Liberal Arts in the global era

Liberal arts institutions in the U.S. have experienced considerable criticism over the years for their lack of practical outcomes - particularly related to workplace preparation. Global trends indicate that 36% of the non-U.S. liberal arts programs can now be found in Asia with the explicit purpose of preparing students for rapid global change that requires graduates to have skills and character traits of "creativity, innovation, adaptability, collaboration, and communication." These attributes are perceived to be essential to individual success and they are the bread and butter of liberal education. in the U.S.

The challenge of liberal education in the U.S. has been that it has most often been confined to elite and smaller institutions. Criticism has also been asserted by current U.S. Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos, who believes there should be more focus on job training and internships as a way to expand educational access; these kinds of programs would most likely be offered through 2-year institutions or through certificate training programs. With the U.S. apparently on the verge of backing off the importance of a broad (liberal) education, and with the growing advocacy for liberal arts in China, China may soon be an international leader as it experiments with liberal arts innovations that are scalable to larger numbers of students.

As we advocated in Enhancing Student Learning and Development in Cross-Border Higher Education (Roberts & Komives, eds., 2016), utilizing educational practices may not be directly applicable, or even appropriately adapted, from one cultural context to another. Liberal arts approaches in the U.S. were most prominent in colonial colleges, which were based on British elite institutions. The intent of these institutions was to educate elite, white men for professions such as ministry and law and to prepare them as public servants in government. The liberal arts approach is still very much a part of elite institutions in the U.S. and those who attend these institutions are offered select networks and educational opportunities that other U.S. citizens do not have. The later education policy changes exemplified in the Land Grant movement of the late 19th century or the G.I. Bill of the 1950s were the first concerted efforts to increase access to higher learning; broadening access did not take place at elite institutions but in public institutions that were much more focused on preparing students for workplaces that would drive national prosperity.

The point here is to question the transferability of the liberal arts model to other cultures and to encourage careful consideration about the assumptions of the model and how it could/should be adapted by institutions outside of a Western context. Liberal arts approaches cultivated talent and intellect among the elite for both work and public service. Is this what it now represents and is this purpose understood by those embracing it as exemplary educational practice? If China knew that liberal arts originated out of a commitment to education elite citizens for democratic participation, would they still want to adopt its philosophy? If they know, then what about liberal arts practices might be different especially if the attempt is to expand the number of graduates with this type of education?