I want to make it clear that I believe there is a lot of merit to the liberal arts, and I agree with the general statement that a revamping of the way we look at the degree is in order . . . but this speech as a whole misses the mark. There is a certain illumination that comes with connecting with the great thinkers of the past, and hearing in their words why they think the way they do. It makes you see past your own narrow brain. You are exposed to the thoughts and feelings of other cultures across centuries, and with careful study and (hopefully) a good teacher, you can feel far more keenly how connected we all are, because we are all human, after all. That's what makes the Liberal Arts so exciting: it's the opportunity to study and become part of a dialogue with all of humanity. And you can't help bit be a better, more rounded and capable human being after engaging in that discussion, whether in a university or at home, reading through the books yourself because you can't and never could afford to go to the sort of schools that teach this kind of stuff competently. Which brings me to where this video goes wrong: the speaker states that the appeal of the Liberal Arts is the ability of its students to wander aimlessly and test different flavors in a kitchen of academia, and see what sticks, if anything. Seriously? Who can afford to do this? Who can afford to just go try a little of this, a little of that, and just try something else if they don't want to pursue it? Classes are so expensive, the loans so painful that by the time you're out, you will be paying for a lifetime to get out from under the debt. And that's assuming you didn't just play around like this speaker is suggesting you should do. And oh man, he even rags on people who criticize Liberal Arts for not being vocational enough. While I appreciate the degree, and find it fascinating, I can't fault its critics . . . there is something to be said for degrees which are a bit more functional. And finally, the most ridiculous claim in the speech is the speaker seems to be insinuating that Steve Jobs' college is somehow responsible in part for his enormous, world changing success because they enabled him to pursue a fleeting interest in calligraphy. This is just absurd. Steve Jobs is an icon today because he was an insanely driven and, by many accounts, quite ruthless businessman who pushed and never stopped, even when most reasonable people would have thrown in the towel ten times over. No calligraphy class factored into it. Anyway, I do enjoy Ted Talks overall and I 'll keep on watching. :-)
Higher ed was never meant to be job training. "Liberal Arts trains you to do nothing, but it prepares you to do anything." The level of critical thinking, the contextualization of information, and the creative aspects of intentionally seeking novel viewpoints to old issues changes fundamentally the way you approach many disciplines. With very few exceptions, I can work just about anywhere I choose because of the skills I've developed through the curricula of an advanced LA degree. Especially given current technology and the automation of virtually everything BUT creativity. I don't agree with the idea of wandering and exploration, but to a degree it's built into the liberal arts program, whatever it may be. There are other arguments, but I have to get back to work at my job in insurance.
This is a very interesting perspective. The liberal arts provide a unique and diversified education. Reconceptualizing the value of such an education for the modern world is a worthwhile pursuit.
Guides used to be called teachers. Now, teachers are subordinate to administrators that double as corporate headhunters. Higher ed should never have become "job training."
I want to make it clear that I believe there is a lot of merit to the liberal arts, and I agree with the general statement that a revamping of the way we look at the degree is in order . . . but this speech as a whole misses the mark.
There is a certain illumination that comes with connecting with the great thinkers of the past, and hearing in their words why they think the way they do. It makes you see past your own narrow brain. You are exposed to the thoughts and feelings of other cultures across centuries, and with careful study and (hopefully) a good teacher, you can feel far more keenly how connected we all are, because we are all human, after all.
That's what makes the Liberal Arts so exciting: it's the opportunity to study and become part of a dialogue with all of humanity. And you can't help bit be a better, more rounded and capable human being after engaging in that discussion, whether in a university or at home, reading through the books yourself because you can't and never could afford to go to the sort of schools that teach this kind of stuff competently.
Which brings me to where this video goes wrong: the speaker states that the appeal of the Liberal Arts is the ability of its students to wander aimlessly and test different flavors in a kitchen of academia, and see what sticks, if anything.
Seriously? Who can afford to do this? Who can afford to just go try a little of this, a little of that, and just try something else if they don't want to pursue it? Classes are so expensive, the loans so painful that by the time you're out, you will be paying for a lifetime to get out from under the debt. And that's assuming you didn't just play around like this speaker is suggesting you should do.
And oh man, he even rags on people who criticize Liberal Arts for not being vocational enough. While I appreciate the degree, and find it fascinating, I can't fault its critics . . . there is something to be said for degrees which are a bit more functional.
And finally, the most ridiculous claim in the speech is the speaker seems to be insinuating that Steve Jobs' college is somehow responsible in part for his enormous, world changing success because they enabled him to pursue a fleeting interest in calligraphy. This is just absurd. Steve Jobs is an icon today because he was an insanely driven and, by many accounts, quite ruthless businessman who pushed and never stopped, even when most reasonable people would have thrown in the towel ten times over. No calligraphy class factored into it.
Anyway, I do enjoy Ted Talks overall and I 'll keep on watching. :-)
Nick La Salla there wouldnt have been cool fonts if not for calligraphy though. 🤔
I completely agree with what you said about the importance of Liberal Arts education
Great thinkers of the past😂😂😂. If that's liberal education then no please. It's about having a broadening the mind and the ways of knowing.
Higher ed was never meant to be job training. "Liberal Arts trains you to do nothing, but it prepares you to do anything." The level of critical thinking, the contextualization of information, and the creative aspects of intentionally seeking novel viewpoints to old issues changes fundamentally the way you approach many disciplines. With very few exceptions, I can work just about anywhere I choose because of the skills I've developed through the curricula of an advanced LA degree. Especially given current technology and the automation of virtually everything BUT creativity. I don't agree with the idea of wandering and exploration, but to a degree it's built into the liberal arts program, whatever it may be. There are other arguments, but I have to get back to work at my job in insurance.
This is a very interesting perspective. The liberal arts provide a unique and diversified education. Reconceptualizing the value of such an education for the modern world is a worthwhile pursuit.
Guides used to be called teachers. Now, teachers are subordinate to administrators that double as corporate headhunters. Higher ed should never have become "job training."
very Informative Video ...... and indeed we met a " GUIDE " :)
elon musk knows we do not live on a spinning globe !! LEVEL STATIONARY EARTH .....