Liberal Arts and the Laffer Curve

It’s funny when you read two completely different things and they generate a mashup of an idea.

As part of my regular reading in higher education news, I came across the following article: “Valediction for the Liberal Arts” by Victor Ferall Jr., who is also the author of Liberal Arts at the Brink. The book discusses the decline of the liberal arts and its replacement by vocational, career-oriented majors and professional programs. His present article says: “As the book’s title suggested, I thought the future of liberal arts education was bleak, but not hopeless. Now, I believe I was too optimistic.”

Ferrall argues that with the influx of students funded through the G.I. Bill, that the motivation for attending college moved towards career training and preparation as the path to a better life. Conversely, “taking liberal arts courses seemed a waste of time and money.” To sustain themselves (and grow), colleges and universities began to offer more vocational and career-oriented options. In surveying the national mood, Ferrall quotes prominent voices in the U.S. pushing for more job-skills related training in education: “If higher education fails to focus on occupational training, it will damage the nation’s economic future.”

The conclusion is bleak: “If liberal arts college leaders are unable or unwilling to undertake an organized campaign to educate all Americans – not just high school seniors and their parents but also the high school counselors; business leaders; friends and neighbors; local, state, and national government officials; and countless others who now urge students to study something directly connected to getting a job and not waste their time on the liberal arts – it seems highly likely no one will. There no longer is reason to believe the decline of liberal arts education will be stayed or reversed.” Ferrall states that he has not seen higher education leaders come together to prevent the liberal arts from going over the brink. I’ve only taken some snippets from the article, so you should read the full article on Inside Higher Education if you’re interested. Some of the comments in the article are thoughtful and well-worth reading too.

What is interesting is that the opposite mood is seen in Asia with several nations both large and small vying to be educational hubs (in many senses of the word). Governments in some of the Persian Gulf states and smaller countries in Southeast Asia have put in a lot of money to attract “Western” institutions (i.e. primarily North America and Europe, although Australia is becoming a big player too) to set up shop. The strategies are highly varied among these hubs – some are education hubs, some are talent hubs, some are knowledge-innovation hubs (to use the typology in Jane Knight’s International Education Hubs). The heavyweights, India and China, are also getting into the game. In China, the new “outposts” of NYU-Shanghai and Duke-Kunshan have hit the news recently. India is a particularly interesting case where private donors have started Ashoka University, which seeks to “to provide a liberal education on par with the best universities around the world.” The rationale behind this is the belief that the American-style liberal arts education will foster the creativity needed for the next generation to bring economic (and whatever other) success to the nation and solve the complex problems of the world. At least that’s the pitch you will hear. (As a faculty member employed at a liberal arts college, I’m very good at giving the same pitch.)

This brings me to a book I am currently reading: How Not To Be Wrong by Jordan Ellenberg, a mathematician who is also an engaging and entertaining writer. If I had read his book when I was a college student, I probably would have signed up to be a Math major, and I might have enjoyed my Real Analysis class, which was probably the wrong first math class to take in college. (I did not know what was going on most of the time.) Ellenberg reminded me of why Cauchy convergence was both interesting and important. (Yes, I actually remember that from my math class. Apparently I must have learned something.)

In the first chapter, Ellenberg introduces the Laffer Curve. The chapter is titled “Less Like Sweden” and has a graph that puts Libertopia and Black Pit of Socialism at opposing ends of a line. Increasing prosperity and decreasing Swedishness is linked to Libertopia. On the other hand increasing Swedishness and decreasing prosperity is linked to Socialism. USA is nearer the Libertopian end but trying to move a bit more towards socialism; Sweden is on the Socialist end but trying to move towards Libertopia. Doesn’t that seem ridiculous? The illustration is motivated by a blog with the provocative title “Why is Obama Trying to Make America More Like Sweden when Swedes Are Trying to Be Less Like Sweden?”

The point Ellenberg tries to make is that Linear thinking can lead to mistakenly juxtaposing two categories as being diametrically opposed to each other and that there is only one clear direction to move along the line. One way is better, the other is worse, depending on what you’re aiming for. I’ve decided to try drawing similar graphs to Ellenberg’s based on Ferrall’s bleak analysis of the liberal arts here in the U.S. and the contrasting interest in Asia where the education has primarily been strongly vocational, career-oriented and emphasizing specialization early. A liberal arts education advocates specializing later and having more breadth.

 

But what if the relationship was not a line but a curve? Here’s my version of the Laffer curve that might explain why the U.S. is moving in one direction and Asia is moving in the other. Now, I don’t actually know what the relationship is between national economic prosperity and the type of education. It might not look like a Laffer curve. It’s likely to be much more complicated and certainly more multi-dimensional.

So what should you do? Well, as a scientist at a liberal arts college, I will say tongue-in-cheek that your best bet is to major in science at a liberal arts college. It’s the best of both worlds! That’s where you can be at the peak of the Laffer curve. You get the breadth and you get the technical skills. Okay, let’s be a little more serious. Maybe what a nation-state needs is an array of different kinds of educational institutes. Vocational programs are good for some students; liberal arts programs are good for others. Career-oriented majors are a good fit for some students; a broader interdisciplinary education is a good fit for others. Perhaps there is no one-size fits all, although I’m inclined towards the idea that some exposure to the liberal arts is a good thing regardless of institutional type. This does not have to be at the tertiary level, in fact one might argue that it should happen earlier given that in most countries, a university education may be out of reach.