppose we know a bright young recent graduate of a fine liberal arts institution like Lawrence named Richard who received his degree in English and Gender Studies[1]. He applies for a job at a large corporation, something nice and generic  like Incorporated Inc.[2] and makes it through to the interview process. An anonymous and intimidating man, or perhaps more accurately Man[3], in a dark grey suit and black tie sits across from our bespectacled hero and says, gruffly, “So it says here you majored in Gender Studies and English. What qualifies you for a position here at Inc. Incorporated, a corporation whose purpose, though rather vague, certainly does not involve an in depth Feminist analysis of that copy of Moby Dick you’re so dearly clutching to your chest?”

The “Hey, your majors seem useless in life outside of academia. What kind of job are you looking at after graduation?” is an age old query[4] directed at liberal arts graduates. And then there’s the age-old response, the standard industry standard, which Richard would surely put forth in his hypothetical job interview   “Well, I've learned how to think critically and creatively about anything you could put forward. I've learned how to learn and you surely won’t be disappointed. Though I may not have majored in business, I will be able to analyse whatever you set in front of me and put forth a nuanced opinion on that subject.” Fortunately for Richard (and myself), the desire for such a skill set has been supported by research concerning liberal arts graduates[5].

And that's where we (liberal arts students) currently stand. We say “I have learned how to learn and to think, I know how to critically examine a topic, and I know how to put forward a creative and articulate [6] response to stimulus.” We claim the study of the liberal arts develops our critical thinking skills and which we can then apply to the “real world”.

But then I’m left wondering, what’s a liberal art graduate’s response when the Man responds, “Interesting.  My clothes and I have been under the impression, perpetrated by the mainstream media and life, that the liberal arts is disconnected from reality: liberal arts students spend their time studying topics without any relevance in the modern workplace.  What kind of evidence can you put forward demonstrating your ability to think critically about the real world?”

So here’s the problem[7]. We've got evidence that employers would prefer liberal arts students if they meet the learning outcomes of a liberal arts education[8]. I don’t think liberal arts graduates[9] are going to do that, in particular the “demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills in real-world settings” bit. Looking at the graduation requirements at Lawrence we need a major, general education requirements (one each in the Fine Arts, Social Sciences, Humanities, and the Natural Sciences), diversity, a foreign language, analytic reasoning, and the poster child of Lawrence University Freshman Studies.

We've got a lot, but no requirement in our general education that clearly requires an application of critical thinking ability to the everyday problems, to the “real” world, to life outside the Lawrence bubble. There are glimmers, of course, (to my knowledge) in the Civic Life project, entrepreneurial classes, internships, and student teaching but it’s worth observing (for the sake of my argument)  that none of these are required for graduation. It is, I believe, a flaw of our education as it currently stands, that a student can graduate from Lawrence without having to confront real[10] and relevant problems face to face. That is not to say we don’t learn and discuss current issues and problems; it is to say we don’t (save those already noted exceptions) move beyond discussion.  Understanding is only one step in an education on any topic. Creating is the highest level of learning[11]. If we have learned critical thinking skills that are applicable to the real world, it seems we should be able to take those skills, confront a real world problem, and create a solution to that problem.  

Of course, we’ve got the so-called “hidden curriculum”. There’s a substantial amount of college life that happens outside of the classroom and, surprise, we learn there as well. Being involved with our student government and residence life has taught me a huge amount about critically thinking about the things I do in my life (and, at this point, provided clearer direction toward post-graduate employment than my majors at the time). I suspect others have had a similar experience: living “real life” tends to teach you how to think about “real life”. However, most of this learning is conditional[12]. I say most because everyone lives in reality (a fairly uncontroversial claim unless we want to start getting into that “Hey man, what if, like, we didn't exist? Like I wasn't a thing but was tricked by an evil all powerful demon or something? I read a philosophy text once. Wanna get some pizza?” mode of thought)  and therefore has to make decisions about eating, sleeping, whether or not today is a good day to invest in Best Buy Stocks. It’s whether we’re provided with the prompt to think critically about those things that’s the question. If someone can graduate without getting that prompt, then we (I) should (would) feel dirty and uncomfortable all over saying we don’t need to demonstrate r.w.c.t[13] because we've got the rest of life for that. If you want to claim the development of r.w.c.t.  – in particular, if you’re going to point to something like the AAC & U study as an argument for the liberal arts value in the here and now –then you need to provide the tools for every graduate to achieve that development. You cannot point to something students can choose and say it affects all students.

