See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275956559

Liberal Arts Education

Article · January 2014

CITATIONS READS

2 1,466

1 author:

Ivan Szelenyi
Yale University
167 PUBLICATIONS 3,653 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PrivMort: The Impact of Privatization on the Mortality Crisis in Eastern Europe View project

Guest workers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ivan Szelenyi on 10 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 New Economy in New Europe EUROPE

Arts
Is this system sustainable?
I hope so, although I am afraid it
probably is not.
The Liberal
education

 17
EUROPE New Economy in New Europe

Iván Szelényi

T
he U.S. system of liberal art education is often the subject of intense
controversy in Europe. The Bologna system, which is close to the British
system and is sort of half-way to the continental, especially German/Rus-
sian/Soviet, system of education, is arguably a bad compromise and has
intensified criticism of the U.S. system by educators who feel they were
coerced into the Bologna agreement.
I am not a scholar of tertiary education (an important field of schol-
arly inquiry), but I taught in the German/Russian/Soviet system for five
years. I have an additional five years of experience with the British system in England and
Australia, and have taught for thirty-five years in the U.S. system, most of the time in the
best U.S. research universities and liberal art colleges (University of Wisconsin-Madison,
UCLA, Yale, NYUAD).

This piece should not be read as a scholarly contribution, but rather as a “confession”
by a person with an unusually broad experience.
In this paper I would like to achieve two goals:

1
I want to make the strongest possible case for the idea of liberal arts education
and the superiority of the U.S. system of tertiary education;

2
At the same time I want to cast doubt on the sustainability of the U.S. system
of tertiary education. Fifty years from now we may recall the U.S. system nos-
talgically and complain bitterly that we forgot (or can no longer afford) how to
educate our youth.

