Today (11/1/2011) on his radio program, Rush Limbaugh responded to a woman with a classical studies degree who was complaining (via a sign at a protest) that she could not get a job. This led Limbaugh to suggest that perhaps she should not have taken a classical studies degree in the first place, wondering aloud why someone at her college didn’t tell her it was a worthless degree. He then debunked the notion (apparently believed by too many college students) that a college degree of any sort guarantees a high-paying job.
Well. As you might guess, I think studying classical literature and language can be an excellent choice–but not necessarily because it automatically (in quid pro quo fashion) results in a high-paying job. In fact, what is lost in the whole debate is the question about what an education is ultimately for. Is it for getting a good job? Is for preparing us to be efficient workers in the American democracy? Is it for enabling us to make a good deal of money? Or is it primarily for shaping and cultivating our humanity? Some have put the question this way: Is education primarily about making a living or learning how to live?
We Americans are quite pragmatic, and I admit that even as a classical educator and publisher I think a good deal about what practically should happen. But the traditional, classical approach to education which has emphasized the cultivation of a human soul, nourished by the study of truth, goodness and beauty (not too American, eh?) has actually produced extremely practical, capable people. We need only cite the likes of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Adams to make our case. These men could not have helped produce the American Republic had they not been steeped in “classical studies” and yes, even Latin. When we read the Federalist Papers we find regular references to the history and governments of Greece and Rome and classical authors cited in Latin, without translation. These men had cultivated souls. They were classically educated. They were eminently practical.
Today a classical education may not result in a quick hire as a web developer, project manager or accountant. But study the people who have had a good classical education. You will find them leading and serving others. By analogy, study those who have studied English. Yes, you will find some of them waiting on tables (along with some business majors), but you will also find that among fortune 500 companies it is not business but English which is the more common major among company CEOs. It just may be the case that studying literature, language and humanity may just be a terrific preparation for creatively and wisely serving and leading…other humans.
Can we cite a few classically-educated humans? Joe Paterno (who patterned the Nittany Lions after Sparta), J.K. Rowling (now I understand Voldemort and all those spells), J.R.R. Tolkien (who created his own language and world) and Ted Turner (who blew out cable TV). The classically-educated serve well, and have for about a thousand years. Perhaps the most famous CEO of all time (Steve Jobs) repeatedly said that he sought to make Apple the intersection of the liberal arts and technology. Anyone who has used an iPhone, iPad or Mac knows that Apple has wed beauty to technology–and made the use of sophisticated technology in some surprising ways, humanizing. If you love your iPhone, in some measure you can thank the liberal arts.
For your reference: Dana Gioia, the former director of the National Endowment of the Arts, wrote and influential essay called “Can Poetry Matter?” as well as “Business and Poetry.” Both essays make a strong case for liberal studies and practical affairs. See www.danagioia.net. See also this article published by USA Today which suggests that an MBA is not always the best route to business leadership–in the opinion of leading CEOs. See Liberal Arts and College.
Download a free copy of An Introduction to Classical Education (by Christopher Perrin) here.
I wonder if perhaps Rush is reacting to what Hanson, Heath and Thornton wrote about in “Bonfire of the Humanities?” The Classics (and all of the Humanities) have been hijacked by ideology. If you’ve been indoctrinated into a bad worldview that does not correspond to reality, it is hard to imagine that you’d be able to be all that much of a contributor to society. However, this does not excuse the hasty generalization, especially since he’s doing ads for my alma matter, Hillsdale College, where I studied the Humanities (including Latin).
What I find concerning is what Limbaugh left unsaid: Did he take his claim that classical education is “worthless” to be obvious and in no need of defense? That is surely wrong. Whether a classical education better prepares one for an ever changing job market is a non-trivial question. Like Christopher, I believe that it prepares one well. We might be wrong, but we are not trivially wrong. Part of being uneducated is lacking Socratic wisdom, that is, not knowing what one doesn’t know. Limbaugh mistakes a substantive question worthy of serious thought for a mere factual question of the sort one could easily answer by asking an “expert”. This replacement of thought with factual information is one mark of an uneducated mind. This is part of the problem. Those who lack education don’t see the value of what they are missing.
