Sounds pretty close to a liberal arts education.
That said, not everything is about a job or work. Sometimes (usually) education is itself a goal.
If people want to have an education for the sake of an education they should stop arguing in favor of maximally inflated tuition.
You want the benefits of the consumer good while paying the least amount of money for it.
Meanwhile the standard narrative is that people should be allowed to get into massive unpayable debts that trap them in deadend jobs while people who focus on money end up using their freedom to do the very thing the people who got into debt claim you can only do by getting into debt.
I think it is a uniquely American perspective to automatically assume that worthy (or even just prestigious) education somehow has to cost at least 200k USD financed through life-altering, non-defaultable student loan contracts.
I do understand that the money is not just drained. Whenever I was on an American campus as a student, I was in awe at their extravagant setups. Lots of food, an irritating amount of sports, more like a small resort town than a place to do educational work.
No wonder there is only a very small fraction of the population who would choose to study humanities in such a system. But it says much more about the system than about the humanities or liberal arts.
That's the plan, but it doesn't seem to work out too well.
> not everything is about a job or work
Yes, if you are independently wealthy. Need to pay back those student loans!
The other direction is possible but not so easy.
> fairly easily... not so easy.
Yea, totally, STEM majors are inherently special and better at learning ;)
I learned how to learn by going through STEM.
Also, STEM produces right and wrong answers. If the airplane you design doesn't fly, you cannot pretend that it is flying.
That isn't true with liberal arts. Any failure can be explained away.
I've yet to find a liberal arts grad who even knows what a partial differential equation is.
He won a scholarship to Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1890 and graduated in 1893 with a Bachelor of Arts.
At Cambridge, Russell was introduced to philosophy
It was clear the authors did not expect the econ students to know calculus, and they obfuscated the calculus so they would not scare the students off.
I learnt more about his work from his successors who were / are a mix of philosophy and mathematics majors, the majority fully aware of partial differential equations at the very least.
Of the people my age, there are folks such as Dominic Hyde who majored in liberal arts while studying both math and physics alongside Jerome Gauntlett (who did not major in liberal arts .. although he has acted alongside Nicole Kidman) and others. They all grok PDEs.
Closer to our mutual "home", HN on ycombinator, I understand that Paul Graham, the forum founder and co-creator of the Arc programming language, is yet another liberal arts major who understands what PDE's are.
* https://hpi.uq.edu.au/profile/388/dominic-hyde
* https://profiles.imperial.ac.uk/j.gauntlett
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Graham_(programmer)
It's a wide world, get out and meet more people.
Take a liberal arts class and your reading comprehension may improve.
> knows what a partial differential equation is.
I’ve met a few but tbh that’s a pretty weird way to judge “inherently better”.