Because it's too broad and so doesn't result in a significant increase in the student's knowledge in a particular area.

Students typically study about eight GCSEs over two years. So, on average, the knowledge they gain per subject is that which can be gained in about three months (i.e. two years divided by eight subjects).

Students typically study three A levels over two years. So, on average, the knowledge they gain per subject is that which can be gained in about eight months (two years divided by three subjects). Typically, they'll have studied that subject at GCSE too - so they're now an 11-month expert in each subject.

Students typically study one subject at degree level for three years. So, given that they've likely studied the same subject (or components of the same subject) at GCSE and A level, they've studied it for just short of four years. That makes these people very knowledgeable about whatever that subject is.

Liberal Arts isn't a subject. It's a menu of subjects. Students of Liberal Arts don't become very knowledgeable about any one subject. The knowledge they gain is too distributed.

If I wanted to talk to an expert in Physics, I'd talk to someone with a degree in Physics. If I wanted to talk to an expert in History, I'd talk to someone with a degree in History. I can't think of anything which would make me turn to someone with a degree in Liberal Arts.

Reply 55

Talkative Toad

Volunteer Team

22

Seen what a Liberal Arts degree looks like and I’m thinking yeah this just feels like GCSEs or the IB (where you do a range of subjects and there’s focus on breath over depth) on steroids:
https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/studying-here/undergraduate/liberal-arts/liberal-arts/

Seems like a “I don’t know what I want to do (the subject) at university but I want to go to university and get a degree regardless” type of thing.

I don’t care if one wants to do a Liberal Arts degree though, a part of me thinks that’s better than a degree that heavily narrows down your career path (this excludes healthcare degrees).

But maybe I’m wildly misinformed.

Reply 56

ROTL 94

9

TBH stopped caring about this during first year after going outside and talking to people.

Reply 57

gjd800

20

Original post by DataVenia

Because it's too broad and so doesn't result in a significant increase in the student's knowledge in a particular area.

Students typically study about eight GCSEs over two years. So, on average, the knowledge they gain per subject is that which can be gained in about three months (i.e. two years divided by eight subjects).

Students typically study three A levels over two years. So, on average, the knowledge they gain per subject is that which can be gained in about eight months (two years divided by three subjects). Typically, they'll have studied that subject at GCSE too - so they're now an 11-month expert in each subject.

Students typically study one subject at degree level for three years. So, given that they've likely studied the same subject (or components of the same subject) at GCSE and A level, they've studied it for just short of four years. That makes these people very knowledgeable about whatever that subject is.

Liberal Arts isn't a subject. It's a menu of subjects. Students of Liberal Arts don't become very knowledgeable about any one subject. The knowledge they gain is too distributed.

If I wanted to talk to an expert in Physics, I'd talk to someone with a degree in Physics. If I wanted to talk to an expert in History, I'd talk to someone with a degree in History. I can't think of anything which would make me turn to someone with a degree in Liberal Arts.

If I wanted an expert, I'd be talking to people with terminal degrees and not undergrad degrees

(edited 4 months ago)

Reply 58

artful_lounger

Universities Forum Helper

21

Original post by DataVenia

Liberal Arts isn't a subject. It's a menu of subjects. Students of Liberal Arts don't become very knowledgeable about any one subject. The knowledge they gain is too distributed.

If I wanted to talk to an expert in Physics, I'd talk to someone with a degree in Physics. If I wanted to talk to an expert in History, I'd talk to someone with a degree in History. I can't think of anything which would make me turn to someone with a degree in Liberal Arts.

The problem with this is you're assuming that in the humanities things are very neatly boxed of with clear borders drawn around them as in the sciences, with some areas of interdisciplinary overlap. But the thing about the humanities is that really, especially beyond the undergraduate level, the lines are very blurry.

If you wanted to do work on literature from e.g. the Early Modern Period for example; at the graduate level, you would need to pick up a range of skills beyond just the content of (most) English lit degrees:

•

you would need languages (both modern languages of scholarship and varieties of the languages used in writing the original texts at that time, as well as potentially other contemporaneous languages). (Some areas might need more considerable philological training e.g. anything medieval or earlier or most literature not written in English.)

•

you would need historical skills in source evaluation and handling primary sources, as the texts are not just literary editions frozen in time as often encountered in English literature but, especially the farther back you go, have multiple editions and variations - they are also material objects and the materiality of the original texts/manuscripts is essential to consider as well. This materiality may also extend to needing some art historical awareness depending on the nature of it (e.g. illuminated manuscripts, detailed decorative bindings, etc).

•

You also you need a broader historical awareness of the period e.g. in this example the development of the printing press and how this influenced (or didn't) the text you are working on. This is not just a case of reading a textbook on it but you may need to actually do some microhistorical work looking at that one printer that actually printed editions of your text, what else they printed, their own background and what legal privileges they had in printing that.

•

And for anything that is not contemporary, Western, and written by what may be considered the "dominant" cultural hegemonic powers, at least a certain level of understanding that you need to engage with things from a certain amount of an anthropological perspective, recognising that fundamentally even British society in the 15th Century was significantly different enough that you will be approaching it from an etic perspective to a large extent.

•

Add to that the literary criticism skills that you need at the core of things, and broaden that by recognising a lot of those are rooted in continental philosophy and early structural linguistics, and these are important to at least consider when determining what if any particular theoretical framework you are working out of.

A lot of single honours undergraduate degrees in particular fields obviously can't develop all of these things, much as they would like to. This is I suspect a large part of why for humanities PhDs a masters is usually basically required - it's not just about depth, but also about a certain level of breadth from methodological and skills based matters - and a lot of masters degrees specifically will develop not just depth in particular areas of research but include ancillary "skills" courses in e.g. language work, palaeography, papyrology, diplomatic, etc. Sometimes the language work is actually the major focus of the entire masters course!

So I think it's really a bit naive to claim it's not a suitable training ground - there are potential issues (e.g. a great risk that a student could choose a bunch of random totally unrelated modules without an coherent thematic or intellectual focus, which might make some of the issues of diluting their study a bit more notable), but I think they ultimately fall into how the individual course is run rather than the concept of the course. But in the humanities "complementary" study does in fact build up the essential foundations of knowledge - as they aren't as linear from a knowledge (and probably pedagogical, barring languages) perspective as STEM subjects.

Also outside of academia it literally does not matter. Goldman Sachs doesn't care if you did liberal arts or theoretical quantum biology if you're applying to an investment banking grad scheme with them.