1) According to this publication, what is the purpose of a liberal education? How do the theoretical and practical benefits of studying philosophy (see pages 2-4 of our text) relate to this purpose?
The purpose of liberal education is to empower people with deep knowledge and develop transferable skills, as well as cultivate social responsibility, along with a powerful sense of ethics and moral values. Through extensive exposure to numerous disciplines, both at introductory and in-depth levels, liberal education aims at preparing individuals for succeeding in the modern word. This is achieved through the focus on rigorous intellectual training and intense problem solving (Humphreys 1).
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Liberal Education".
The theoretical and practical benefits of study of philosophy relate to the purpose of the liberal arts education in multiple ways. First of all, philosophy is known to develop individual’s power of mind and foster an ordered intellect. Next, it facilitates the thinking process, fosters creativity, and helps understand the world. Further, it creates the context for all other aspects (disciplines) of liberal arts education. In addition, it facilitates integrative learning (i.e. synthesis, adaptation of knowledge, etc). Also, it helps develop social and individual responsibilities (via development of ethical reasoning and raising intercultural competence) (Humphreys 3). Finally, philosophy helps develop a holistic understanding of life.
1) Select one of the six challenges and responses in this publication and do the following: summarize in your own words the challenge and the response; evaluate the persuasiveness of the response: does the response sufficiently respond to the challenge, or are significant questions left unanswered?
The challenge selected for discussion is Challenge 5. It claims that the liberal arts education is not as relevant as professional technical education in the context of the world’s being dominated by computers and many other forms of elaborate technology (Humphreys 8). The response to this challenge is that modern employers are more concerned about the wider set of general skills of their workforce than their solid technical background. This is explained by the fact that the technology is upgrading all the time, so the problem-solving skills are more critical. The response implies that the ability to work in a team and apply excellent communication skills is more important for modern employers than the technical expertise of their employees (Humphreys 8).
The response to Challenge 5 is not sufficient. Having analyzed this response with reference to the challenge, it becomes clear that the former avoids answering the posed question directly. Specifically, an adequate answer to the “Yes/No” question “(…)Wouldn’t it be smarter to focus on providing students with a more relevant technical education…? ” should be “No. The liberal arts education is more effective, because….” Next, the response clearly lacks “logos”, which makes it sound rather unconvincing. By logos, the advanced reasoning, facts, and logical arguments are meant. No factual example is used to support the claim that modern employers prefer to recruit individuals without advanced technical expertise but with brighter humanitarian skills and a generally broader world outlook. After the introductory phrase “for example”, Humphreys should have used a real-life, credible example (referenced in a quality source), with the names of the employer and his company, and other accurate data. The actual words of the employer could be provided as direct speech in quotation marks, which will increase the credibility of the evidence. In terms of ethos, improvement is needed as well. The author does not mention her particular credibility as an expert despite the fact that there is some reference to the organization she represents at the beginning of the document. Pathos could have been stronger, with a richer word choice and use of rhetoric figures (rhetoric questions, metaphors, similes, etc). Yet, the biggest flaw of the response is clearly the lack of logos and weak focus on the question itself.
- Humphreys, Debra. Making the Case for Liberal Education: Responding to Challenges.
AACU. 2009. Web. 8 January 2014.
