Topic: The Critical Need for Liberal Education

[LadyVirginia]

Or, why Rush Limbaugh should not have said what he said yesterday.

My daughter sent me a link to another column by Dr. Birzer about education. She had him for two classes at Hillsdale College and follows all his postings across the internet.  If you recall I linked to his article last week titled Liberal Education and Christian Humanism here:   http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,3579.0.html

Until my children reached high school I too looked askance at "liberal arts" learning.  I had no idea what it was!  In our home school for high school my children read books I 'd never been introduced to in school including The Iliad of Homer; The Odyssey of Homer; Aeschylus, The Oresteian Trilogy; Sophocles, The Theban Tragedies and Great Dialogues of Plato.

Quoting from the course catalog where we purchased the books:

 "It introduces the student to the foundational works of Greek literature and Western culture, as well as to the study of genres and literary forms. The texts of antiquity are studied for their universal appeal to the human experience, as well as for their influence upon the great thinkers and development of the West. The Greek epics, plays, and philosophy are referenced throughout the literary and intellectual works of Western thinkers to this day."

They also read Herodotus: The Histories; Thucydides: The History of the Peloponnesian War; Plutarch, The Rise and Fall of Athens: Nine Greek Lives and Xenophon: The Persian Expedition.

Quoting from the same catalog:

"This course will enable the student to observe the timelessness of human relations and the similarities of man’s responses to the conditions in which he finds himself, across time periods; discover the similarities of and difference between ancient Greek and Christian ideas of virtue; trace the cause and effect of political developments in the ancient world and, by extension, in the modern; identify the periods of ancient history and major characters of the period; become familiar with the map of the ancient world and the seeds of modern conflicts; and relate modern historical situations and documents to their ancient antecedents."

This the same type of liberal arts education that's offered at Hillsdale College.  They don't have women's studies or the  history of tv, etc, etc.  Sure you can be an accounting major or biology major but you must take core liberal arts classes for the first two years.


My twenty-something daughter sent me Dr. Birzer latest observations with this email:

Unlike Dr. Birzer, I do like Rush most of the time. However, Rush's comment about the uselessness of studying the classics is in line with other unfortunate comments I have seen conservatives make. There seem to be a couple of strains in the conservative movement when it comes to education. One group believes in the importance of a classical and great books education--education for the purpose of discovering the good, the true, and the beautiful. The other group believes that a liberal arts education is worthless--that most people are better off learning a trade. Unfortunately, the New Left of the Sixties did a lot of damage to the reputation of a liberal arts education by introducing various "studies" (peace studies, women's studies, etc). I think it is for that reason that many conservatives today are suspicious of the liberal arts. Nevertheless, any student who honestly engages with classical or other great texts will be exposed to timeless truths. Therefore, it is a big mistake to tell someone not to study the classics.

Birzer asks in the article:

Yesterday, as Christopher Perrin has reported it, Rush Limbaugh berated a person for having majored in “classical studies.”

<snip>

If Mr. Limbaugh doesn’t recognize the importance of the liberal arts and classical studies, what does he hope to conserve with his conservatism?
 
From what little of I know of Limbaugh, I know he speaks affectionately of the Founding Fathers.  But, of course, the majority of Founding Fathers were classically educated.  It would have been impossible to have had an American Founding without the classics.

Read the rest here: LINK
A link to Rush's comments are included at that site.

[Predator Don]

I have no issue with studying Greek Lit or classical literature......I do have an issue with those who spend mountains of money in this field, can't find a job and now expect me to pay for thier education.  This needs to be a part of the educational experience and frankly, needs to be something you enjoy for your life.....

But it ain't gonna pay the bills.....so Rush had a point...he could have structured it better, but it is a worthless major in regards to making money.

[Pandora]

I have no issue with studying Greek Lit or classical literature......I do have an issue with those who spend mountains of money in this field, can't find a job and now expect me to pay for thier education.  This needs to be a part of the educational experience and frankly, needs to be something you enjoy for your life.....

But it ain't gonna pay the bills.....so Rush had a point...he could have structured it better, but it is a worthless major in regards to making money.

