19 October, 2010

World-Class Liberal Arts for Lutherans

The point RenMus has been attempting to make—with some success, we hope!—is that a new way in Lutheran higher education can and must be found. Worn out are those attempts to turn essentially parochial institutions into the multi-use, “everything-to-everyone,” institutions we see today. In fact, the success rate for Lutheran colleges that have become everything to everyone if only they might win a few for their coffers is dismally low. The Church’s interest in higher education really cannot be anything other than “a theologically conversant and literate laity and clergy.” All other “objectives” of higher education can be met by large state universities. So let’s leave those objectives to them and attend to our own interests.

Liz Reisberg makes a similar point in today’s Inside Higher Ed in an article titled, “If not a world class research university, then perhaps world class liberal arts?” The piece hinges on two arguments. First, world-class research university is coterminous with big bucks; liberal arts education is relatively much less costly. Second, given the tortuous route of a typcial worker’s “career” these days, liberal arts education is poised today as at no other time to be useful.

Mutatis mutandis, the same arguments Reisberg makes can be directly applied to Lutheran higher education. Chasing the latest professional program is always going to be much more costly than sticking with a solid liberal arts curriculum—and the payoff disappointing to the effort given. And since Lutheran higher education educates for one’s vocation, Lutheranly understood, and not one’s “vocation,” understood as “career,” it uses the human arts (artes humaniores) to that end on the premise that one learns to be a human better by reading Thucydides than by learning the precepts of marketing.

While the first point is one going to the proper management of limited resources, the latter is really a theological, not a merely aesthetic, issue. The Wittenberg Reformers were convinced that the higher education entailment of the Lutheran Reformation was a radical approach to the Western intellectual tradition through the sources themselves. To be sure, other approaches to higher education were wildly popular at their time; Melanchthon could complain with the best of us that students eschewed the liberal arts and chose instead what was “universally more saleable.” But for the Wittenberg Reformers, higher education was a matter of best preparing students to live under God’s call in a world and under orders created by God for men and their benefit. It was not, finally, business prowess or bureaucratic advancement that made for a life well-lived in the Wittenberg way; rather, a life well-lived in the Wittenberg way was one with a deeply cognizant sense of being located in a specific time and place, gifted with a certain wisdom handed down from antiquity and with an eschatological horizon that meant that this world was not all there was. That was the end to which the Wittenberg Reformers put the artes humaniores.

And that’s the end to which their modern heirs should continue to educate. Indeed, Thucydides is still the father of political philosophy, and the eschatological horizon hasn’t changed a bit. It’s only that we heirs of Wittenberg seem to have lost our way between our past and our future. But by approaching things like Wittenbergers, that is, by understanding what we ought to do now based upon where we have come from, based upon what we already know, we can find our way again. 

15 comments:

Jon Bruss said...

A reader who prefers to respond anonymously per email has this to say about the post above. His comments are between the lines of asterisks, my response follows:
*****
Jon, I really like this piece. Wouldn’t it be interesting if one of the LCMS, WELS or ELS college presidents tried to take you to task. Have you done everything to engage them? What about challenging them to a debate on this general topic? Seems like there would be little for you to lose but I am not sure what would be gained. I need to think more about this. You guys—Nordling, Springer, Ankerberg and you—have put it out there. Lots of red meat but no takers. H-m-m-m-m-m. I wonder why.
*****
Bruss' Response: we have done everything we can (or at least a great deal) to engage them. I know we have readers of RenMus at many of the CUS schools, BLC, WLC, and maybe MLC from time to time. As to why we're getting no response from the higher-ups, a couple of things come to mind: (a) they're too busy, which is probably the case; (b) they're too busy to do something that isn't important to them, which is probably more the case.

As to why they won't pick up Wittenberg line, I think there are three basic reasons: (a) they can't pursue it because they don't believe in it; (b) they can't pursue it because, even though they espouse it in theory they think it's archaic and not among what is "saleable," quite frankly; (c) they might like to pursue it but they can't withstand the weight of the institutional culture in which they live--everything from entrenched faculty positions to massive pressure from boards and constituencies (boards and constituencies which they themselves have cultivated, mind you, with a deaf ear to other possible board configurations and constituencies that would help them advance a Wittenberger agenda).

jon

Cornelia said...

