I reject the argument that taking 4 years of courses on "communication, conflict, power, democracy, capitalism, communism, etc" is "more important" than "whatever most of us do", and I reject it for a bunch of reasons, not just the obvious one that taking a class on power is not the same thing is engaging with power.
And you're being persuaded by them. Successfully. While still being convinced that the status quo isn't just the best of all possible worlds, everything you believe about it is your own idea.
Addressing some details, in case the paragraph above misunderstands you, thought I think these are a bit too much in the weeds:
> A post-secondary 4-year education in the humanities is a luxury almost by definition, since it is not available to a substantial portion of the population (including many who attend 4-year college!)
Availability doesn't define luxury. When food is unavailable to most of the population, it still isn't a luxury. But we're not here to define words; I think the core issue is that, IMHO, such issues in the liberal arts are critical to the individuals and to our society.
> 4 years of courses on "communication, conflict, power, democracy, capitalism, communism, etc"
Reducing essential knowledge on these issues to just "courses" is like reducing knowledge about food supply to 'courses'. It's not 'courses', obviously, any more than nuclear weapons nonproliferation agreements are 'paper'. The idea that you know without studying is hard to fathom (beyond the popular trend) - how does the knowledge get into your head? Should we all rediscover through personal experience the most brilliant in human history have discoverd over billions of lifetimes? It seems a bit unlikley and inefficient.
I don't think you mean to belittle the skilled trades (which, ultimately, the industry most of us work in is destined to join) the way you're doing here. But it might be worth reflecting on how what you're saying might be coming across.
I'm in the same trade, if that helps. What I do isn't the most important thing in the world. It's fine. I do my best, which is what I can do; that is my standard and it makes me very satisfied and gives me joy.
(I once read someone call that point of view the core of the Enlightenment, the discovery by Copernicus that we are not the center of the universe, implying that 'I' am not the center either.)
> The premise of your response is that these challenges we face in our culture and politics are best addressed by a 4-year liberal arts education.
> it implies that only a subset of people who hold degrees are qualified to engage with society.
It can be matters of degree, not extreme claims. Liberal arts can be significant help for some things in life without being required. Analogously, certain IT education can be significant help, but not required. (Corporate HR being the exception, absurd enough to require them!) And yes, there are people who are judgmental and 'require' them to pass muster in their eyes; I completely reject their point of view; that's not what I'm advocating.
Maybe this is closer to your concern: Does it suck to be at a 'disadvantage' to someone who has studied those things for four years in college? I guess it could be seen that way, but it's not an insult (and it doesn't define an outcome, just an input - people learn the same things without the advantage of liberal arts educations, they are just at a disadvantage in time and resources). We all have advantages and disadvantages; we can't know even a fraction of everything; we all make choices and take forks in life. Some learn computer science, some history; if they are both serious and work at it for four years, they will of course each know much more about their chosen field of study than the other person does. How could they not? The same goes for going to college and doing something else; each has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages, better for some things (for that unique person in that unique situation), and yes, worse for others.
Let's not kid ourselves that people don't miss something by not studying liberal arts; let's not respond with sour grapes - it cuts us off from the everything outside our experience. It's life, we each do something else than X for almost all X, and we are each on different paths - must yours/mine be the best, most important X for the entire universe of life? For one thing, we can still learn and there are incredible things to learn. One upside to 'we can't know even a fraction of everything' - and forgoing sour grapes - is that we'll never run out of new, incredible learning when we want it. With online learning (thank you IT people), we could take a liberal arts class now.