Agreed, as a minor, because spending $80K on Classical Studies as a major certainly does introduce "the student to the foundational works of Greek literature and Western culture, as well as to the study of genres and literary forms. The texts of antiquity are studied for their universal appeal to the human experience, as well as for their influence upon the great thinkers and development of the West. The Greek epics, plays, and philosophy are referenced throughout the literary and intellectual works of Western thinkers to this day."

... and ...

"enable the student to observe the timelessness of human relations and the similarities of man’s responses to the conditions in which he finds himself, across time periods; discover the similarities of and difference between ancient Greek and Christian ideas of virtue; trace the cause and effect of political developments in the ancient world and, by extension, in the modern; identify the periods of ancient history and major characters of the period; become familiar with the map of the ancient world and the seeds of modern conflicts; and relate modern historical situations and documents to their ancient antecedents."

.... but unless one intends to find employment teaching it as well, it doesn't pay the bills.

[LadyVirginia]

Maybe we need to rethink the purpose of a college education. Is it supposed to be an education or job training?

Studying the humanities can actually make one quite prepared for a job, but it's a question of marketing oneself. Studying classics, history, English, etc. enables a person to think and to write--very important qualities for just about any job out there. I cannot cite an actual source, but I have read elsewhere that a lot of top CEOs were actually English majors, not business majors. I've also read that in the 1980s companies like IBM recruited classics majors. They did this because they believed anyone could be taught how to program a computer (being something learned through training), but not everyone could think. They wanted to get the brightest, most educated people and then give them the specific training they would need for the job. (Companies have recruited from Hillsdale for the same reason.  They wanted people who could think.)

This problem really is a result of the push for certification, etc. It is now in the minds of both students and employers that one must have taken some type of classes that taught job training in order to work in that field. That is not how it should be.

For what does a job-specific major prepare one? The answer--that job and little else. Someone who only takes accounting, for example is not going to be in a position make a career change easily without additional education. On the other hand, someone who studies history or classics has a firm foundation to explore a variety of career options because they can think. 

There is a common misconception that the liberal arts consists of only the humanities. This is not true. Science and math also play an equal role in a true liberal arts education because the good, the true, and the beautiful are also found there.

[Pandora]

Maybe we need to rethink the purpose of a college education. Is it supposed to be an education or job training?

It's both, which is why I believe one needs a major in bill-paying and a minor in the classics.

Studying the humanities can actually make one quite prepared for a job, but it's a question of marketing oneself. Studying classics, history, English, etc. enables a person to think and to write--very important qualities for just about any job out there. I cannot cite an actual source, but I have read elsewhere that a lot of top CEOs were actually English majors, not business majors. I've also read that in the 1980s companies like IBM recruited classics majors. They did this because they believed anyone could be taught how to program a computer (being something learned through training), but not everyone could think. They wanted to get the brightest, most educated people and then give them the specific training they would need for the job. (Companies have recruited from Hillsdale for the same reason.  They wanted people who could think.)

Apparently, companies do not want to spend the additional money training in computer-programming today, or computer-related skills.  The technology is not what it was in the 80's either; seems it got a lot more complicated and a crash-course, even when one is trained to think, is not enough.  Also, one does not leave college now with a wealth of offers to become CEO; usually one has experience elsewhere first.

This problem really is a result of the push for certification, etc. It is now in the minds of both students and employers that one must have taken some type of classes that taught job training in order to work in that field. That is not how it should be.

Well, that's how it is.  Plus, keep in mind, college educations are marketed as tickets to the big bucks, but a degree in the Humanities or Classics is not a certification for anything, as today's young people are discovering.  A Cisco Certification, for instance (certain computer-related fields) costs thousands and takes months to acquire.

For what does a job-specific major prepare one? The answer--that job and little else. Someone who only takes accounting, for example is not going to be in a position make a career change easily without additional education. On the other hand, someone who studies history or classics has a firm foundation to explore a variety of career options because they can think. 

There is a common misconception that the liberal arts consists of only the humanities. This is not true. Science and math also play an equal role in a true liberal arts education because the good, the true, and the beautiful are also found there.

That's why a well-educated person needs both -- the job training and the other.

[/quote]

[Predator Don]

Maybe we need to rethink the purpose of a college education. Is it supposed to be an education or job training?