18 VIsegrad insight 2 (6) | 2014


Introductory
remarks
Let me start with a brief laudation of the
U.S. system. First, in my experience, this
is the most open system (at least as far
as its institutional design is concerned).
There is substantial and growing class re-
production in the U.S., and I wish I had
time to address its causes in some detail.
There is a universal high school system
(there is little vocational tracking before
high school graduation), where all high
school graduates qualify for admission to
college; if they do poorly in high school
they may not get into the “right” college
but if their grades improve they can al-
ways transfer to the very best universi-
ties. Community colleges are especially
wonderful institutions in this respect,
combining vocational training with edu-
cation that can lead back to the very best
institutions.
Second, liberal arts colleges (and
undergraduate programs of the best re-
search universities) place emphasis on
education (Bildung), rather than training
(Ausbildung). College students do not
have to make a fatal vocational choice
at the too-early age of eighteen; they are
exposed to a broad range of disciplines,
so the decision of whether to become a
doctor, lawyer, philosopher, or critical
critic can wait until they are twenty-two,
when they can make a well-informed de-
cision about what they want to do with
the rest of their lives. It is true that at Yale,
Princeton, and Reed, college students do
not get as much “technical training” as
they would get at most European uni-
versities, but arguably they will be bet-
ter “educated” people, better prepared to
choose their vocational destination and
be more responsible citizens.
Third, at the graduate level, from its
separation of terminal M.A.-level pro-
grams (from medical and legal training to
MBA and an infinite number of profes-
sional M.A. degrees oriented to labor mar-
ket needs) to Ph.D. programs, which offer
you the highest quality training to become
teachers/researchers in the Ivory Tower of
sciences, social sciences, and the humani-
ties. No Ph.D. program in the world can
match the quality of training that the top
twenty-five or so U.S. university depart-
ments provide for their students.
 19
Institutional
design
While everyone is expected to complete
high school in the U.S., some eight or
so percent of students drop out of high
school and become prime candidates to
join the “underclass,” the poorest of the
poor, the unemployed; and many end
up in jail – race and class are primary
determinants of who will drop out of
high school and only 70% of high school
graduates use the opportunity to enroll
into college. So while the system is open,
many fall through the cracks and class re-
production works intensively.
Nevertheless, most kids complete
high school and most of them enter
college. At that point they have three
choices: they can enter community col-
leges (where admission is basically open
and instruction is inexpensive – in some
states free), they can apply for admission
to four-year “liberal arts colleges,” or they
can apply to “undergraduate programs”
at universities – in both latter cases they
earn a bachelor’s degree.
There are some 20 million “uni-
versity” students in the U.S., with about
half of them studying in 1,700 commu-
nity colleges. While some community
colleges are starting to offer four-year
degrees, typically one receives two-year
instruction at community college and a
certificate or diploma upon completion.
While most students who enroll hoping
to transfer after the second year into a
“proper” university, only some 10-20%
manage, and the rest receive vocational
training. This strikes me as a far superior
system in comparison with the German
one (which also operated under social-
ist times and seems to be gaining trac-
tion again in post-communist Central
Europe), which separates students into
academic and vocational tracks at the
age of fourteen. Some 10 million students
study in 2,700 four-year colleges or in un-
dergraduate programs at universities.
It is not easy to draw a clear distinc-
tion between universities and four-year
colleges. In principle, institutions only
qualify to be “universities” if they also of-
fer “professional schools,” such as medi-
cal school, law school, business school,
a school of public health etc., and offer
various graduate programs both at M.A.
and Ph.D. level. But there are exceptions:
some colleges offer respectable graduate
New Economy in New Europe EUROPE
programs (Boston College, Dartmouth
College, etc.), and there are some institu-
tions called universities that hardly offer
any respectable graduate programs (for
instance Southern Connecticut State
University, for all practical purposes a
four-year college, which offers a number
of usually highly applied M.A. programs
but does not have a Ph.D. program).
The professional schools, especially
medical school and law school, are im-
portant for all ambitious universities.
There are very few leading research
universities without medical schools,
as these are vitally important for fund-
ing purposes. UCLA, for instance,
admits something like 15,000 fresh
undergraduates annually, while admis-
sion to the medical school is about 175.
Nevertheless, half of the 4,000 UCLA
members of faculty work at the medical
school and they generate more than half
of all research funding.
Although the professional schools
make universities into universities, the
core of the operation is nevertheless the
“college” (usually called something like
“College of Art and Sciences”). In many
universities – this was certainly the case
