Why Choose the Liberal Arts? Book

Roche is an expert in German literature and philosophy who has held just about every kind of academic position there is. Roche makes a case not just for keeping liberal arts programs in universities, but also for bolstering these programs and actively seeking students to get liberal arts majors. Roche's argument in favor of the liberal arts follows two paths. One is to counter the argument that universities should supply narrowly focused degrees for the sake of instrumental value, and the other is to highlight what Roche believes are "higher" intrinsic values that the liberal arts have which career-oriented programs do not have. Roche makes a compelling case that the common idea that a degree in English or something like it is "useless" and leads only either to teaching or low-end employment is just plain wrong. He cites many studies showing exactly the opposite, that plenty of businesses are actively seeking liberal arts graduates and that when liberal arts graduates enter business and the professions, they tend to do better in the long run than their business-major counterparts, even if the liberal arts majors have a lesser start. Roche's main focus, however, is on the "higher" intrinsic value of liberal arts education. Here, he is on somewhat shakier ground. Roche argues that a well thought-out liberal arts program provides students with meaning and value in their lives that narrow-focus degrees not only do not provide, but actively seek to avoid. Roche argues that in directing students to ask the "big questions," getting them to think critically, and increasing their sensitivity to the personal and social obligations that come with university education, the liberal arts programs give students necessary lessons in character formation. That all seems reasonable enough. However, Roche in the latter stages of the book when he is pitching his case to the fullest in these areas, adds to all this a religious dimension. It becomes clear that Roche, a strongly believing Catholic, firmly thinks that only a religiously based liberal arts education can accomplish all this. He falls for the fallacy that religion inherently provides a moral base, indeed in his mind the only legitimate moral base, from which character can develop. If students are not "spiritual" and not correctly oriented toward believing that "God" is the ultimate end of all endeavor, then, according to Roche, they will lead lives of "alienation" without meaning and purpose. This Catholic dogma injects hogwash, as far as I am concerned, into what otherwise would be a sound approach to thinking about what liberal arts education might do. Roche also provides many anecdotes and ideas about what his ideal liberal arts education might be like. All of it sounds great, if the program is taught fully and exclusively by full-time professors who live on or near the campus. He completely ignores the problem that increasing numbers of courses are being taught by low-paid part-timers who receive little to no support or guidance from the university or department, and have neither the time nor the luxury to invite students to their homes for informal conversations. While these two deficiencies, the "it must be religious (specifically Catholic)" orientation and the complete disregard of adjuncts, strike me as significant, the overall ideals Roche describes are great goals to work for. Roche does make a strong case not only that the liberal arts have a meaningful place in contemporary higher education, but also that they should have a much more prominent place.