Studying the humanities can actually make one quite prepared for a job, but it's a question of marketing oneself. Studying classics, history, English, etc. enables a person to think and to write--very important qualities for just about any job out there. I cannot cite an actual source, but I have read elsewhere that a lot of top CEOs were actually English majors, not business majors. I've also read that in the 1980s companies like IBM recruited classics majors. They did this because they believed anyone could be taught how to program a computer (being something learned through training), but not everyone could think. They wanted to get the brightest, most educated people and then give them the specific training they would need for the job. (Companies have recruited from Hillsdale for the same reason.  They wanted people who could think.)

This problem really is a result of the push for certification, etc. It is now in the minds of both students and employers that one must have taken some type of classes that taught job training in order to work in that field. That is not how it should be.

For what does a job-specific major prepare one? The answer--that job and little else. Someone who only takes accounting, for example is not going to be in a position make a career change easily without additional education. On the other hand, someone who studies history or classics has a firm foundation to explore a variety of career options because they can think.  

There is a common misconception that the liberal arts consists of only the humanities. This is not true. Science and math also play an equal role in a true liberal arts education because the good, the true, and the beautiful are also found there.

I believe your post strengthens the idea this should be a minor instead of your major. All you said is true...so if your minor is educational and your major is job related, it is a win/
win.


oops, sorry Pan. You are quicker to the post.

[IronDioPriest]

I haven't listened to Rush's critique. But the chatter I've heard on the subject over the past weeks has centered around the futility of going into debt for $100K on an education in some field that gives one little to no hope of being able to repay the loan. This has been eloquently highlighted by the OWS crowd who seem incredulous that their degrees in History, English, Queer Studies, Women's Studies, or Social Justice not only fails to place them in the 1%, but they can't get a job outside teaching their major if at all.

[Glock32]

I agree with the thrust of LV's argument. There is a continuous debate about the merits of theory vs. practice when it comes to the purpose of education. The Left have done much to sully the word "theory" and I think that is unfortunate not simply because of the intellectual garbage it foists on us in the name of scholasticism, but also because it encourages a certain tendency of anti-intellectualism on the Right. Limbaugh's dismissive assessment of the worth of formally studying the Classics is an example, one that I found a bit disappointing, though I ultimately blame the Left since it is they who have created this popular foil: academia as a font of self-mockery.

I am of the opinion that academia exists (or should exist) to promote study and research, including things that are not necessarily connected to any particular economic utility. That is why academic institutions are so often non-profit and sustained by endowments. Where else is someone going to find employment researching theoretical mathematics or theoretical physics? Theory begets practice. We would have no Cisco routers if not for research into such esoteric fields as discrete mathematics decades and even centuries ago, by people who, in their own lifetimes, produced very little of tangible value. They contributed to the body of human knowledge and I am glad they didn't end up doing bookkeeping or shoeing horses instead.

Naturally I am not saying this should mean that Little Susie and Johnny Junior should be able to go to State U. and spend 4 (or 5, 6, 8) years studying Environmental Activism Through Cross-Cultural Interpretive Dance on your dime, while expecting to land a 6 figure salary at a government agency or non-profit afterward. That's the mockery the Left have made of academia. But it should not, likewise, be reduced to a glorified program of training-by-rote for some given economic activity.

[Pandora]

Sorry, no.  Spend 4 years and multiple thousands of dollars and come out of the insitution with no marketable skills?

What then?  Another 4 years and $80 on either yours or a company's dime learning application?

No.

Where else is someone going to find employment researching theoretical mathematics or theoretical physics? Theory begets practice. We would have no Cisco routers if not for research into such esoteric fields as discrete mathematics decades and even centuries ago, by people who, in their own lifetimes, produced very little of tangible value. They contributed to the body of human knowledge and I am glad they didn't end up doing bookkeeping or shoeing horses instead.

The aforementioned "someones" had applicable skills while doing their research.  Today, we can no longer afford to feed, clothe and shelter the stricly theorists and you've stated so yourself.

[Alphabet Soup]

As a frequent Rush listener I remember hearing him saying this and thinking to myself "Oh oh - he's gonna catch hell for that one!"