at Yale – the dean of the college is the
intellectual leader of the institution. The
chancellor or president (called by differ-
ent names) mainly does political work
(e.g., fundraising); but the dean sets the
intellectual direction. There are usually
four divisions in each college: humani-
ties, sciences, life sciences, and social
sciences. The Ph.D. programs of these
divisions determine the national rank-
ing of the organization, which is vital for
universities’ funding. It would be rather
unusual in the U.S. for an institution with
just one or two such divisions to be called
a university.
Professional schools (with the
exception of engineering) only admit
students who have completed their “un-
dergraduate studies,” namely those who
have earned a B.A. or B.Sc. degree. The
“major” in undergraduate studies may
have some importance, but it is certainly
not decisive. One can major in English
or Philosophy and nevertheless be ad-
mitted to medical school or law school;
admission to a sociology Ph.D. program,
in my experience. Sociology undergradu-
ate majors are often not particularly de-
manding, so majors in mathematics or
even in engineering or physics were often
viewed with great sympathy by admission
committees.
tytuł działu rozwinięcie tematu
Engineering is an exception. Schools
of engineering usually do not require an
undergraduate degree. In my view, this has
a lot to do with the relatively low prestige
of engineering in the U.S. Historically, oth-
er professional schools – even medicine or
law – were open to high school graduates,
but more prestigious schools began to re-
quire some undergraduate background,
and as far as I can tell, prestigious medical
and law schools now demand a full, four-
year B.A. or B.Sc. There is a similar trend
in Australia, which follows the British
model, where one can enroll in medicine
after high school. But some new universi-
ties, like Flinders University, have adopted
the U.S. model and demand a full under-
graduate degree.
Unlike France or Germany, where
engineering is the most prestigious occu-
pation, engineering prestige is low in the
U.S.; some plumbers or electricians like
to be called engineers. In France, higher
ranking public servants – even if they are
economists or lawyers, prefer to be called
“Mr. Engineer.” Some schools of engi-
neering, for instance MIT or California
Institute of Technology, are ranked
among the leading universities, but both
MIT and CalTech have developed their
“colleges” to become major places of re-
search in the sciences, and even in the
social sciences and humanities.
The key point is that the institu-
tional design of U.S. universities offers
exceptional mobility. Students with poor
high school grades may be able to trans-
fer into the best universities if they per-
20
form exceptionally well during two years
of instruction, and students whose initial
interest may have been in the humanities
can shift to the sciences at graduate level
and vice versa.
Liberal arts
education
When students enter college, they do not
declare their majors. It is only at the end
of the second or at the beginning of the
third year that students begin to major in
“economics,” “chemistry,” etc. For the first
two years, students are expected to take
“general education” courses often driven
by some interdisciplinary problem or
concern, and they have to fulfill certain
“breadth requirements” of courses in all
of the four major divisions. In addition,
the emphasis throughout all four years
is not on memorization but on critical
thinking, depth, and undergraduate re-
search. Students are therefore required to
take relatively few courses. One can earn
a B.A. or B.Sc. with just 32-36 courses. A
typical course is worth 4 course credits,
so in four years one must earn128-136
credits. In the Bologna system, students
are required to fulfill 180 credits to grad-
uate in three years. U.S. students usually
take four courses per semester and need
the dean’s permission if they want to take
a fifth course. This permission is usually
granted only to students who perform
exceptionally well. Furthermore, students
also have to take courses outside their
majors in the last two years. Typically,
one-third of courses are in their majors,
one-third in general education, and one-
third are electives.
Those who complete a major with
twelve to fourteen courses in that disci-
pline at a U.S. university are not special-
ists, of course; they are not “economists,”
or “biologists.” The extent of the “return
on education” they have is disputed
among economists, sociologists, and
scholars of education. Unemployment
among college graduates is much lower
than unemployment among those who
complete only high school. Nevertheless,
some analysts suggest that 50% of col-
lege graduates either do not get jobs after
graduation or are overqualified for the
jobs they have. It of course depends on
what is meant by job skills. Undoubtedly,
most U.S. college graduates – there are
exceptions, in the sciences or economics
– do not have the technical knowledge
they need to perform their jobs. Many do
gain the “cultural capital,” that employers
may value, like better writing skills. They
know how to communicate with stran-
gers and how to adapt to new situations.
An employer may prefer a college gradu-
ate over a high school graduate not be-
cause she has more technical know-how,
but because her education will enable her
to perform better in any job.
In the better liberal art colleges and
in the best research universities, there is
also a great deal of emphasis on under-
VIsegrad insight 2 (6) | 2014

