Linger is accurate in saying that the liberal arts should be available to everyone and everyone could benefit from this type of classical education; nonetheless not everyone is suited for such an education. The misconception that the liberal arts are tort the elite is one that has been heard before but not nearly as much as the old “employers do not want to hire people with useless degrees” line which Anger obliterates with his next argument. NCAR continues his defense of a liberal arts education by refuting the lain that employers no longer hire someone with a “useless” degree, such as Preach_ Showing how not only a specific degree such as a foreign language is one that is wanted by employers but the usefulness of other liberal arts degrees, emphasizing “A 2009 survey for the Association of American Colleges and Universities actually found that more than three-quarters of our nation’s employers recommend that college-bound students pursue a ‘liberal education. ‘ (192) anger deals with this common misconception methodically by first stating “What people believe” and then contesting that belief With facts versified with his own opinions. Although he is correct and he brandishes documented facts to back up his assertions anger may have missed the mark by not including actual job numbers. By displaying irrefutable proof that those who have a liberal arts degree are more likely to get a job in any field and by showing those jobs are more lucrative for degree holders than those who are not, anger could put the nail in the coffin naysayer.
For his next dose of perception breaking, Anger skirmishes with the following idea: Liberal arts degrees are antiquated, the Sciences and Career colleges are where the smart none is, and the STEM fields are much better suited for today’s economic reality. anger contests this misconception by showing that a degree in liberal arts also includes the sciences.
He illustrates that a traditional liberal arts degree includes the sciences: “the historical basis of a liberal education is in the classical rates liberal, comprising the tritium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) and the quadric (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music)” (193). Many of Angers points are valid; his handling of this misconception is deft and detailed. However, eel that anger is stretching with his response to this argument. Although a liberal arts degree does offer some glimpses into the STEM disciplines, it is not comparable to a degree in those specialties.
A student visiting to become a chemist would not be well served pursuing a degree in History. In showing that these misconceptions are just that, Sanford Anger single-handedly makes the case for a classical liberal arts education. He does a wonderful job tackling the misconceptions being thrown around today about a college degree in the liberal arts. He takes each one Of these common misconceptions and thoroughly supervise each claim skillfully and without hesitation. By doing so he reopens the door to higher education.