At the risk of committing fallacies that even my children who’ve just begun Art of Argument could spot and shoot down… I find the above to be rather generally the problem with Mr. Limbaugh and his ilk, regardless of political affiliation: say things loudly, with staunch certainty and careful editing, cut commentary off before the questions become too probing, and repeat as necessary until others have picked up the message and repeat it as truth. Or Truth.
My favorite element of a true classical education is that it convinces its student of the need to support one’s thoughts and opinions. Indefensible arguments have no place. One mayn’t make an argument because one “feels like it.” The breadth and depth of rigor thus required of a serious classicist then, in my opinion, far outdoes any other form of education, worthy though those forms may be in their settings. In other words: certain persons’ livelihoods depend on their ability to effectively rile a portion of the population. A classical education isn’t interested in stirring things up for the sake of having stirred, or for money.
And thank you, Dr. Perrin, for this piece and so much more of your work that my family enjoys.
To play the role of “devil’s advocate” I will simply submit that it will always be the market that dictates the terms with regard to the economic value of an education. While I appreciate the examples of Turner (an avowed atheist) and Jobs (a Buddhist /new ager) they are by far the extreme and not the norm. Jobs would have amounted to much less apart from the engineers and programmers that he hired As a Christian I would submit that any education costing $100k or more of hard-earned or borrowed money with no legitimate financial prospects in return is being a borderline poor steward.
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m a life-long learner and I dump tons of time and energy in educating myself through well rounded means but when it comes to preparing my taxes I want someone with an accounting degree and when it comes to designing my corporate website I want some who did well in computer technology and graphic design. The market dictates that specialized degrees reap better jobs and better jobs are not a bad thing. Perhaps this is my business degree speaking now. Thanks.
Dear Mr. Perrin,
As a liberal-arts-educated-with-two-children-who-are-studying-Classics/Latin-in-college-and-another-one-next-year Latin teacher, I thank you for this.
Susan Strickland
There are certainly valid arguments on both “sides” of this strain of thought. It seems as though a balance between the two brings a proper perspective. One can be classically educated and still pursue a degree in engineering or computer science, for example, and have the best of both worlds. No matter what the major, a classical education instills the value of lifelong learning, understanding, and preparation for a well-lived life and a broadness in thinking that is desperately needed in our society. I must admit that the practicality of job-seeking drove me to major in music education rather than “just” music or music performance, a choice I have never regretted. I was driven by my love of music and teaching, however, not just the job market. It is usually good advice to tell young people to pursue what they love and are gifted/shaped to do. In the end, pursuing one’s passion over practicality brings lasting satisfaction and lifelong joy.
It is my understanding that the greatest financial rewards tend to go to those with graduate degrees in things like law, business, and medicine. It is also my understanding that law schools, medical schools, and business schools look favorably on classical education and liberal arts educations, more favorably than more narrowly vocational degrees. For example, med schools prefer English majors who have done all their pre-meds to bio majors, because they feel that English majors make more well rounded doctors. For Law schools this is true to some extent but what matters is more one’s grades and LSAT scores. (Any humanities major like classics is fine and won’t hurt at all. Just call the admissions office at any top law school and see.) If so then perhaps from a purely financial perspective one would be well advised to major in the classics or the humanities more generally because it will help you get into a better graduate program. (At a minimum, it will not hurt you.) This is probably better in the long run than majoring in a more narrow vocational subject. I have known many, many people to major in the humanities and then go on to great success. This is the norm in my experience. For example, when I graduated from college, a friend of mine and I went to Washington D.C. to look for jobs on the hill. I was an English Major and he was a philosophy major. We both got good jobs and did fine. His name is “John Kroger” and if you read a good biography on the White House it will mention him. He was a speech writer for Bill Clinton until he had a falling out with Stephanopoulos. His only degree at the time was a philosophy degree. I don’t think he would have gotten this far with a specialized degree like graphic design. He is currently the attorney general of the state of Oregon. Graphic designers don’t normally become attorney generals. Humanities majors do. I’m puzzled why anyone would think that a humanities degree is unmarketable. Have you tried getting a job on Capitol Hill with a humanities degree? It works fine. I’m not seeing how the humanities are unmarketable.
