I think prostoalex is hoping universities would economise on things like administrators on seven-figure salaries, expensive luxury buildings, and so on.

I've read it as low-demand programs being wound down, which in one case included a CS program that happened to rely on foreign students.

But let's say from 10 artistic programs you're down to 8 or 6. Why is it a priori a bad thing?

Schools already compete on the quality of their specific programs - one applies to Berklee for music and to Berkeley for CS, but rarely the other way around. Instead of check boxing to meet some arbitrary criteria and teach anything from Aardvark anatomy to Zulu language with questionable levels of quality, the schools can double-down on programs they do best.

Well, the Arts sure doesn't bring in any great and amazing new works, nor does it really make money. So yeah, trash it and most "liberal arts". They're not STEM, and they're a sinkhole for money....

(Karl Marx warned of this, as capitalism only sees value in what produces more value. Artistic and liberal arts value is harder to calculate, thus pointless)

I don't think people realize you're being sarcastic here.

No he isn't. Look at his other comment.

I did. It comes across to me as nothing but praise for the study of liberal arts. Am I misreading it?

I know plenty a scientists who'd love to create the next game-changing thing. But philosophy, governance, debate, argument, and understanding are not aspects taught in any good regard in STEM. Or should that thing even be created?

For the record, the first part is sarcastic. Marx warned that one thing the capitalists would cut is the very tools to analyze capitalism. The justification would be that it doesn't make money. Which, is true.

Current "liberal arts", aka feminism, SJW studies, and "who wronged me today" - those are absolutist political positions that frankly belong in a trash heap. These newer classes in specific schools only teach discord and strife. It is not the language of understanding the truth, but of victimization. They do not seek equality; instead they seek their pound of flesh.

Ive seen these arguments, especially about feminism on HN come around every 2-3 weeks, and it is the same tiring talking points. There is no meeting of the minds. There is dialectic -it just one screaming over another (with -1 mods to boot). I've avoided them as per recent because there is no resolution, and nobody seems to want any sort of meaningful change.

What I am talking of liberal arts, is that of classical liberal arts of the West and the East. It is the tools of philosophy and logic, argument and debate. It is how parties may argue and debate reasonably and uncover the truth of the matter. It is how to understand how a new invention changes society; it also shows the inventor's place in that structure.

Liberal arts education is essential if our goal is to have a well-rounded, educated, ethical, and cultured citizenry.

But, of course, this would mean that the liberal arts would have to actually go back to teaching the Western canon, and not simply using their positions as educators to repudiate Western and European art and culture at any turn, to radicalize students and spew their ideological fantasies, to engage in censorship and stoke racial tensions, and, this should go without saying, stop committing acts of physical assault, such as smashing people in the head with metal bike-locks, when they disagree with you (Eric Clanton, Tariq Khan, Eric Canin..etc).

These are just suggestions of course, I'm sure the enlightened intelligentsia will find its way.

I think you're cherry-picking what liberal arts education is all about today. Most Universities do teach Western canon and not the sensationalist things that you mention. Perhaps the latter is easier to notice because it is sensational; but most liberal arts graduates I meet have a very well rounded education and understanding of the world.

The sciences show us how to do something. Liberal arts shows us the ramifications of doing said actions.

I know plenty a scientists who'd love to create the next game-changing thing. But philosophy, governance, debate, argument, and understanding are not aspects taught in any good regard in STEM. Or should that thing even be created?

If anything, when I think of liberal arts, I think of the Greats of Rome and Greece. I remember the ancients in India, or the rulers in China. I think of the discussions reported about the Roman Senate. Or how civilizations rise and fall and why. Or of social sciences, why people do certain things as a collective? This all is indeed logic and science, but with many more degrees of freedom and lack of understanding. Liberal Arts is essential to understanding the core of a problem, and not just the numbers and symbolics that it represents.

I went to college in between deployments, (~6 years ago) with the belief that college existed primarily to teach people how to learn for themselves. After a year and half I was almost happy to be deployed again, although at the time there were a number of classes I took which I would consider quality educational experiences.

I looked at the same college a few months after that deployment, and realized I didn't want to subsidize dogmatic obedience. Since then it appears to have gone even further downhill.