Streamlining for the Future

When Dean Hanford reported that "the next ten years promises to become a decade of natural sciences," he hit upon a problem which has been closely connected with the pocketbooks of students ever since the battery in the magic wand of "liberal education" went dead, some dozen years ago.

At the beginning of this century, the sheepskin practically guaranteed a job. But by 1930 there were less than half the jobs open to more than four times as many college men, and it became apparent that there was a large gap between the training that the humanities and social sciences offered, and the demand for that training in the world of business and industry. Brilliant men, with A.B.'s in Fine Arts, Romance Languages, History--any of the vast choices which were regarded as the bulwarks of the "liberal and humane tradition," had little to offer in the way of specialized skill. Unless they went on to graduate school, and from there into a profession, they were in no particular demand.

For many students, the solution to the gap between liberal training and the social demand was concentration in the exact sciences. According to Mr. Hanford, Harvard's social sciences "declined from nearly one-half of all concentrators 20 years ago to less than a quarter today," and the natural science majors "increased from one-fifth in 1921 to nearly one-third last year." These men could go straight from college into jobs with du Pont, General Electric, or similar firms who need specialized minds.

But what about the liberal arts concentrator? By 1930 there were over 1,000,000 of them who still had to finish an expensive four-year education, and then compete with each other and with the 1,100,000 graduates from vocational training programs for jobs. So acute was this problem of more liberally A.B.'d college men and fewer open-armed employers, that the liberal arts enrollment which had jumped 46 per cent between 1900 and 1930 came to a virtual standstill in 1940. After this war, the knowledge-seeking middle class will be even less able to support a long, expensive liberal education--especially when they can prepare their sons for specialized jobs on less money and in less time.

Somehow, colleges like Harvard will have to give liberal arts degrees in less than four years. This has nothing to do with the "intrinsic worth" of, or "social need" for liberal education. No matter how high the American liberal arts training is soaring in aesthetic standards, it is depreciating rapidly in money value. If we are to keep the "liberal and humane tradition" from being overshadowed by a preoccupation "with technical courses," we are going to have to do more than require the science men to take survey courses in "American Culture," "The History of Human Freedom," and "Economic Democracy." We are going to have to give a quicker, less expensive training to the majority of non-science majors who do not intend to go to graduate school, but merely want a sound general education before trying their hand at business.