One vision of the liberal arts

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someoneTweet about this on Twitter

John Emerson has a post titled The College of My Dreams up. He describes his program as a “reactionary leftist” category, and stipulates that ‘actual science and math work, not just “History and Philosophy of Science”‘ would be demanded from students at this institution, which would nevertheless specialize in the humanities. I have many friends who have humanities backgrounds who deeply regret that they took “astronomy 101,” rather than a real introductory level chemistry course. Too often science courses geared towards humanities majors emphasize the facts of science rather than its technique, in other words, ass-backwards. But back at John, I would state that I also think that science graduates should have to complete some sort of University of Chicago-lite (i.e., the common core) sequence which introduces them to a lexicon that allows them to more fully participate in the public life of a republic. The vast majority of individuals with science degrees (i.e., 99%) will not live in a world of academic science for science’s sake, they will be citizens for whom their science background gives them a grounding in their profession or career, but the ends of their life will be more prosaically human.

Of course, all this is fairyland dreaming because the flat-out fact is that college students are getting dumber and dumber. This isn’t because Americans as a whole are dumber, just that more Americans are going to college, and pretty soon you’ll start sampling the genius of the 1 out of 5 Americans who believe that the sun revolves around the earth.

41 Comments

  1. I often say that when I become Queen everyone will be required to take math through multivariable calculus, and soft science fillers will be abolished–just as I took real Shakespeare, Classics, and Latin to satisfy my humanities reqs, so too shall they take a real physics, a real biology, and a real chemistry class.

  2. I went to Columbia, where everyone takes the core curriculum. I was always disturbed, though, that although the scientists and engineers were expected to take normal humanities classes, that the humanities people could get away without knowing a lick of real science. 
     
    It was also well known that it was much harder to get a high GPA if you were taking hard sciences and such, since those classes demanded far more commitment and had much more objective grading standards.

  3. How do you measure dumb? For example, the grade schoolers today are swamped with more information than the grade schoolers 15 years ago. Back then the older generation called us dumb too.

  4. multivariable calculus!?!?! what a cruel hard despot you be! 
     
    that the humanities people could get away without knowing a lick of real science. 
     
    the humanities also lack contingency, in that people can sample in a slapdash manner instead of being forced to go through sequences where they get the core of the human experience. if you are a chemistry person it isn’t like you usually take physical chemistry before organic chemistry, or before you’ve had calculus, etc. etc. frankly, part of it is the rise in interdisciplinary “studies” majors, which allows so much flexibility that the students have take full control of the degree programs from what i can tell. 
     
    For example, the grade schoolers today are swamped with more information than the grade schoolers 15 years ago. Back then the older generation called us dumb too. 
     
    liv, read my post, the people aren’t on average more dumb, but, a greater % of the population is going to college. that means that you will sample a greater proportion of the intelligence distribution since the smarter ones normally go to college anyhow. this was probably part of the problem with the decline in SAT scores between 1960 to 1995. i remember noting that mississipi had a higher average SAT score back in the early 1990s than massachusetts, and it seemed that part of the reason was that mississipi didn’t except most kids to take the SAT while massachusetts did….

  5. Hard science and hard math required of everyone? Hmmm. I’m super-sympathetic to the complaint that humanities people are often moosh-heads, but that strikes me as a little much. I’d personally have gotten a lot more out of a good philosophy-and-history-of-science than I ever did out of the basic-intros-to-bio/chem/physics that I did take. What did it matter to me to wrestle with the periodic table, or little metal balls rolling down runways, or dissecting my fetal pig? Boring boring boring. It’s not as though any of it provided any real entree for me into the hows, whats and whys of real science. To the extent that I get the scienes at all, it’s thanks to popular books (clear English rules!), meeting and being friends with a few scientists, and reading and thinking about the history and philosophy of science. The nitty-gritty? Well, a few strolls through some science labs would have provided all I’d have needed. 
     
    And hard math, please. I’m sure it’s good mental discipline. But asking people who are, say, verbally or bodily gifted and whose lives aren’t going to contain much math beyond balancing a checkbook to pay attention to math above a certain level of abstraction is just an act of cruelty and sadism. What if I were to insist that you science eggheads spend a couple of years seriously studying ballet, because after all without such experience you’ll never be able to grok the arts? I do think you might get a little something out of an afternoon in a ballet studio, observing, and meeting and hanging out with some ballerinas. But insisting that you spend hours doing fouettes … C’mon, you’d protest and think it was idiotic, right?