And so, if we are to claim we have mastered the ability to think critically about the real world once we graduate from Lawrence and create innovative solutions to issues, it seems we should be required to demonstrate that ability while an undergraduate. There are certainly real world problems[14] in the world, in the community, and at our school worthy of attention.

I’m not saying our education isn't preparing us for the work force. I’m not saying we need to focus on what’s going to get us a job[15]. And I’m not saying Richard messed up, that he’ll never be employed as anything other than a sushi chef[16] or that his liberal arts education is worthless. Lawrence has proudly provided an excellent liberal arts education and continues to do so. It maintains the standards of the liberal arts. I’m asking if we can go beyond maintaining. I’m asking if we can meet the learning outcomes put forward by our college and appreciated by employers. The improvement upon an already great system seems relatively unobjectionable.

---

[1] The specifics of name and major aren't particularly important here. I just chose a random name and some stereo-typically “useless” liberal arts majors (i.e. not a hard science). If you want to make this example hit closer to home, feel free to substitute “Nick Paulson” and “Math and Philosophy” in the name and majors slot. If you want to make this example relate to the title of this blogpost feel free to replace the majors with "Underground Basket Carving".

[2] That’s an okay joke.

[3] I.e.   Pericles:“Gee Francis, what’s wrong? You look sad.”

Francis: “Well Pericles, I just heard international banking collapsed due to staggering amounts of greed and corruption.”

           Pericles: “Wow, it seems the Man has got you down.”

[4] At least as old as this past Thanksgiving, when I was asked what I was planning on doing with my life by half of the extended Paulson family meal, though my cursory reading of speeches by Lawrence Presidents of the past seems to indicate it has been around for longer than last November.

[5] For example, when the American Association of Colleges and Universities read descriptions of various types of education 74% of employers preferred the liberal arts education (approximately exactly this description of the liberal arts “This approach to a college education provides both broad knowledge in a variety of areas of study and knowledge in a specific major or field of interest. It also helps students develop a sense of social responsibility, as well as intellectual and practical skills that span all areas of study, such as communication, analytic reasoning, and problem-solving skills, and a demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills in real-world settings.” Of course this study isn't saying employers prefer liberal arts graduates to others. Employers prefer the description of a liberal arts education’s learning outcomes (where learning outcomes means precisely what you think it means – a learning outcome for an experience describes a skills a student should learn from that experience – but is one of those technical terms Student Development Theory uses aggressively when talking about describing and evaluating effective education) to other education experiences learning outcomes. So we can take away a delightful hypothetical from all of this: if a liberal arts education effectively does what it claims to do, then 3/4 of employers would prefer a liberal arts graduate to other graduates. (I took this from Lawrence’s very own Admissions blog who took it from the AAC & U because it cost money to read the actual report, It Takes More than a Major: Employer Priorities for College Learning and Student Success).

[6] Articulate is pretty important actually. Effective reading and writing skills, the ability to express oneself, is one of those key things employers are looking for and, apparently, not finding in college graduates. Which is stunning and worrying to me at the same time.

[7] Oh man, get ready. I’m finally going to make an attempt at something resembling a thesis statement a 1 1/2 pages and 7 footnotes in.

[8] I refer you to footnote 5, mainly because that’s where the evidence for this claim is found, but partly because I think it’s funny to refer to footnotes in footnotes and hope you enjoy reading that experience as much as I did writing. In fact, this footnote is probably a good moment to address the footnotes in general. I imagine a lot of people reading this don’t understand my obsession with footnotes. To clarify, I don’t understand my obsession with footnotes. Some people familiar with D.F.W. (David Foster Wallace, an author and essayist, who I like a great deal and made liberal use of footnotes in his writings), probably notice that he’s rubbed off on me a great deal, which is obnoxious, uppity of me, or just a fact about myself (mainly irrelevant to this essay (though D.F.W.’s Infinite Jest is a book with 388 footnotes spread over 96 pages and if you see someone who has read the book, in all likelihood, they’ll be involved in the liberal arts in some way which ties this all together in an okay kind of way)).

[9] I’m talking exclusively about Lawrence students here, because that’s all I know.

[10] Used in the sense of real in the real world versus college dichotomy everyone with and without a small dog is so fond of.

[11] With Remembering, Understanding, Applying, Analyzing, and Evaluating as the lower levels (from lowest to highest respectively). This is from Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning. And that citation means I've finally used a footnote for its intended purpose.

[12] In the sense that no one came up to me and said “If you want to graduate you’re going to need to get elected President of your student body, join an improv troupe, write a blog post about why you think we need to require liberal arts students to demonstrate an ability to apply their freshly honed skills to life outside the academic bubble.