I think he was just sloppy in his presentation and didn't so much mean "Classical Studies" or "Liberal Education" as he did "Majoring in Womyn's Studies" and the like (just an impression that I get from the theme of many of his monologues).

The fact is that someone has to learn this stuff if for no other reason than to carry it forward. But majoring in it ain't gonna make you a rack star (says the guy who didn't obtain a Liberal Education or study Classic Literature).

Rush's complaint is similar to the Sam Kinison skit I mentioned a few months back - you know, the one where he talked about the starving poor in Africa and the endless aid missions to feed them. Kinison's response? "Move to where the food is!" (Oh, oh, Oooooooh!).

What kind of numb-nutz would invest that much in an education without determining its potential?

Obviously a leftist numb-nutz...

[Glock32]

Sorry, no.  Spend 4 years and multiple thousands of dollars and come out of the insitution with no marketable skills?

What then?  Another 4 years and $80 on either yours or a company's dime learning application?

No.

Where else is someone going to find employment researching theoretical mathematics or theoretical physics? Theory begets practice. We would have no Cisco routers if not for research into such esoteric fields as discrete mathematics decades and even centuries ago, by people who, in their own lifetimes, produced very little of tangible value. They contributed to the body of human knowledge and I am glad they didn't end up doing bookkeeping or shoeing horses instead.

The aforementioned "someones" had applicable skills while doing their research.  Today, we can no longer afford to feed, clothe and shelter the stricly theorists and you've stated so yourself.

I'm not really even talking about who should have to pay for it. I'm talking about what the "it" should even be. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the Marxists had not seized upon education as their vehicle of choice to breed the sort of generations we now see defecating in Zucotti Park. The driver of the debate is that education has become so exorbitantly expensive, outpacing inflation easily, and that explosion in cost is predictably due to state intervention -- the consequences of which are then cited as an argument for yet more intervention. This is the next big bubble about to burst in the economy.

Who would care if someone wanted to major in Classical Studies, if they were paying for it with their own money? And would that student care about having to pay with their own money, if the cost of education had not ballooned so dramatically? This is the same basic scenario seen in medicine now. When the payer is decoupled from the payee, the introduction of that third party makes costs go up and efficiency down.

[IronDioPriest]

Aren't a lot of the things university students learn nowadays under the "liberal arts" banner things that used to be taught in high school? I am a product of the 70s, so I claim no knowledge or authority - we got the worst of the liberal experiment in education. But I've heard folks older than me talk about studying classic literature, history, and philosophy - some of the things LadyV mentioned in her initial post - in high school.

[RickZ]

Maybe we need to rethink the purpose of a college education. Is it supposed to be an education or job training?

It's both, which is why I believe one needs a major in bill-paying and a minor in the classics.

Ya know, thinking about it, just about the only places one learns a marketable skill with a grounding in the classics are military schools.

I'm sure some Ivy Leaguers will blanch at the thought.

[ToddF]

What's to stop someone from getting a degree in something useful, then studying whatever they want, later, as a hobby?

I have problems with running up debt for two years, taking stuff that won't help you find a way to start supporting yourself.  That's the primary way that the higher education racket has gotten us to where we are today.

We don't need everyone going to college today fluent in Greek Lit.  We need everyone going to college today, coming out capable of supporting themselves.

[LadyVirginia]

I've enjoyed reading the comments. 

A few things crossed my mind.  I have to say I am stuck on what the purpose of education is and specifically a college education.  If it job-training then I think we could dispense with the charade we have now in public schooling and just get on with the job training.  It probably would be more successful and cost a whole lot less than pretending we want children to be knowledgeable about great literature, writers and historical events.  The schools haven't passed that along very well for a long time.

I think perhaps it would be helpful to understand the purpose of public education is this country.  I suggest reading John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education. One reviewer describes up Mr. Gatto's thesis this way:

Along the way, Mr. Gatto makes it increasingly clear that school’s primary goal is not the education of our children. The author builds his argument for this seemingly counter-intuitive claim with an incredible array of research that documents the interlocking development of big business and forced schooling. He painstakingly points out how the captains of industry in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries - when the basic structures of the education system were being set down - influenced, guided, funded, and at times forced compulsory schooling into the mainstream of American society. Perhaps you’ll recognize their names: Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan, to mention just a few.