  6. In anybody’s dreamworld, the students will be motivated, bright, and curious, as Gottfredson describes the ~120-125+ IQ range. They’re much more likely to benefit from self-directed study since they can process & grasp complex info pretty well, teach themselves, etc. So, schools designed for them should allow as much freedom as possible. 
     
    Where I went, there was no broad core — only the core & electives w/in your major — anything else was up to you. Nevertheless, most students still felt the need to take basic science / humanitites courses, due both to their curiosity and to the power of social shaming (“you’re only taking math & science? you don’t belong here!”). Things worked themselves out in the end, and none of it was forced on students. 
     
    However, looking back and knowing what I now know about IQ research, this experiment worked b/c students were selected to have IQ ~120-125+ and to be curious rather than grade-grubbers hell-bent on Law School. Any social experiment works when the right people are selected to participate, but once others enter for whom it wasn’t designed, it crashes. Olympic teams probably allow more flexibility in training than remedial classes where flabby people require drill sergeants. 
     
    Alas, like social parasites who destroy a hippie commune, a new group of purely pre-professional preppies has invaded my alma mater. Worse, it was self-induced by the new President who wants a greater endowment at any cost, though we never wanted for funds. I don’t mention it by name b/c one prong of the raze-the-commune strategy is to brand the hell out of the name as if they were marketing fashionable perfume or cologne. Unfortunately, this only makes it look like drug store deodorant: Chanel No.5 has nothing to prove.

  7. agnostic, 
    are you a reedie?

  8. If adults truly mastered their primary school (k-12) course materials, they’d have the solid foundation of a liberal education, including basic science, history, etc. This is not a failure of colleges. It’s just the fact that the human mind remembers what is used often in situations deemed important, and forgets what is not.  
     
    In the next few decades, education would be wise to go towards methods – since the Internet store information more efficiently than brains ever did. Even very good brains. 
     
    And a note: I’d replace calculus with Statistics, which is much more fundamental for understanding the world – even basic “polls” that people love to discuss.

  9. I went here but from what I read about Reed in high school they seem pretty similar.

  10. One premise of my proposal is that the American HS would remain about the same as now. Thus the admission of sharp 16 year olds to college. 
     
    I also proposed it as an elite school. When the humanities and the sciences are mutually-ignorant opposed affiliations or existential choices, the public discussion deteriorates. While there will always be scientifically-illiterate humanists about, that’s not really a good thing. 
     
    Humanism essentially is a way of thinking about the whole, and if it becomes subjectified and anti-scientific, it’s no longer humanistic. Before about 1900 I don’t think that the split was as dominant as it is now.

  11. I’d replace calculus with Statistics, which is much more fundamental for understanding the world 
     
    Me too. Also feedback, for the same reason.

  12. I went to Reed. Reed has a pretty dense core. Everyone has to take a demanding humanities / Great Books program plus two year-long science classes plus distribution outside the division and department plus two years of foreign language. 
     
    Reed’s most successful graduates, contrary to popular opinion, are in the sciences (or were, last I heard). Reed science majors are well-rounded workaholics. 
     
    Reed is strongly keyed toward grad school admission. On the one hand, Reedies who don’t go to grad school don’t really have a backup choice; underemployed Reedies are a major demographic in Portland. On the other hand, in the humanities nowadays there seems to be an enormous dissatisfaction with the academic careers available. Part of my proposal was to design a school which would be a valid choice for someone with generalist who wanted neither a coffeeshop career nor an academic career. My goal would be scientifically-informed free-lance humanism.

  13. Sounds lovely, wish I’d had such a thing myself. I’m still not sure I go along with the study-real-science-for-years thing, though. Really-truly, I’ve gotten far more out of reading good popular-science books than I ever did out of really studying science. A sense of what it is, how it’s done, how it works, etc — for lib-arts me, clear English and good pictures, presented in a lively way, maybe supplemented with a field trip or two to see Real Science in action, would beat mucking about making dumb mistakes in a lab any day. Informative, breeds respect and modesty, and doesn’t put me to sleep with “Why am I being subjected to this, I’m not going into the field anyway …” questions.

  14. As Razib said, learning science as results and facts doesn’t give you a good idea of how science actually works, or what its significance is. It’s a tremendously disciplined and laborious activity. 
     
