I would say education is being valued today... however it's becoming one-sided. Most teachers and educators value the abstract subjects such as math and science and some would go as far as to say that the arts are counter-productive and unessential. Basically, math and science appeals to the left brain and not the right brain and is "starving" the brain. If you stimulate both hemispheres of the brain by including more arts programs, you'll see improvement.

Anybody agree? Disagree? Has further info?

That is why proponents of liberal arts education are that - they feel that the balanced education brings the world to the student. Not just the bits and pieces. Students complain about "unnnecessary" classes such as English Literature when the student is majoring in computer science and wants to be a program specialist.

One does need to consider the education targeted to the "left brain" as seen in technical and trades colleges. The two year degree zeroes in on the "trade". The student spends 6 hours a day learning all the compoents needed for the specialized certification. A HVAC trainee does not need Shakespeare to enter the job market.

I do not regret my liberal arts education.

I believe that most forms of education( excluding the arts) are targeted to the left brain. Why is that? Did that come when people started rebelling from the ideas and laws that were told in a book? Like Leonardo Da Vinci? Then people started saying that education is supposed to "standardize people"( or something like that)

Could that be because of the competitiveness in those job markets? The skills that are being sought after? How many English Lit. teachers are being wooed, versus electricians or computer specialists or mechanical engineering? I have nothing against English Lit - English was one of my majors.

The "standardizing" you talk about is like the argument for the "well rounded" education. You learn more theory, more of the abstract nature of the world. I well remember some of the students in my classes saying that we learn more about why and less about actually performing the task. My comeback was, if we do not know the who-what-when-where-why of something, how can we apply knowledge to action?

I am glad there are all the different kinds of learning programs out there. We cannot be cookie cutter educated. I would think we would bore ourselves to death with all our knowledge and starve from the lack of practical application.

Maybe this makes no sense. Hope it does.

Maybe it's those who "strive" in the one-sided educational society( since they're left brained) that say that music is unessential to learning. But nowadays, studies have proved that listening to classical music,mainly baroque music improves intelligence.If you learn faster through music because it helps you relax and you learn faster, why aren't people immediately putting background music in their lectures?

Chuckles a bit. Perhaps the instructor would think the background music would be too distracting.

Yeah, maybe but here's my comeback: If you can listen to a type of music that can help you learn faster, would you regard it as a distraction or a tool in learning?

That is why proponents of liberal arts education are that - they feel that the balanced education brings the world to the student. Not just the bits and pieces. Students complain about "unnnecessary" classes such as English Literature when the student is majoring in computer science and wants to be a program specialist.

One does need to consider the education targeted to the "left brain" as seen in technical and trades colleges. The two year degree zeroes in on the "trade". The student spends 6 hours a day learning all the compoents needed for the specialized certification. A HVAC trainee does not need Shakespeare to enter the job market.

I do not regret my liberal arts education.

So, liberal arts education is "global learning".