[13] r.w.c.t. stands for real world critical thinking. I’m going to bite the bullet and abbreviate since my writing mind can’t stand repeating the same phrase over and over again while my mathematical mind can’t stand the ambiguity introduced by using different words to refer to the same idea.

[14] To name a few public affairs with painfully relevant problems worth considering (most of which were gleefully stolen from this delightful TED talk on reinventing the liberal arts ((http://www.ted.com/talks/liz_coleman_s_call_to_reinvent_liberal_arts_education.html): education reform, civic engagement, a sense of ethics in politics, the use of force in world affairs.

[15] The increasing vocationalism of education (“Hey, do what’s going to get you a job and nothing more. That's cost efficient”) is a terrible trend as far as I can see. You don’t need ethics to do chemistry, you don’t need a soul to be a businessman, and you don’t even need a body to some math. I’ll gladly take the position that ethics and a soul (and a body) are still valuable topics of education.

[16] I’m certainly not saying he can’t be unemployed as anything other than a sushi chef. In fact, I haven’t mentioned sushi chefs thus far and that little phrase appears to be a complete non sequitur.

I Have No Idea What I'm Doing: On Social Justice Maturation

I went to a small liberal arts school 2.25 hours north of my politically-split hometown in Wisconsin. Three months later I declared myself a feminist for the first time and three months after that I cut all my hair off. 
Somewhere in there I lost the majority of my internalized and externalized female/femme hatred. I had been part of the problem. And I still am, probably. That is the skepticism and cynicism that keeps me going, because it simultaneously provides a skepticism and cynicism of a repugnant stasis, as well. If you’re going to have any success/joy in life as a Social Justice Warrior (SJW, usually used pejoratively), your whole world needs to revolve around uncertainty. Let me explain.
The first source of uncertainty is undoubtedly the movement itself. There is no one completely united social justice movement. The feminism that I identify with, that I find in our school feminist group and the feminism that controls the few blogs I religiously follow is a good one, but is by no means the only one. The feminism that I identify with is trying to learn from past mistakes, and it’s greatest tenet is intersectionality. However, even different people and different blogs handle intersectionality and inclusivity differently, so no two feminists handle issues the same way. I read just as many feminist critiques of other feminists as I do feminist critiques of misogynistic assholes. Each of these adds a little more critical thought to my worldview, teaches me to question a few more things that I might take for granted.
For example, this story went viral in the last few weeks. While the sharing of stories like these make me feel a little better about whether anyone gives a shit about women being killed every goddamn day, I kept looking around and found this explanation from a SJ website that makes more sense. So while my general distrust of the whole world makes it easy to believe that Texas law treats non-contracted services as “property”, the truth often takes a little more digging. In this case, the truth (as far as I can tell, as the second article seems to be more logical) feels a little better and is a little more just. Sometimes that isn’t the case, but without some digging you won’t get to the truth (or the truth “as far as you can tell”).
So even today, with all our modes of communication across borders, different folks who declare themselves “feminists” treat just about all of feminism very differently. So how is it that they all claim to fall under this same label? And how is it that plenty of folks who claim to be feminists and plenty that wouldn’t dare claim the label end up with the same actions and beliefs? bell hooks (perhaps the mother of intersectionality [intentionally not capitalized]) argues that folks calling themselves or others “feminists” creates a sense of identity based very much in exclusivity and privilege. There’s a whole few great pages on this in Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, but I’ll just choose some tidbits:

“Despite sexist discrimination, exploitation, or oppression, many women feel their lives as they live them are important and valuable. Naturally the suggestion that these lives could be simply left or abandoned for an alternative “feminist” lifestyle is met with resistance. Feeling their life experiences devalued, deemed solely negative and worthless, many women responded by vehemently attacking feminism. [...] Often emphasis on identity and lifestyle is appealing because it creates a false sense that one is engaged in praxis. However, praxis within any political movement that aims to have a radical transformative impact on society cannot be solely focused on creating spaces wherein would-be radicals experience safety and support. [...] To emphasize that engagement with feminist struggle as political commitment, we could avoid using the phrase “I am a feminist” (a linguistic structure designed to refer to some personal aspect of identity and self-definition) and could state, “I advocate feminism.” ” 