    One of my own axes to grind here is that there’s a lot of positivistic discourse which mimics science and uses scientific language which is not, in fact, very much like actual science. One advantage of the kind of education I propose is that alumni would have a sharp eye for the positivist mystification that you see everywhere.

  15. I’d replace calculus with Statistics, which is much more fundamental for understanding the world – even basic “polls” that people love to discuss. 
     
    I completely agree with this sentiment. 
     
    Bright, motivated students would enter after tenth grade and attend for six years 
     
    I disagree with this. Most of everyone I know are burnt out by their fourth year and just want to get out and finally do a job. Engineers are the same way. But then, this is a liberal arts school that focuses on philosophy, history, and literature, so basically all you’re doing is training people to be your future faculty members and not productive members of the private sector, especially by the emphasis on focusing them for preparation from grad school.  
     
    The lack of any major science curriculums will also mean that you’ll be producing a bunch of people who have no conceptual understanding of the developments in evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, chemistry, etc. 
     
    Basically, all you’ll be producing is a bunch of philosophers who can do nothing but teach college courses and write long books explaining how they are smarter than everybody else because they can look at the world via another prism than “materialistic science.”

  16. And by science curriculums I mean not just two year long science courses… I mean actual majors with entire sets of courses that people can get minors and majors in.

  17. John — I still can’t see how making everyone take Bio 101 and 102 is going to bring much sense to the world, but if you insist … 
     
    Arcane — Good points, but methinks you’re overdoing it where the uselessness of lib-arts types in the private sector is concerned. There’s real work for ‘em out there, and not just at Starbucks. There’s journalism, publishing, TV, movies, advertising, design, publicity, retail, sales, music, as well as work in the many support industries that cluster around these fields … And mid-management jobs often require zero in the way of technical training. One of my co-bloggers owns and runs a successful small business, based education-wise on nothing but a history degree. I’ve got dozens of art-and-English-major-type friends who have families and houses and even manage to take vacations. Their lives aren’t unproductive or hellish, and they aren’t a drag on the economy either. But maybe you’re being ironic and I didn’t pick that up?

  18. In many ways I think it is a shame that auto-didacts have fallen out of favor. Many very accomplished successful people of an older generation than ours were largely the product of self education. One problem with colleges is that so much of a degree is aimed at making a living, rather than learning how to think creatively and developing a desire for knowledge for it’s own sake. I read about 250 books a year on myriad subjects. I don’t use the information in my professional life but for intellectual enlightenment and the pursuit of knowledge. I don’t know if a school can make a person into an autodidact. I think it is more of a matter of temperament and ability. So many schools today are set up to endorse only PC versions of history and social studies that I don’t think one can get a balanced viewpoint on these subjects unless one reads outside of the required readings. Hard knowledge of science is not as important in my opinion as learing to understand the scientific method and applying it to life and thought in general.

  19. Arcane — apparently you believe that there should be no humanities majors at all. That’s your belief, not mine. You also believe that humanities majors can only be university teachers, when that was one of the very things I was trying to get away from. As far as being burned out after four years goes, I was substituting for two years of HS — people would graduate at the same age. As far as getting a job right away goes, people like that would not be wanted at the school I describe, nor would they be happy there.  
     
    “The lack of any major science curriculums will also mean that you’ll be producing a bunch of people who have no conceptual understanding of the developments in evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, chemistry, etc.”  
     
    Did you read my piece? There would be no science majors, but science literacy would be required.  
     
    Michael, this program is not for everyone. It’s an elite program. In my own case, I regret not having a basic scientific toolkit which would allow me to read science-based literature. From seeing scientists at work at my job, I also understand that real scientific work is different than most non-scientists know. Reading general science for generalists doesn’t give you that understanding.  
     
    I think that public discussion of many issues requires a science foundation.

  20. Reading general science for generalists doesn’t give you that understanding.  
     
    exactly. the problem with general interest science books is they present the end result without giving one an impression of how messy the research process really is…..

  21. evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, chemistry, etc. 
     
    there are distinctions here. evo psych is a new field. neuro as well. on the other hand, chemistry is fundamental. we’ve mooted this issue before: should humanists learn fundamental science, or science more relevant to humans (which is usally downstream of basic sciences)? i lean toward fundamentals because i think chemistry, mathematics, physics, give you a basis to evaluate higher order disciplines….

