The conversation about liberal arts and business is more heated than ever and it's coming from many places. Personally, it's a very important question, because I've long since decided that the better thinkers tend to be liberal arts grads. I'd heard that message for years, but after extensive psych and interview evaluations of more than 400 corporate managers and execs in my consulting business, it's obvious. It's also not politically correct to talk about it too much inside the corporation.
Notice, I said "tend to be" the better thinkers. Of course, that's not always true. There are exceptions to every rule. At least I'm consistent. My wife, our three daughters and myself all have liberal arts degrees. Matt Shaffer, a Yale senior, published an article in the Yale Daily News this past Tuesday which I've used for my blog title. In a number of conversations at the Harvard Club and from Yale alumni, he kept hearing Ivy grads from some of the top consulting firms and banks mouth these words: "I haven't used anything that I learned from my economics major." Shaffer suspects economics is one of the most popular majors because it enables you to satisfy the recruiters for your first job. And once you've had those three hiring interviews, supported by your economics major, you'll wish you'd studied Renaissance literature or philosophy. That'll give you a far richer understanding of the world in which you work and live.
Shaffer's conclusions are straightforward: Taking 'Financial Theory' won't actually make us better bankers, but by familiarizing us with financial jargon and proving our genuine interest in the trade, it might give us an edge in the initial hiring. In other words, it won't make any difference in how we perform in our jobs, but it might determine whether or not we get the jobs in the first place.
WSJ is publishing a series of articles by Stephen Yoder and son Isaac, who's starting his freshman year at a liberal arts college. In the latest article, son Isaac is writing about registering for classes and wondering whether he should follow his father's advice to branch out and take courses from professors with the best reputation.
He also writes that it doesn't set one up very well for a paying post-college career. Furthermore, in somewhat frustrated tone he announces that his advisor hasn't said a word about the courses that would help him get a job later. Having been a university teacher 25 years ago, I could tell him that most college teachers don't know beans about the business world. That's not their job, but . . . .
The comments, of course, are split down the middle. On one side of the issue a commenter tells him that he should go ahead and get a philosophy major, that he can do whatever he wants with it. (None of the writers seem to know the research showing that executives with undergrad philosophy majors are among the best paid in business.) On the other side of the column are those who indicate that by the time Isaac's in college he should know exactly what career he'll be going into after college, and should take courses in preparation for that career. (What planet are they living on? Boomers have extended their kids' adolescence so long that even if the recommendation is correct, which I seriously doubt, few Gen-Yers will be concerned about their career until at least their senior year in college.) No surprise to me that the argument is heated. It's driven strongly by the economic climate.
A couple weeks ago, Drew Faust, president of Harvard, stepped into the fray, but from the perspective of university purpose, a macro perspective. Her perspective, both historical and contemporary, adds needed insight.
The economic downturn has had what is perhaps an even more worrisome impact. It has reinforced America’s deep-seated notion that a college degree serves largely instrumental purposes.
Faust takes a perspective, that though historical and desperately needed, is rarely heard within the business context any longer. It causes me to ask whether the liberal arts has become an elitist orientation.
In the era of economic constraint before us, the pressure toward vocational pursuits is likely only to intensify. As a nation, we need to ask more than this from our universities. Higher learning can offer individuals and societies a depth and breadth of vision absent from the inevitably myopic present. Human beings need meaning, understanding and perspective as well as jobs. The question should not be whether we can afford to believe in such purposes in these times, but whether we can afford not to.
My protege, Liam O'Dea, has taken a similar argument and placed it within his own successful work experience. He argues that it is the power tool for success.
My bias is clear, and I think the facts are on this side of the discussion. I "tend" to prefer my liberal arts friends. Of course, you could say that's the old birds of a feather flock together rule.
Question: What do you think about it?