Mr. Gatto argues that these emerging corporate titans knew they needed three things in order for their interests to thrive: 1) compliant employees; 2) a guaranteed and dependent population; and 3) a predictable business environment encompassed by a rigid, caste-like social hierarchy of haves and have-nots. It is toward these ends - and not education - that modern compulsory schooling was unleashed.

I would argue that with these goals (and Mr. Gatto makes a compelling case)from which our schools developed there left little room for the classical education and training our forefathers embraced. Mr. Gatto believes the schools are nothing more than job training centers. This way of thinking has been pushed into colleges.  There isn't time to develop an understanding of man's purpose vis-a-vis the great thinkers of the world if a student has to cram in 4 years of various courses in order to prove he or she is qualified for an entry level position.  Then years down the road we wonder how it is that so-called educated people can say the things they say and advocate positions lacking in an understanding of history and economic theory.

I found another writer with some interesting comments regarding Rush's comments:

Lurking behind Limbaugh's remarks were assumptions that real conservatives have no business employing, among which is the idea that the purpose of education is job training. In fact, part of the irony of Limbaugh's remarks here is that he's marching under the same flag as people like Hilary Clinton, whose utilitarian views on cultural issues, including education, Limbaugh claims to despise.

Modern education is a confused and toxic admixture of progressivism and pragmatism. Progressivism is the idea that schools should be used to change the culture, and is on clear display in the political correctness and secular religion of Diversity that infect schools from Kindergarten to college. Pragmatism is the idea that schools should be used to fit students to the present culture, and takes the form primarily of vocationalism.

Many people think that public schools fail at what they try to do. And that is partly true. They do a pretty good job of political indoctrination--a process that is not terribly complicated--but do a pretty poor job making students employable. But the primary problem with schools is that they don't even try to do what they should be trying to do.

The alternative to progressivism and pragmatism is the philosophy of education that preceded them: classical education. The purpose of classical education was neither to change culture through political indoctrination nor to fit children to the culture through vocationalism. The purpose of every school before the advent of John Dewey and others in the late 19th century was to pass on a culture, and one culture in particular: the culture of the Christian West.

read the rest here

I believe the lack of understanding of the culture of the Christian West is rampant and accounts for many of the ills we suffer today. And this is why the culture of Marxism and any other anti-west ideology has appeal because it fills the vacuum left by not knowing our own western culture.

[michelleo]

A good "liberal arts" education should be part of every college degree program.  A clear understanding of human history, the arts, humanities, natural sciences and social sciences is a key part of our cultural intelligence as citizens and informed voters.  Every degree program should have requisite course material that covers this base knowledge, regardless of major. 

The problem with "liberal arts" education today is that too many in academia want to avoid teaching western civilization, and instead focus on a Howard Zinn perspective on western history (white man evil).  As a result, many degreed young people exit college without a true liberal arts education.

In addition to that, there are a lot more people going to college and getting degrees.  In 1967, you had 34% of 18-24 year olds seeking college degrees.  In 2009 you had 49% of 18-24 year olds doing so. 

To employers that means more mediocrity among various liberal arts majors.  So an "english" degree of 40 years meant a lot more than it does today by far.

Compounding the problem is our job market swinging significantly toward more technological fields.  So anymore, you're an idiot spending a fortune to major in a liberal arts degree for which few will hire you.  My advice to anyone who still chooses to do so is to have a gameplan in school in knowing what job you want, determine how to distinguish yourself to employers, network, intern, and get involved in research projects.  that's how I did it.  I was a double major - psychology and geography.  I approached the RAs in the cognitive psychology department and asked to volunteer.  They were more than happy to offload some of their work onto me, and in return I got hands-on experience in conducting experiments.  The volunteer gig turned into a workstudy job, which turned into an R&D job out of college in user interface design at a telecom company.  There's no way that company would have looked at me twice if I applied with just the degree without the connections I made and experience I gained.