  22. Not to be a pain here, but … 
     
    “the problem with general interest science books is they present the end result without giving one an impression of how messy the research process really is…..” 
     
    Really? I’d say I’ve gotten a better idea for what the process of science is like from reading popular science books than from taking Bio 101. Personalities, politics, money, rivalry, the blurriness of the results, the question of interpretation — common stuff to run across in the better popular lit, but seldom if ever mentioned in 101-102 classes, where everything, in my experinece, was made to seem very noble and clearcut. I bailed from science myself when it became clear to me that it was gonna take years — years — before I started to get into the real stuff of science. Hey, it takes devotion, patience, and hard work to become a real scientist. And where’s a person whose primary interests aren’t science going to find all that? Isn’t that a little like requiring people who are destined for sci-tech careers to take not just a History of Classical Music intro, but a couple of a years of harmony and counterpoint? But no one takes — or should take — harmony and counterpoint without already being pretty devoted to studying the guts and methods of music. 
     
    I’m ranting, so I’ll shut up. Actually I enjoyed reading John’s posting. Wish I’d gotten some of that education myself.

  23. michael, point taken. let’s just say that the personality is too much foreground in such books. personality matters, but there is the a lot of minutiae in terms of the cognitive overhead that is involved, which is where the personality comes into play because it fills the dead space between positive findings. anyway, what i’m trying to get at is that even if you aren’t in a lab, if you grapple with a derivation, or attempt to get around the intuition of how derivates apply to acceleration, that is worth something. since you have some science background, you might already have a lot of that….

  24. Actually humanities majors should have to take real hum and ss courses in addition to a real science/math course. Most core requirements are so vague that almost any mix of classes counts at most universities. So h/ss majors are not challenged and this is made worse by the easy grading as well. 
     
    In contrast, I would argue that the choice of required humanities and social science courses at Caltech and MIT are much more serious and fundamental than the typical core at lost of state schools and some weaker LACs. 
     
    As for science, no one can be said to have any exposure to real science without taking at least one serious math and one serious physics class. By that I mean, serious calculus with some axiomatic proofs and serious physics that requires some derivations based on the calculus rather than formula memorization. The hardest part of modern science to grasp is the link between “ideas” and precise, though abstract mathematical expression. 
     
    Oh and I’d support Shakespeare, traditional western history, and Microeconomics for scientists as well. 
     
    Yeah, that would be a real core. U of Chicago could probably do it with a slight tweak to their curriculum. But then, fun would probably have to die before reaching Chicago.

  25. >Of course, all this is fairyland  
    >dreaming because the flat-out fact  
    >is that college students are  
    >getting dumber and dumber. 
     
    You’ve tapped a fairly international trend… possibly even a pan-western or even global one. Entrance standards to NZ universities are set by the universities themselves, but all of the universities follow the national standard, which is pretty low (i.e. you can fail your last year of school but still get University Entrance). According to a news report, a recent study at Canterbury University found by some unnamed independent measure that less than 25% of the ~900 students sampled could be considered sufficiently numerate or literate. These students were all undergrads but were in all 3-4 years of their degrees. What the article didn’t mention was that the pass rates of most papers are in the mid 90′s. This suggests there is a relatively substantial intersection between the set of illiterate, innumerate students and the set of students who pass…

  26. Anecdotally, there seems to be a decline even in the elite colleges where demographics aren’t the explanation. My guess is that motivation is lower, and that this is driven by various anti-intellectual trends.

  27. Michael, I think that experience in playing a musical instrument, or singing, is a better comparison. It’s doable, and I would promote that too.

  28. methinks you’re overdoing it where the uselessness of lib-arts types in the private sector is concerned. 
     
    Well, I don’t think they’re useless. I’m a lib-arts major: political science. I’m not useless, but as I got into my senior year I began looking into statistics and I realized that we’re really not producing enough technically-oriented types, like engineers and chemists and such, and that worries me greatly. I sometimes feel bad that I didn’t major in something like engineering [like I originally intended] and feel as if I’m doing a disservice to this country by not doing so, but I simply didn’t have the math skills needed to succeed in that field. I also look at lots of lib-arts majors and I see that they’re not really trying to learn the subject and go outside the actual classroom and do REAL research and use statistics and such and instead just want to learn enough to make good grades and get out of school. I do think those types are a minority, but they sort of scare me since I was known around our polisci department as the guy who could really hold his own with the professors. One professor would always track me down and ask me questions when he was looking for some specifics on some things, and most of them wanted me to be a politician (what a horrifying thought!). Maybe I’m too biased on this sort of thing. 
     
