The Cheapening of Liberal Arts Education

An article published in the March 31, 2010 edition of the New York Times, examining the burgeoning role of psychology and neuroscience in college English departments, sparked a debate on a recent podcast of Slate’s “Culture Gabfest,” regarding the future of college English departments and humanities studies as a whole. The three panelists expressed outrage at the thought of English departments nationwide filling their curriculum with theoretical science (i.e. using MRI scans of people’s brains as they read different texts to determine the impact they have on the brain), in hopes of adding practical applications to their degree program, thus attracting more students, but sacrificing the notion of literature for literature’s sake.

I test drove literally every degree program that the humanities department at my colleges offered before ultimately earning a bachelor’s degree in English. The question of whether or not these departments should do more to make their degrees more marketable is one that I’ve wrestled with for some time. Even though we were the brightest, most creative and unique students on campus and even though we took the most interesting classes, being able to write a paper on the role of misogyny in Hamlet or being able to thoroughly explain the difference between an Italian sonnet and a Shakespearean sonnet has yet to earn me a single job.

God knows I spent many a sleepless night in college asking myself, “what in the hell are you going to do with a degree in (depending on the semester and college: philosophy, history, religion, political science or English),“ but through it all, I never once considered pursuing a degree outside the field of humanities. For me, and many other liberal arts students, college was never about developing marketable skills, but rather about the pursuit of knowledge and honing our analytical skills, which in turn produces students prepared for any field.

Like the podcast panelists, I too am outraged at attempts to cheapen a classical education in the name of economics (and make no mistake about it, this is ALL about economics). I graduated from Texas A&M University-Texarkana, a rural, commuter school in far Northeast Texas. Of all the students in the school’s English department, I was the only one not seeking teacher certification. As a result, much of the departments curriculum was geared towards training these students for the classroom. I always felt the courses, especially the reading lists, to be extremely watered down. As President of the university’s English club, I tried to expand the scope of the department’s emphasis, sponsoring student symposiums and starting a book club where we would tackle some of the best contemporary literary fiction.

I don’t blame my professors. Their hands were tied by administrators who had in essence turned the English department into a glorified vocational school. While I don’t fear Yale, Stanford, Duke, etc. will ever turn their English departments into a trade school, I do fear the trend of cheapening liberal arts education will continue to spread like a virus across academia. The only way to stop the spread is to convince students that knowledge is far more valuable than any salary they may earn in their career

An absurd policy

The University of Texas-Tyler is, without a doubt, the bane of my existence. Without getting into too many details, I attended UT-Tyler for two years. I made a lot of mistakes and bad decisions during those two years, chief among them deciding to enroll in classes there.

Anytime I request a transcript from this institution, I’m told that I have a hold on my account. It’s not for any outstanding fees or missing work; it’s because I earned my degree from another university and they don’t have an official copy of my transcript from that university.

UT-Tyler’s policy, as explained to me by their admissions office, states that a hold be place on any student’s–past, present or prospective–who does not supply an official copy of all their college transcripts. This policy makes sense for a prospective student. You have to know what credits a student has earned in the past. However, I have no idea why a college I attended for two years, prior to graduating from another university, would need an official copy of a transcript from degree granting institution, when I have no intention of enrolling at UT-Tyler again. 

I first became aware of this policy a year ago and a half ago when I applied to law school. All of the other schools I attended sent my transcripts to LSAC in a timely manner. A week before my application was due for SMU, I learned that UT-Tyler still had not sent my transcript. I contacted their office immediately and they told me that I had an “admissions hold.” I talked to the Admissions Office and had the hold removed with the understanding it was removed for good.

Even though I have been accepted to law school, I decided to apply for law school in June. Imagine my surprise when I received an e-mail from the graduate school that they were missing my UT-Tyler transcript. Again, I contacted UT-Tyler and was told that I had an “admissions hold” on my account. When I told the admissions office I had resolved this issue in December, they told me that they have to reapply the hold immediately after sending out my transcript.

Does this policy make sense to anyone else?