After listening to Rush myself, I believe his concern has to do with the enormous amount of money squandered on young people who don’t appreciate their education, combined with leftist professors who deliberately indoctrinate these impressionable minds. There are some good classical major programs, but many universities just revise history and mislead students into thinking they can do something with their degree. Many of these students have no idea what they want to do when they enter college, and almost drift into a major without thinking. I do believe a classical education can be beneficial, and have been teaching my own children to think for themselves. I appreciate the heritage our western civilization has but feel most institutions of higher learning do a disservice in this area, and Limbaugh was commenting on that.
No he wasn’t. He had no idea what he is talking about – he thought Classics was “Dickens” and you think any of his remarks should be given any weight? You don’t think that this level of ignorance doesn’t totally undermine his authority to speak about just about . . . well, everything. And as a professor well, by the time we get young adults in class good luck with indoctrination. I spew out plenty of “lefty” opinions in class, but I also tell my students that they are free to tell me to go to hell, and they have and they have earned and been given As in my courses. Then again, I invite dissent, discussion, and respect for diverse opinions. Don’t look for respect from Rush, cui studeundum est minime paulum prius vox stultissima iecit in publicum forum. Eheu!
Classical education was intended for those who will rule (cf. The Republic). The underlying problem this debate brings out is the tension inherent in democracies (even the republican variety) between people doing their job (i.e., minding their own business) and being concerned for the polity (i.e., minding other people’s business). As Tocqueville observes, power always gravitates to a single authority, i.e., people will always tend to concentrate on their own private, short-term concerns, leaving others to mind the things of the public. Without knowing it, Limbaugh is simply expressing the short-sightedness inherent in democracies.
LG
My problem is the cost of college in the first place. I think a classical education is a wonderful gift but at what cost and for how many? As Lawrence stated a classical education was not for everyone. It was for the gifted and those being prepared to rule. I think most of classical education debate smacks of elitism. I don’t think this is neccesarily bad, since it is elitist, but I think we kid ourselves when believe this is something for the “mass” man.
I look at secondary schools and universities that promote a classical education and the cost is not fesaible for most working/middle class kids. It’s Harvard/Yale for the moral minded.
Can you link to the actual transcript or audio clip of the call? I find it highly unlikely that Rush would say that learning the classics is worthless. It would go against what he stands for. While Rush Limbaugh is by no means above criticism he deserves to be accurately represented when attacked.
Here’s the transcript: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/11/01/deciphering_the_sad_sack_story_of_a_classical_studies_scholar
Thanks, Sarah….Now others can weigh in on what Rush actually said.
There is a lot of truth in what Rush says about people falling for the propaganda that the institution known as education has them believe: college degree is the ticket to a good job, good career, good life, and the pursuit of happiness. Yet Rush also falls into a paradox with his Limbaughean Ideology: for does he not sound like the very ‘conspiracy theorist’ he so much condemns when he claims that the Government and/or Universities deliberately lie to students with their jobless/careerless potential degrees such as Classical Studies for the sake of feeding socialism when the future angry college graduate demands a bailout from the government for being lied to, and accuses big businesses for rejecting his credentials? True, this may not be a degree with many job opportunities, but most Classical Studies majors seek to become scholars or journalists and they usually find success via self publication – the very entrepreneurial spirit Rush so much condones. Funny, eh!
I never thought anything or anyone could make me feel sympathy for Bill Gates, but Steve Jobs did.
I’m glad you enjoy paying high margins for stylistic minutiae. Others have too much work to do to be obsessed by such things, but I guess you’re lucky.
You are right to point out that buying Apple does not always make good economic sense–I spent the first twenty-five years of my career using the good ole PC and it served me well. I do think, however, that all computer-users are lucky. Lucky to have a choice between Apple and…all the rest.
This article cites Joe Paterno as a success of classical education……Bad timing.