College and the Well-Lived Life

Students come to universities with a remarkably materialistic view of what a college education can provide. It was not always thus. In the 1960s, entering freshmen were chiefly interested in developing values and a meaningful phi­losophy of life. Only 40 percent felt that making "a lot of money" was a "very important" goal. By the mid-70s, their priorities were reversed. Making "a lot of money" was now "very important" to 75 percent of entering students.

Since then, making money has continued to be the pre-­eminent reason for attending college. But much research has shown that people who set great store by becoming rich tend to be less happy than those who have other goals. If that is the case, most college freshmen are already on the wrong path to a full and satisfying life.

The widespread pre­occupation with making money has clearly left its mark on the undergraduate curriculum. To compete for applicants, col­leges have felt impelled to offer more vocational majors, and students have responded by gravitating increasingly to pro­grams that prepare them for higher-paid jobs. Three-fifths of all undergraduates in four-year colleges are pursuing vocational majors. Even liberal-arts concentrators may seek majors that look suspiciously like preprofes­sional programs for Ph.D.'s and academic careers.

--"College and the Well-Lived Life," by Derek Bok, Chronicle Review (1.31.10)

Derek Bok is the esteemed former president of Harvard University, and former dean of the Harvard Law School. He remains a professor at the university and a frequent writer on higher education in America. And he teaches a course on higher education policy at the Harvard Ed School, which I was privileged to take while in the doctoral program there. It was one of the most engaging, challenging courses I've taken, and marked by spirited discussions with Professor Bok. You could do that with him; he invited it and enjoyed it--even if he was quite self-satisfied that he had already sorted it all out, thank you very much.

But his concerns with directions in higher education were personal and deep. This had been his life, and he was highly idealistic about the purpose and value of a liberal arts education--about the development and holistic educational experience of the more complete, better-educated person. And nothing was of greater concern to him than that policy makers, universities, and educators, but more, families and students, would lose sight of this understanding and priority. How could we let slip away the understanding that a broad liberal arts education best prepares a student to be a thoughtful, discerning reader, effective writer, critical thinker, and more practiced problem solve--and with better understandings of how people function as individuals, groups, and societies?

For with that educational background, later vocational or professional training can more easily be pursued and practiced, and professional life more effectively, respectfully lived out. And more, life-long learning, well-informed reflection, and constant reassessment are more likely to continue and result in a more important and respected personal contribution to society. That's why a college education in the humanities, arts and sciences is still the most valuable education of all, the best foundation for the well-lived life.