Summary: there is no one way to “be a feminist”, and fighting against oppression takes a lot of different forms. Keeping yourself separated from the “non-feminists” is damaging to the cause, frankly because the folks suffering from the oppression you’re trying to end are most often “non-feminists”. If the only road to salvation is my road of 70k in student loans, tumblr, and occasional fearless haircuts, revolution won’t be coming anytime soon.
The second source of uncertainty in social justice movement is a long history of shitty activism. The first wave (suffragettes) and to a degree second wave (“bra burners”, who never actually did that at all btw) were bad people sometimes. Their battles were focused completely on well-off white women, so while it is easy for today’s generation to look back and thank the flawless Susan B. Anthony for all she did, it doesn’t take much of that truth-digging I mentioned earlier to find out what a big racist she was. That being said, I am grateful to the suffragettes for moving things a little bit forward, considering their positions, but I am completely unable to accept any of them whole-heartedly as perfect women heroes. Odds are all great people of history sucked a little bit, and you can never be sure anyone is totally great (for example, every example). Then-feminism and now-feminism hardly seem related anymore, and plenty of folks say that modern SJ movements should go under a broader term like “humanism” instead. After all, my feminism is in big part influenced by queer inclusivity, so claiming a title that focuses on only one of many genders seems detrimental. In the end, though, humanism is stupid and other people have written about it, so feel free to go dig around in that.
So now, my feminism is infused with a lot of self-doubt. I’m always sure I might be leaving someone out. For example, when I watch a movie and grumble the whole time about the Bechdel test and then only at the end realize that there were no characters of color. Sometimes, it even creates a sense of self-loathing. Intersectionality, to me, is about helping out whoever has it “worst”. There is no ranking of privilege or oppression, to be sure, but staying aware of the exact modes and extremities of inequality is necessary. If white women make 79% of white men’s income for equal work, black women 68%, and latina women 60% , there are going to be a few different courses of action needed to get everyone to 100%. So yes, Lean In was probably fine or informative or something, but it does not interest me, Sheryl is already doing okay. Sheryl left a ton of people out when she talked about modern struggles, and maybe she didn’t mean to include all of those people, but those are the people whose struggles interest and motivate me (related).
The last major source of uncertainty, for me, is scale of impact. Critical theory, another major tenet of modern feminism (which I really know very little about), I take to concern the fact that racist, heteronormative, cis-sexist, classist, ableist bullshit is all around us. Every time someone on the street yells at me and every time someone uses the r-word, it’s all related, and it all makes a difference. The question is, “how big of a difference?”
The beginning of SJW maturity is filled with rage - enter “angry feminist” archetype. “I’m not humorless, you’re just literally not funny”. Every movie you see, most classic novels, ads, casual conversations - suddenly it’s all total bullshit. You just want to limit your intake to the feminist-approved tv shows, find safe spaces. And a lot of the time, that’s very important, self-care is number one. But staying in that isolation, as bell would say, leads to absolutely zero change or impact. Having cozy, self-affirming discussions with other feminists is not praxis. Even if you’re mad! Whodathunk, being mad doesn’t even make a difference!
When I was going through my mad stage (not that I don’t still get mad now, it’s just a sadder mad now), someone meekly and correctly pointed out to me that mad doesn’t do anything. That if I’m mad, I should actually do something, take action, like other folks we know. I had a poster in my home bedroom that said, “be the change you wish to see in the world”, a gift from one of our very most liberal family-friends, I don’t think it even attributed it to Gandhi. I loved the art on it, but, for most of my staring at it, couldn’t think of any changes I much cared about and certainly didn’t know how to be them. Now it all makes more sense.
See, because here’s where impact really comes into perspective - when I read negative stories about awful things happening, even if they are new (more shitty abortion laws, etc), they are on-the-whole indicative of the status quo. The world has always been at least as terrible as it is now, even if it is only becoming more apparent now. However, positive stories and actions are indicative of change, of progress. Affirmations of the negative are persistent, obvious, and probable - but coming across good new actions and ideas is a DIFFERENCE. In my mind, a difference is always more impactful than a reaffirmation.
Revolution isn’t built in a day, and it certainly isn’t built by one isolated person. Now I see that every one step in the right direction is worth two steps sideways. This, of course, assumes that we, as a whole, are moving only sideways rather than backwards, but I’m pretty confident that assumption is correct. So now, though I’m not great at it, I’m much more motivated to take little steps, and know that there will be an impact. Raising money and volunteering for DV shelters, for example, where kyriarchal (like patriarchal, but including race/class/cissexism/orientation/ableism/etc) disparities are the most pronounced.
And I know I need to start doing it a hell of a lot more than I do now, if I ever want to cancel out as much socially-unjust stasis as I’ve mostly likely supported throughout my life. Do the occasional bouts of casual slut-shaming that I’m too scared to fight back against make as big of a difference as my constant social-justice tumblring? I could only guess.
This uncertainty comforts me. I can keep learning and looking around and digging, and eventually find things that reaffirm what I WANT to be true. If you go too far looking for what you want to see, it’s just bad science. But depending on the topic, and how you do it, it’s just fighting back against centuries of WORSE science. All I have learned has helped me to try to make a difference in the lives of other individuals and in my own life. I have personally benefited greatly from feminism, but have other people? To what degree? Is my unique brand of feminism doing the most good for the most people? I’m not sure yet, but neither is anyone else.

