https://www.fox28spokane.com/study-shows-university-diversit...
You're also begging the question by implying ideological coercion is just "abstract learning."
>You're also begging the question by implying ideological coercion is just "abstract learning."
I'm actually fucking astonished. Peak orange website -- the "liberal" in "liberal arts" doesn't actually refer to a political standpoint. It refers to exposure to a broad selection of Western intellectual tradition, the better to help students become more informed citizens, and to help prevent/allow detection of gross category errors/intentional facetious conflations like the parent post.
The same Western intellectual tradition that's constantly denounced as the marker of privilege and oppression of non-Western peoples? True liberal arts teaching is almost dead in U.S. academia, it only survives at a few small schools that don't even try to pretend that their curriculum (and indeed, as a rule, their student body as well) isn't "privileged".
Without the prizing of artisan skill, without the sanctity of life, without the gloried explorer, how could Feynman have convinced anyone that we can do better than accepting brittle O-rings and dead astronauts? Without the concept of the fellowship of man, a bunch of ancient Greek philosophy about how to act, and kindergarten-level "sharing is good", how could Mr. Rogers have convinced Congress to fund public television?
How could either public intellectual have managed if their politician, ruling-class audience didn't share the values their arguments drew on?
And, like, listen man, we've been noticing and trying to comment on "privilege and oppression of non-Western peoples" since Moby Dick; Heart of Darkness is only 120 years old.
>True liberal arts teaching is almost dead in U.S. academia, it only survives at a few small schools that don't even try to pretend that their curriculum (and indeed, as a rule, their student body as well) isn't "privileged"
Another thing the study of Western thought enables is the easy recognizance of sophistry like the No True Scotsman fallacy. Note this example doesn't even bother to cover its metaphorical tracks, openly using the word "true" without providing any evidence for the claim, or even a single example of "true" liberal arts teaching.
In that comment, you suggest that colleges' healthy function is "preparing students well for the workforce", and imply there's currently extant failure mode that's "merely puffing them full of the latest political buzzwords" [0]. One doesn't need to explicitly state one's disrespect for the didactic function of post-secondary education, in favour of a purely vocational one; it's clear with a little reading comprehension.
'giraffe_lady's interpretation seems correct, and nor does your reply contest the structure of their comment, which assumes that you believe in what you wrote above about vocational preparation. Now, though, you cudgel me with the suggestion that no, actually, you totally do value the liberal arts, and it's my fault that I didn't hallucinate your support for that position while you argue for workplace prep. I, myself, usually argue in a manner consistent with my own previous views. It's a Western value -- intellectual honesty -- often highlighted in liberal arts coursework.
Because they’re publicly funded or subsidized—and seeking even more funding—under the premise that they will help students find jobs. Just about nobody is voting to have tax dollars go to schools so kids can learn social science buzzwords.
Is that the case now though?
> Until then, colleges will continue not caring whether they’re preparing students well for the workforce or merely puffing them full of the latest political buzzwords.
What colleges should care about re their students' preparedness for different vocations remains a somewhat open question: that their role is to prepare students for the workforce is a popular view but not the only mainstream one. If you're going to caricature one end of that spectrum as "puffing them full of buzzwords" then the other should be described as vocational training.
I think most people would agree that a college education should have some amount of both professional preparedness and abstract learning for its own sake. Why so many outsiders feel so invested in where these institutions find balance here is confusing and unsettling to me. There are something like five thousand colleges in the US, many of them originally founded explicitly to pursue or reject a specific ideal of what is worth learning and how. I didn't pay attention to any of those controversies, conflicts and schisms and iirc neither did the national media.