    John, 
    apparently you believe that there should be no humanities majors at all. 
     
    No, not at all! Please don’t interpret my comments like that, and yes, I did read your piece. 
     
    As far as being burned out after four years goes, I was substituting for two years of HS — people would graduate at the same age. 
     
    That was originally the ultimate goal of gifted and advanced programs and such, and my school allows people to go to the local community college once they hit tenth grade and make the SAT/ACT scores necessary to enroll and get credit for that (unfortunately, I grew up in an area with a near-50% dropout rate from Kindergarten to high school graduation and an hour and a half away from a major university). Unfortunately, many of these advanced programs have been eliminated because radical egalitarians don’t believe in special treatment for those who have superior intellectual abilities (sometimes they even attack advocates of gifted programs, like von Braun, as Nazis!). My class was the last class in middle school to be allowed to have advanced courses, and in junior high they eliminated them altogether. 
     
    There would be no science majors, but science literacy would be required. 
     
    Well, I was required to take a ton of science courses, but I don’t think they really taught me anything at all new about various forms of science because the courses were all designed for those who are not majoring in any of the science (ie, lib-arts people). So I don’t know what would be new in your ideas here concerning this subject, other than the idea of producing tons of grad students and philosophy (a subject that I will admit that I think is heavily dominated by neo-Marxist nutcases and largely useless in the greater scheme of things) professors.

  29. In my own case, I regret not having a basic scientific toolkit which would allow me to read science-based literature. 
     
    I think we need more than a toolkit. I think we need new professors who recognize how important the concept of consilience is and begin actually integrating the various fields of study. Like in my case, a dual polisci and psychology curriculum would have been absolutely fascinating and much more illumating than all these old theories developed by intellectuals with no interest in the latest scientific developments.

  30. Basically my opinion comes down to this… bachelors programs should remain fairly generalized and we should leave specialization to, in the case of schools, the graduate level and above and, in the case of the private sector, to special tech schools and such. 
     
    I think this approach is the best and it’s basically what I’m doing now. I graduated college with a degree in political science and now I’m at a tech school learning aircraft maintenance management.

  31. there are distinctions here. evo psych is a new field. neuro as well. on the other hand, chemistry is fundamental. 
     
    I was just writing out the first things that came to my mind, sorry.

  32. Arcane, I don’t really know now what your objections are. You started off with a lot of stuff about useless public-sector college professors and I took it from there. 
     
    Advanced placement is good too but this is a different way of doing the same thing. It would be better because classes taken would be part of a program, rather than whichever classes happened to be available at the local school.  
     
    I don’t think that undergrad schools should try to teach the latest scientific ideas, because we don’t know what the good ones are. Just being able to read statistics, for example, can help you with a lot of different fields.

  33. I don’t think that undergrad schools should try to teach the latest scientific ideas, because we don’t know what the good ones are. Just being able to read statistics, for example, can help you with a lot of different fields. 
     
    my opinion is this: undergrads should know some basic science and math. OTOH, grad students know some cutting edge in science or math. a lot of history and archeology is being revolutioned by new techniques in the physical sciences in terms of retrieval of ‘lost’ data and materials.

  34. Michael Blowhard’s comments highlight something we all have seen, but which doesn’t come through very well in the IQ debates: some people are way over-balanced towards the verbal as opposed to the numerancy side of the equation and vice versa, including quite a few of the most brilliant people I have ever known. I know there is a corollation between these two sets of abilities, but still . . .  
     
    As for my pet liberal arts curriculum for the future: 
     
    I. A two year double course in the history, literature, and philosophy of civilization from the end of the Neolithic to where we are now in the so-called West. The main emphasis would be on the great themes of servitude and freedom, and on the emergence of science, capitalism, and democracy as the main engines of freedom in the modern world. 
     
    II. A comprehensive two year single course in cosmology from the Big Bang to to emergence of human beings, this being an introduction to astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and psychology. 
     