[LadyVirginia]

Compounding the problem is our job market swinging significantly toward more technological fields.  So anymore, you're an idiot spending a fortune to major in a liberal arts degree for which few will hire you.  My advice to anyone who still chooses to do so is to have a gameplan in school in knowing what job you want, determine how to distinguish yourself to employers, network, intern, and get involved in research projects.  that's how I did it.  I was a double major - psychology and geography.  I approached the RAs in the cognitive psychology department and asked to volunteer.  They were more than happy to offload some of their work onto me, and in return I got hands-on experience in conducting experiments.  The volunteer gig turned into a workstudy job, which turned into an R&D job out of college in user interface design at a telecom company.  There's no way that company would have looked at me twice if I applied with just the degree without the connections I made and experience I gained.

I would argue that your experience is how it used to be done....you worked your way through and up various jobs and situations to finally arrive at the position you desired.  Today kids leave college thinking they can skip that part and go straight to the job they want.

My grandfather went to work at age 14 (early 20th century).  I would guess he was probably better educated at 14 than the 14 year olds of today.  For the next 50 years he worked for the same company.  I can only imagine that what he was doing at 14 wasn't all that exciting or fulfilling or whatever new age term is popular. By the time he hit his 30's he was in  the engineering department and during his next 30 years with this company was granted at least 19 patents.

Of course, today that wouldn't happen (even if he were to wait until high school graduation).  He would need a degree and probably several.  He received patents for bottling machines.  Was that easier back then as opposed to today?  I doubt it.  I've read some of them and they're pretty complicated and detailed (and he didn't have the benefit of computers).

Today kids go to college and then onto grad school for whatever subject and maybe even farther.  Pretty soon they're looking at 30 and just finishing school. Are they any better off than the way my grandfather did it?  I don't know--except by the age the kids of today are ready for a real job my grandfather had been a working, productive citizen for years and not trapped by a boatload of debt.

[Predator Don]

Michelleo's comment regarding the job market swinging towards technological fields is why we have learning institutions like ITT tech, Devry, U of Phoenix, various nursing schools, etc becoming popular. I'm not endorsing any of these institutions, but isn't this how the market works?

If little liberal jonny and his band of liberal friends do not want to participate in the changing job market and continue to despise capitalism, following thier fearless leader as he funds failing projects in the useless attempt to force his will on the market.....Good luck. We shouldn't be payin' for your stupidity and your whining and crying in your makeshift tent city on town squares.


BTW, get used to living in a tent.

[LadyVirginia]

Additional thoughts from a post at Ricochet.com

Paging Dr. Larry Arnn

I was driving to my gainful employment as a Latin teacher when I heard Rush Limbaugh discussing how worthless a degree in Classical Studies is.  I normally listen to Rush while driving between my private tutoring clients (I own a successful small business) and my duties as a part-time Latin teacher at a preparatory high school. 

I feel compelled to comment on this because, as an alumna of Hillsdale College with a degree in Classical Studies from their first-rate department, I have managed to be a small business owner, author, editor, and teacher in my chosen field.  What prompted Rush to embark on his rant was the incoherent scribbling of a Classical Studies major in the "We are the 99%" notebook.  The author of this gaseous emission was complaining of his/her lack of job prospects and future student loan burden.   Rush is right to scoff at the proliferation of degree programs with the dreadful appendage "studies."  He is even right to suspect the credentials of a graduate with a degree in Classical Studies from a large, public university, as the leadership of most of these departments have utterly abandoned their posts as guardians of the Western tradition and have rushed to give aid and comfort to the barbarians at the gates.  The target of Rush's criticism – a loathsome loser unworthy of calling him/herself a student of the Classics – does indeed deserve the scorn which Rush generously piled on.

But the study of the Western Heritage (including in the original, classical languages) does not deserve that derision.  It is what Hillsdale College exists to defend, along with the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Why does it matter?  Because Rush Limbaugh's endorsement of and frequent on-air commercials for Hillsdale College have been perhaps the most successful marketing campaign that my alma mater has ever attempted.

It was embarrassing for me to listen to Rush's uninformed and utterly juvenile assault on the study of the very thing that he purports to esteem -- Western Civilization.  Granted that many students of Classical Studies are lazy whiners who don't really learn much Latin or Greek; granted that many professors of Classical Studies in this country are liberal shills.  These facts are chronologically relative and are irrelevant to the question of whether the study of the pillars of Western Civilization is worthy of great minds.  I shall not make a list of all the founding fathers who, along with Karl Marx, studied the classics.  The study of the Classics and its role in the education of the founders has been well defended and documented in (former Hillsdale faculty member) Tracy Lee Simmons' Climbing Parnassus.

