Where I work the college president seems convinced that for learning, one perfect explanation exists and anything else is “duplication” or redundancy. Such constraints on the spectrum of potential interpretations of what it means to preside over a college is of course reductive, unappreciative of nuance and beyond discussion. To me, this suggests an appreciation of value in difference when it approaches the personal. So why is it so hard to make liberal arts a personal value that everyone could understand?

But I do think it’s going to be increasingly important, particularly for those whose disciplines don’t fall under the STEM umbrella, to articulate the importance of the liberal arts (and more specifically, as this is my background, the humanities).

Because it’s not my department, what you describe has been outside my field of vision. I do, however, care very much.

As someone who works with a lot of technical folks (and admittedly someone who believes in a “liberal arts education”), I’d argue that history, philosophy, art/design and OMG writing are all incredibly important for programmers to study — not just Javascript or HTML5 or Python. They don’t do enough of it as it stands. They don’t learn to collaborate, manage projects, etc etc. (Will MOOCs teach these? Certainly not in their current format.)

What happens to CS when it decides that it wants to be more about skills training and as such abandons the liberal arts? (I think Steve Jobs gets invoked a lot here with his comments about Apple existing at the intersection of the liberal arts and technology). I guess we can shrug and say “Oh well, it’s not my discipline or department” (and perhaps focus instead on what Coursera is up to — its plans to MOOCify more of the curriculum). But I think we need to address this larger move towards viewing the university as all about skills and job training.

Folks who think it’s some sort of TV show “just the facts, ma’am” aren’t recognizing the real work of college.