Overfunding via federally-guaranteed loans is what led to bloated administrations and tuition fees in the first place, so yes it ought to be rolled back. A lot of the “woke” stuff comes from diversity equity and inclusion staff who are part and parcel of the bloat, and constantly seeking to justify their own position:
>>I think most people would agree that a college education should have some amount of both professional preparedness and abstract learning for its own sake
>You're also begging the question by implying ideological coercion is just "abstract learning."
I'm actually fucking astonished. Peak orange website -- the "liberal" in "liberal arts" doesn't actually refer to a political standpoint. It refers to exposure to a broad selection of Western intellectual tradition, the better to help students become more informed citizens, and to help prevent/allow detection of gross category errors/intentional facetious conflations like the parent post.
> It refers to exposure to a broad selection of Western intellectual tradition
The same Western intellectual tradition that's constantly denounced as the marker of privilege and oppression of non-Western peoples? True liberal arts teaching is almost dead in U.S. academia, it only survives at a few small schools that don't even try to pretend that their curriculum (and indeed, as a rule, their student body as well) isn't "privileged".
You know, the function of Western intellectuals in criticizing the dominant authoritarian ruling class isn't exactly a new phenomenon. In fact, it's baked right in to the literary canon -- an unbroken line can be drawn from Plato's writings of (the possibly fictional!) Socrates; to renaissance-era artists inserting insulting portrayals of religious figures into church ceilings; to Machiavelli, Swift, and Pepys hiding effective, scathing criticism behind faux seriousness and allusion. On and on, Kafka, Orwell, Huxley -- even unto public intellectuals like Feynman or Mr. Rogers testifying before Congress, convincing The Man to do The Right Thing not with strength of arms or legalized bribery, but through reasoned argument, and appeal to the mores and standards that tie our culture together.
Without the prizing of artisan skill, without the sanctity of life, without the gloried explorer, how could Feynman have convinced anyone that we can do better than accepting brittle O-rings and dead astronauts? Without the concept of the fellowship of man, a bunch of ancient Greek philosophy about how to act, and kindergarten-level "sharing is good", how could Mr. Rogers have convinced Congress to fund public television?
How could either public intellectual have managed if their politician, ruling-class audience didn't share the values their arguments drew on?
And, like, listen man, we've been noticing and trying to comment on "privilege and oppression of non-Western peoples" since Moby Dick; Heart of Darkness is only 120 years old.
>True liberal arts teaching is almost dead in U.S. academia, it only survives at a few small schools that don't even try to pretend that their curriculum (and indeed, as a rule, their student body as well) isn't "privileged"
Another thing the study of Western thought enables is the easy recognizance of sophistry like the No True Scotsman fallacy. Note this example doesn't even bother to cover its metaphorical tracks, openly using the word "true" without providing any evidence for the claim, or even a single example of "true" liberal arts teaching.
Broad selection… curated, taught, and graded by people with certain viewpoints which have been increasingly shifting toward the extreme end of one side of the political spectrum (whether they believe it, or are simply playing it safe)… churning out generations of graduates who just happen to come out the other side with the exact same viewpoints and a distinct lack of tolerance for anyone who doesn’t agree with the ideologies they were exposed to.
Yes, and? Conflating wokeness with all that’s good about a liberal arts education per se is what the comment I replied to did, that’s how it begged the question and why I pointed it out. Reading comprehension and understanding of the term “begging the question” are some of the skills I treasure from my own liberal arts education.
Conflating a liberal arts education per se with wokeness is what you've done, by merely asserting that it's so, in your root level comment. That's called "begging the question"!
In that comment, you suggest that colleges' healthy function is "preparing students well for the workforce", and imply there's currently extant failure mode that's "merely puffing them full of the latest political buzzwords" [0]. One doesn't need to explicitly state one's disrespect for the didactic function of post-secondary education, in favour of a purely vocational one; it's clear with a little reading comprehension.
'giraffe_lady's interpretation seems correct, and nor does your reply contest the structure of their comment, which assumes that you believe in what you wrote above about vocational preparation. Now, though, you cudgel me with the suggestion that no, actually, you totally do value the liberal arts, and it's my fault that I didn't hallucinate your support for that position while you argue for workplace prep. I, myself, usually argue in a manner consistent with my own previous views. It's a Western value -- intellectual honesty -- often highlighted in liberal arts coursework.
https://www.fox28spokane.com/study-shows-university-diversit...
You're also begging the question by implying ideological coercion is just "abstract learning."