graduate research. The best programs
– four year colleges or research univer-
sities – are “honor colleges,” they expect
students to complete their studies with
an independent piece of work, called a
“capstone project” or “senior thesis.” At
Princeton and Yale, for instance, most
majors require such a thesis, and students
in their last year of studies work in semi-
nars with a small number of students un-
der the supervision of the best research
faculty. Some such honors research can
be outstanding. I once hired a young fac-
ulty member at UCLA who was an hon-
ors student at Columbia University, and
published his senior thesis with Oxford
University Press.
Given the excessive tuition burden,
I would not venture to claim that invest-
ment in an undergraduate degree can be
recovered in one’s life-time earnings. In
most cases, it probably cannot. But a B.A.
or B.Sc. is an entry ticket into graduate
education, and with a M.A. degree or
Ph.D. there is a good return on educa-
tion (it also depends on which institution
grants the degree).
The following is a very important
feature of the U.S. tertiary education sys-
tem: the Bologna agreement created a
3+2+3 system. This strikes me as a poor
compromise between the traditional
continental and the U.S. system. In the
continental system, one could expect
graduates to have substantial exper-
tise with a five-year degree. Now, in the
Bologna system, students have to declare
a major on day one, but three years is not
enough to become a “specialist.” At the
same time, however, they are too spe-
cialized to get a “liberal arts education.”
These are “half cooked products.” It could
be argued that they become experts in the
two-year M.A. program, but to achieve
this and a Ph.D. in three years requires a
major compromise on what the M.A. is.
If the M.A. is vocationally oriented, it is
poor preparation for an academically ori-
ented Ph.D. The U.S. system offers a neat
solution: the few applicants who are ad-
mitted to an academically oriented Ph.D.
program are directly accepted without a
prior M.A. They will have five years to
complete their programs, and in the first
two years they will earn an “on-route”
M.A., in which they gain the theoretical
and research skills that academics need.
Those who are vocationally oriented can
instead apply to highly specialized and
professionally oriented M.A. programs
(these tend to be “terminal” programs
 21
View publication stats
that offer applied skills and would not
count towards a Ph.D.). In my view, the
future for U.S. education rests with com-
bined B.A./M.A. programs. Currently,
there are few programs like this, but they
are likely to become more popular. In
such programs, students in their third
year of college can apply for an M.A.; if
accepted, some of the coursework they
do in their fourth year counts toward the
M.A., which may then be reduced to a
one-year program (offering professional
skills).
Concluding
remarks
European critics of the U.S. system often
claim that college is just extended high
school, compensating for the poor quality
of U.S. high schools. This is fundamen-
tally false, but there is a kernel of truth to
it. Yes, there are some very bad Ameri-
can high schools, but there are also some
formidably good ones. Those from bad
high schools tend to end up in commu-
nity colleges; to get into the Ivy Leagues,
one should have gone to a “prep-school,”
which may be as good as the best gym-
nasium. Are those attending four-year
colleges just wasting their time with four
more years of high school? In some cases
– at less privileged colleges or universi-
ties – yes. But in better institutions, ab-
solutely not. My colleague at Yale, Bob
Shiller, has just received the 2014 Nobel
Prize for economics. He teaches the un-
dergraduate introduction to the financial
market course. Just google “Open Yale”
and type in “Bob Shiller” to watch his
videotaped lectures. Is this high school
teaching? You decide. True, not every in-
structor at Yale is Bob Shiller and not all
U.S. colleges or universities are Yale. But
there are many excellent institutions that
recruit high quality research and produc-
tive members of faculty.
In some ways, the college is an ex-
tension of high school, but arguably in a
good sense. Knowledge has exploded in
the twenty-first century and four years of
high school education – no matter how
good – simply cannot provide enough
general education. Even more important-
ly, it is a mistake to force young people
to make decisions about their vocation
at the age of fourteen, or even at eight-
een. Give them more time: the result
will be people more satisfaction with
New Economy in New Europe EUROPE
their lives and people better prepared as
professionals.
I strongly that believe that the U.S.
system of liberal arts education and its
combination with specialized, vocation-
ally oriented M.A. programs and very
selective but research oriented five-year
Ph.D. programs is a better system than
the 3+2+3 Bologna system. The Bologna
system started off in the right direction
but made too many compromises, and its
implementation was even worse than the
initial idea.
I have spent thirty-five years of my
life teaching in the American system, so
of course I have to like it or concede that
I have wasted my life. There are certainly
big problems with the U.S. system, but it
is at least an institutionally open system,
with many high quality institutions. It
remains to be seen whether it is sustain-
able. It is a very expensive system and it
is becoming less and less affordable as
we speak. Between 1980 and 2010, the
cost of living increased threefold, medi-
cal expenses sixfold, and tuition tenfold.
The size (and salaries) of university bu-
reaucracies are out of control and mind-
less competition for academic superstars
are driving their hiring costs through the
roof. Taxpayers are increasingly reluctant
to contribute to these expenses. UCLA is
a “public” university. In 1978, 37% of its
budget came from the State of California.
It is currently down to 10% or less.
U.S. universities are going “global.”
About 700,000 foreign students (many
from among China’s new elite) study in the
U.S. and pay full tuition. Many U.S. univer-
sities send their students abroad to study
for a year – in countries where the cost of
education is a fraction of that in the U.S.
Is this system sustainable? I hope so,
although I am afraid it probably is not.
The author is William Graham Sumner Emeritus
Professor of Sociology and Political Science,
Yale University.