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.