The Liberal Arts and "The Liberal Arts and Almost Anything Else"

By Nick

The following may in fact seem pretentious. If it helps you conceptualize the whole grand scheme of things, feel free to envision me gleefully puffing on a pipe while wearing a tweed sports coat.

Steph, Zach, Addy, and I[1] had and continue to have the desire to have a platform for our thoughts.

Does that mean we think our thoughts are interesting? Certainly. Does that mean you think our thoughts are interesting? That’s entirely your choice[2], though I’d hope we can stimulate and entertain.

Does that mean we think are thoughts are important? To the extent we think they’re worth talking about. Does that mean they’re actually important? Not at all, though I’d much appreciate it if everything I thought about was objectively important. 7 billion people would be playing Magic the Gathering, if that were the case.

Does that mean we think that our thoughts are infallible gifts from our minds to the masses, seeds of revolution and dissent, ground-breaking (in both the metaphorical and literal construction site) sense? I don’t think so. Though, I just realized Zach, Addy, and Steph kind of just let met me decide what this introductory post is about, and they may not agree with me.

And then we ask, “What does it mean considering all of the above?” We’re trying to articulate ideas we have. Whether or not others consume them, the act of writing is valuable to us. Sure, I’d love it if you read my forthcoming “A Dissertation on Love, IKEA™, Newtonian Mechanics, and Non-Euclidean Geometry.” I’d certainly enjoy your thoughts on my thoughts[3]. But that’s not the fundamental motivation behind our blogging. There’s simply a lot to be said for looking and thinking and analysing anything at all with effort and that’s where I hope we go. We’re taking the blogging as a means to develop our ideas, to facilitate critical thinking, and to live that liberal arts[4] ideal of an active, engaged public citizen[5].

The attentive reader (and myself, as I formulate this very thought), may quite rightfully respond with, “But Nick, why are you presenting these thoughts to the world wide web in such a medium. It seems blogging is an inherently social enterprise. I am beginning to perceive a contradiction in your view of writing as a clarification of thought valuable in itself and your rejection of the public facets of blogging. I am calling some shenanigans on your thoughts."

To which I would be gladly respond, “Well put attentive reader and/or myself[6]. I have affirmed the value of writing as a means of clarification and development of thought.  If that were my sole purpose, blogging would be unnecessary. I would like to point out[7] that I did not reject the public aspects of blogging as valueless. If any individual were to read our posts or comment on them in a productive manner, I would be greatly appreciative. The blogging experience came be viewed as value added. I am happy with writing as a clarification of thought; I am happier if others find it interesting and engage in discussion prompted by it.”

Though I may not be wearing that tweed sports coat,[8] may not be puffing that pipe, and  may not be ready to discuss the love-IKEA-velocity interactions yet, I certainly want everything the true liberal arts education entails, and I have a feeling this is a path to get there.

---

[1]  If it comes to needing last names, we've reached a much broader audience than anticipated. I will fully admit the inadequacy of this post if that state of affairs occurs.
 

[2] Editor’s Note: Upon further review, Nick, Zach, Addy, and - though she hasn't said it, we’re going to assume - Steph disagree with this assertion. No one can make themselves through force of will, find something interesting. Let’s hope this blog doesn't get to the point where you are trying.

[3] And would, in return offer you my thoughts on your thoughts on my thoughts. And so on until one of us perishes or loses interest.

4 This is the specific moment I realized it may sound pretentious.
 

5 And then this moment didn't make the pretension dip any lower.
 

[6] This a joke I think funny enough to both put in this post and then explain in a footnote. I find the idea of a person ascribing some subjective to themselves value as I did above with my complimenting myself on such excellent prose very funny (e.g. “Look guys, look how cool I am! I’m so cool! Come hang out with me. All the ladies want to be with me” (I wanted to add a footnote to this footnote as follows: This seems a firm rejection of the values of Jersey Shore).

[7] however

[8] Or pants for that matter