The Harvard Salient	October 21, 1996
Cover Story

particularly pernicious myth seems to have gained credence at Harvard in recent years. Too many callow sophomores have been convinced by the spurious notion that concentrating in economics will prepare one to be a good investment banker or management consultant, that concentrating in government will make one a better lawyer, and that concentrating in the sciences is a prerequisite for a fine medical career. Nothing else can account for the absurdly high numbers of students who have devoted their four years at Harvard to these fields. Far too few students appreciate that the value of a liberal arts education is to shape a person who will transcend the narrow limitations of a professional career. An education in literature, philosophy, history, fine arts or music would make the future doctors, lawyers, bankers and businessmen of the world more broad-minded, more cultured and less obsessed with material gain.

The inexorable advance of capitalism in American society undermines the aesthetic sensibilities of noble-minded citizens while promoting the pursuit of wealth and empty prosperity. Capitalism subverts high culture, because high culture is not productive &emdash; it is eminently wasteful. Ballets, operas, theaters, concerts, libraries and art museums demand precious resources which could be invested to build faster cars, bigger buildings and more powerful computers. A liberal education provides for the defense of culture; although it cannot ever completely resist the material demands of capitalism, it can certainly stand as a bulwark against the worst excesses of vulgar commercialism.

For a long time, the great and the good had enjoyed the enormous privilege of a liberal education. They were well-acquainted with the texts of Thucydides, Homer, Plato and Sophocles. They had memorized lengthy passages of Chaucer and Shakespeare. They had written treatises on art and on history. These leaders of men could inspire their followers with the lofty ideals that they had distilled from a liberal education. Now we can anticipate an age in which our leaders know none of this. They are schooled in economic theories that are disproved ten years after they graduate. They develop the skills that will make them wealthy, but not those that will make them wise.

Many students take a narrow and immediate view of the time that they spend at college. They look upon these four years as merely a step towards a job at a prestigious bank, or a prerequisite for admission to a celebrated law or medical school. They study economics because they believe that investment banks and consulting firms want to hire only economics concentrators. They study government as if that alone will enhance their law school applications. They ignore liberal arts classes, lest those courses adversely affect their transcripts.

This short-term view of college as a training ground for professional life is patently misguided. All the investment banking firms that come to recruit at Harvard repeat the mantra, "You do not have to be an economics major to apply." Recruiters know full well that they can teach English concentrators whatever they need to know about economics and accounting. They are looking for talent and aptitude, intelligence and potential. None of these qualities has ever been the sole preserve of economics concentrators. The same argument is true of law and medical schools. Students need not focus all their energies on government or science, because law and medical school admissions officers are sufficiently judicious to value breadth of interest and quality of achievement over more mundane concerns. Just like the recruiters, admissions officers know that the applicants can learn all that they need to know to be qualified lawyers and doctors.

Students would profit much more from their education by exploring the great books and ideas that can ennoble their souls. Economics, government and the natural sciences are not, in and of themselves, less worthy fields of study than the liberal arts. However, the legions of students who parade into their lectures, cheerlessly taking notes on material that bores them in the hopes that having taken these courses will bolster their chances of being employed, are degrading these disciplines. Studying economics for its own sake, because one is interested in the workings of economic systems, is a worthwhile endeavor. Studying economics for the sake of a career, on the other hand, is not.

apitalist societies need highly competent lawyers, bankers, doctors and businessmen in order to operate effectively. The high salaries available in these professions have consistently tempted Harvard students to reject academic careers in the liberal arts. But that should not cause these same students to reject the liberal arts themselves. While Harvard students contribute to society by creating innovative businesses and advancing medical science, it would be a shame if that were all that they could do. An institution such as Harvard has a profound responsibility to ensure that its resources are used to elevate the culture of a materialistic, capitalist society. Those students who neglect the liberal arts are more susceptible to the vices of capitalism &emdash; unbridled self-interest, avarice, and philistinism &emdash; than are those intrepid students who immerse themselves in literature, history, philosophy and art. Harvard, of all places, ought to be a fortress of culture and high ideals. Instead, it is becoming little more than a stepping stone to a lucrative professional career.

Table of Contents