When Latin lost its place in the curriculum of public schools, there was a corresponding collapse in verbal SAT scores. When did this occur?  Beginning in 1962.  In fact, one could even argue that the exit of Latin from the schools corresponded to the dreaded social and political upheavals of the 1960's.  I won't make that argument, but it's at least worth considering, along with other factors.  There is a utilitarian argument for Latin.  But to make it misses the deeper point about the nature of the mind, its proper cultivation, and the resulting effect on the ability of citizens to be self-governing.

So, Dr. Arnn: are you going to respond?  You are one of the most articulate defenders of the Classical and Judeo-Christian foundations of this nation.  You are a great and beloved teacher.  I think Mr. Limbaugh needs a lesson.

Read Dr. Arnn's response here

[benb61]

Here is my take on it.... This is coming from an un-degreed engineer.

My first objective post high school was to get a job and get out of my mothers house.  I joined the Air Force (prior to graduating high school I attempted to go to the AF Academy, so I attempted to get a free education to achieve this first objective)

After 4 years in the military, I decided that it was time to get a real job (not much call for a B-52 gunner in the real world) and took an entry level job at a grocery store (bagger).  This job was short lived, but I had experience in retail sales for my resume.  Notice that getting an education was not my next objective, but being able to support myself was.  With this experience on my resume, I applied for a job as a night shift clerk/floor scrubber for a small convenience store chain.  Being rather intelligent ( IQ > 160) I soon (within 2 months) was promoted to Shift Manager then (3 months later) to Asst. Manager then when my manager finally completed his degree (in engineering by the way), he suggested that the company promote me to Store Manager (I had worked for the company for less than 1 year).  Hard work and a strong work ethic (thanks mom) propelled me to a comfortable living for a 24 year old.  Over the course of the next 4 years, I took better paying managerial jobs and eventually ended up as a U-Haul Center General Manager, during this time I also went to a local junior college but was not in pursuit of any particular degree (I took classes that interested me).  Then... turmoil.  I had to fire my assistant manager at the U-Haul Center and was at the mercy of the local U-Haul company to get a replacement.  They dragged their feet for 2 months (all the while I was working 7 days/week 10-15 hours/day), I got fed up and quit without any prospects. 

Now I was thinking education... however I didn't have enough savings for something long term, while up late one night I saw an ad on TV "become a draftsman now, enroll at ABC Tech and get your drafting certificate in 6 months".  Short term education but I had to pay my bills (rent, food, utilities, etc.)  so I went to work for a former employer part time in a lesser capacity than manager.  You may notice a theme here "need to stay alive with a roof over my head (that is not free)", I still wanted my independence.

After getting my drafting certificate (including CAD) I applied at all of the major aerospace firms and major sub-tier suppliers.  Within  3 months I was hired by Rohr Industries (a local manufacturer of aircraft nacelles) as a draftsman.  Remember the IQ?  in 1 year I was promoted to Sr. Draftsman, 2 years later to Designer, 2 years later to Engineer. 3 years later to Sr. Engineer.  During my time at Rohr I continued going to junior college, and actually had to drop out of a chemistry class to learn CATIA (company training in an advanced CAD tool), since the 2 classes conflicted.  I figured that learning the advanced CAD tool was more important to my future job growth than chemistry would be.  Now I work for the largest aerospace company in the US (possibly the world) and earn a great living.  My whole life was predicated on being independent and being able to support myself and my family.

I started at the bottom (with no objections) and through hard work and perseverance I made it to a position that I am proud of and can support my family quite well.  Had I done what my friends from high school had done (gone to college paid for by their parents and lived at home while they did it) I may not be where I am now.  On the other hand I may have become an executive at my current employer by this time.

I guess the point I trying to make is that I was not poisoned by higher education, and never expected anything to be handed to me.  I worked for everything I have, and now these idiots think they deserve something for nothing, I don't think so!