    III. An introduction to statistics (which everybody here seems to support, must be a good sign!) which would provide the basis for a probabalistic understanding os the ideas of correlation coefficients and Baysean inference (and for the more numerate, calculating the same). Calculus is so 19th century! 
     
    IV. A good grounding in the principles (and history) of Political Economy, in the old sense of that term, to replace the bastard children of “economics” and “political science”, neither one of which is worth a damn by itself.  
     
    V. Music and Art appreciation. 
     
    Needless to say, writing would be encouraged in all these subjects, preferably one 250-to-500 word essay per week per course. Reading would be around 500 pages per week total, or maybe a little more. 
     
    Those who can’t hack it should drop out — but not you, Michael Blowhard.

  35. Hmmm, it seems like a bit of “the sky is falling” tone to me, and also very US centric, 
     
    When I went to University in Australia, I took Pure and Applied Math, Chemistry and Physics in my first year, Math and Physics and Comp Sci in my second, CompSci and Math in my third and Comp Sci in my fourth and so on. 
     
    Not much has changed, AFAICS, in that it is still possible for people to go through an Australian university without doing a single whimpy humanities subject. 
     
    While I can’t say anything about the UK, I suspect that it is the same given that the Australian system is modelled on the British system. 
     
    Despite all that (lots of people with no humanities, and there are still trade schools in Australia), the country is not falling apart, but the same sillyness with respect to deconstruction and other shit has caught on. 
     
    So, I can’t see that the US is going to hell in a hand-basket, or at least that it is no worse than other Western countries.

  36. I don’t apologize for being US-centric. I live here. I don’t regard it as a good thing for college graduates to lack humanities training entirely, either. 
     
    I don’t even see where you get the sky-is-falling impression. I’m writing specifically about humanities (and specifically about the US), and dissatisfaction at the present system is pretty widespread at all levels. I proposed a specific, single remedy (i.e., one ideal school — this probably isn’t a model for every school in the country to follow).

  37. I find it curious the extent to which real science is perceived to be taught in a classroom. Almost always (even at Caltech) the concepts being discussed have already been worked out in meticulous detail. Typically even the symbology has been carefully refined and optimized prior to presentation. While interesting and even challenging when seen for the first time this is not really science at all. If anything, it is a kind of presentation art. Science, as I understand it, happens after a large number of empty mountain dew cans and deadend trails in rare flashes of insight that reorganize some part of the world in a way that makes a kind of esoteric sense. Symbology, communicability, and formal proof come later. And, for better or worse, I doubt that the no holds barred curiosity and mental focus at the heart of this enterprise can really be taught or learned easily. At best I think it is encouraged and channeled by something we might reasonably call benevolent peer pressure.

  38. Returning to how hard the math should be, nothing is special about the content of calculus. Aside from stats, the students would have little practical use for math above honors high school stuff, so the math classes should focus on *how* to do math. The various ways to investigate and prove something is key, so the content of what they’re investigating / proving should be kept as accessible as possible. This can be easy or difficult no matter whether the topic is from calculus or number theory, but the latter has fewer pre-reqs (basically, division). Plus I’m guessing your students would be the type more fascinated by cryptography than kinematics. 
     
    I’d say a good solid year of stats for practical use, a semester of discrete math to acquaint students w/ the hows of math, followed w/ a semester of grab bag math oriented toward discovering and proving things but whose content is accessible (number theory, elementary group theory, etc.).

  39. Luke Lea:- 
    I. This approximates to a History of Britain. 
    II. This appears to be the science of an era about which we know rather little: is that wise? 
    III. Oh dear, I agree with you and everyone else. 
    IV. see comment on I. 
    V. a cultural history of Italy, the Low Countries and Germany, in other words. 
     
    Surely the French will object?

  40. Has anyone here every heard of the “Great Books Program” at a small college called St. John’s (with campuses in Annapolis, MD and Santa Fe). This is the college of your dreams John, check it out! 
     
    http://www.sjca.edu/ 
     
    The U of Chicago core is based on this program, but St. John’s is 4 years, starting with Greeks (and the ancient Greek language), complete with labs, going through Newton, Galileo, Faraday, Maxwell, and Einstein- all reading ONLY the original texts and conducting expiraments related to or based on the original author’s work. It’s quite a school, and a very good truly liberal arts education. 
     
    Elizabeth

  41. Oh- I forgot, you end up with a Major in Philosophy with a Minor in Mathematics and Language.

a