This essay argues that a well-rounded liberal arts education — encompassing history, literature, and philosophy — is essential for producing informed, ethical, and engaged citizens. Drawing on commentary from Patrick Buchanan and Jeffery Hart, the paper examines the consequences of over-specialization in American higher education, including historical illiteracy among students and a narrowing of civic values. The essay contends that while professional specialization has clear economic appeal for college students, the broader habits of mind cultivated through the liberal arts are indispensable for responsible public life and democratic participation. Ultimately, it concludes that exposure to courses outside one's major is not merely enriching but necessary for a complete education.
An education that lacks a world view may be more harmful than it first appears. One could reasonably argue that the question of whether a diversified educational background has value depends largely on what one values. There are a multitude of monetary reasons for an incoming freshman to concentrate on a specific field of study and not pursue courses outside their area of emphasis. For one, college is expensive — tuition averages over $13,000 a year at public universities — and indecisiveness, as well as unnecessary credits, can quickly drain a college savings account (Ronan, 2005).
Furthermore, in the modern American world of Enron and Lehman Brothers, where ethical shortcuts are normalized and short-term financial gain is prized, values can seem costly — especially if you want to retire at thirty-five. Yet these attitudes are a result of a deficient understanding of the qualities of citizenship. The question worth asking, then, is whether a liberal arts education might provide the foundation that corrects this deficiency.
The conservative commentator and perennial presidential candidate Patrick Buchanan (2011) points out that of 31,000 students given the National Assessment of Educational Progress — the so-called "Nation's Report Card" — most fourth-graders could not identify a picture of Abraham Lincoln or explain why he was important. A majority of eighth-graders could not name a reason why American forces held an advantage during the Revolutionary War, and most twelfth-graders did not know why America entered World War II or that China was North Korea's ally in the Korean War. Dishearteningly, only 20% of fourth-graders, 17% of eighth-graders, and 12% of twelfth-graders attained a "proficient" score on the test.
Buchanan (2011) believes that recent developments in K–12 curriculum have led to raising young people who are "historically illiterate." Textbooks, he argues, are too concerned with being politically correct: minor historical figures who are currently fashionable receive considerable space, whereas figures of major historical consequence are ignored or not given their due. Jeffery Hart (2006), in an article in National Review, makes much the same point, arguing that the liberal arts and social sciences curriculum since around 1968 has become cluttered "with all sorts of nonsense, nescience, and distraction."
Hart (2006) claims that one reason the undergraduate curriculum at most institutions of higher learning is in chaos is specialization. Since World War II, success as a professor has depended increasingly on specialized publication. The ambitious and talented professor has little incentive to teach introductory or general courses. As Hart puts it, "Neither Socrates nor Jesus, who published nothing, could possibly receive tenure at a first-line university today."
This logic of specialization is also applicable to incoming college students. Many freshmen wonder why someone who wants to be an accountant, psychologist, businessperson, or doctor should study subjects that have nothing directly to do with those fields. That is a reasonable question: why study history, literature, philosophy, or any other subject outside of one's major? Why study any subject that is not directly relevant to the job you are training for?
There are a number of compelling reasons to study history. History helps us understand people and societies, and it illuminates how the society we live in came to be. It is important in our own lives and contributes to moral understanding. History gives us identity and provides information about national institutions, problems, and values. It offers perspectives that are essential for responsible citizenship.
Studying history helps us understand how recent, current, and prospective changes that affect the lives of citizens come about — and what causes are involved. Furthermore, history promotes habits of mind that are essential for responsible public behavior. A person who understands the arc of history is far better equipped to evaluate the claims of politicians, the promises of institutions, and the trajectory of society than one who does not.
"Literature cultivates empathy, judgment, and cultural awareness"
"Philosophy sharpens critical thinking and democratic engagement"
Jeffery Hart believes that "when undergraduates encounter the material of our civilization — that is, the liberal arts — then they know that they are going somewhere. They are becoming citizens." The value of studying the liberal arts lies ultimately in the values it promotes: critical thinking, historical awareness, empathy, and the capacity for meaningful civic participation.
Buchanan, P. J. (2011, June 21). The dumbing-down of America. Human Events. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from
Hart, J. (2006, September 26). How to get a college education. The National Review. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from
Ronan, G. B. (2005, November 11). College freshmen face major dilemma. NBCNews.com. Retrieved March 26, 2013, from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/10154383/ns/business-personal_finance/t/college-freshmen-face-major-dilemma/
You’re 68% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.