"Liz Reisberg makes a similar point in today’s Inside Higher Ed in an article titled, “If not a world class research university, then perhaps world class liberal arts?” The piece hinges on two arguments. First, world-class research university is coterminous with big bucks; liberal arts education is relatively much less costly. Second, given the tortuous route of a typcial worker’s “career” these days, liberal arts education is poised today as at no other time to be useful."

Graduates of liberal arts colleges are well represented among those obtaining science and engineering Ph.D's according to the National Science Foundation.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/#tab2

Jon Bruss said...

Dear Cornelia, thanks for this info. To draw on my own experience, both recent and more ancient, St. Olaf College, which for a long time has remained tenaciously "liberal-artsy," was in many individual years and certainly over decades taken as a whole, one of the two or three largest point-sources of math Ph.D.s in the States. Based upon what appears to me to be the continued strength of that dept. in terms of number of faculty, I imagine that may still be the case.

I wonder: what kind of major-depth do you think is required to pursue a legitimate scientific or engineering Ph.D.? In other words, do you think that to enter a good physics dept. at the grad level a person ought to have come from a very deep physics major, or do you think it's possible to do high-quality work in a high-quality grad department without something like specialization in physics? This is not mere idle curiosity. As you can see from a few posts back in late August and early Sept., this matter of "how much science and math" is really something I'd love to hear about.

Thanks! And thanks for your interest in RenMus.

jon

Steve Gehrke said...

Cornelia's link is interesting to look at more closely. The percentages of graduates of a number of private liberal arts colleges who receive science and engineering PhD's can indeed be relatively high at certain schools. For example, ranking #6 by this measure is Carleton College, with about 12 S&E PhD's per 100 graduates. However, Carleton doesn't even make the top 50 in terms of the numbers of PhD's produced. To quote NSF: "The top 50 known U.S. baccalaureate-origin institutions of 1997–2006 S&E doctorate recipients are almost all research institutions with very high research activity, and more than half are public institutions."

So I think you can conclude it is entirely possible to get a PhD in science and (perhaps) engineering after a BS or possibly BA at a liberal arts school (I certainly know some, and have a couple in my research group now) - which I think was Cornelia's point. But I wouldn't use the term "well-represented", however, which to me implies a large fraction of the entire population of S&E PhD's.

I would guess that the numbers of engineering PhDs in this group are rather small - that most of the people in the "S&E" category are primarily in math and the basic sciences, as Jon suggests, not engineering. It is relatively difficult to get into an engineering program with a science degree. One of my friends in engineering grad school was in fact from St Olaf, so again it is possible, but he did have a rough time adjusting to the coursework. I remember on the first day of exams, he left after about using half of he allotted time. The rest of us thought he must be some kind of super genius! However, it turned out when we caught up with him, he had simply given up on the exam, not completed it early.

Steve Gehrke said...

Check out the November issue of First Things, which includes a survey of over 100 colleges and universities and rated by academics, social life (as in conservative moral ethic) and religious atmosphere.

Lutheran schools cited include Concordia University-Wisconsin rated as one of 5 schools "on the rise, filled with excitement" while Valparaiso listed as one of 5 schools "in decline, filled with gloom". St Olaf rates reasonably well in all three categories, though the religious atmosphere is characterized as lukewarm.

A pattern falls out fairly well that the colleges most hostile colleges to religion are the smaller elite private liberal arts schools like Reed, Carleton, Amherst, Williams, etc. Among the Ivy's, Yale is rated the most hostile to religion, Princeton the least.

I also thought the description of Caltech's religious atmosphere was interesting:

"...Cal Tech is not run by postmodern professors who criticize capitalism by day and check their retirement accounts by night. Truth is taken very seriously, and, as a result, the basic, truth-affirming thrust of religious faith is not alien.

"Cal Tech makes ample room for brilliant eccentrics, and even those who think Christianity is bunk aren't likely to hector and harass those who believe. Moreover, a pious student worried about hedonism of American college life has little to fear at Cal Tech, where lab time takes priority over party time. In all likelihood, Cal Tech provides the best undergraduate scientific education in the world, and the scientific culture of truth provides a positive environment."

Though Caltech is not a typical engineering school, the description above is pretty much what I've claimed in the past on this blog and elsewhere is what it is like to be a Christian student (or professor) in a secular engineering school. The First Things issue also seems to support my sense (with no direct experience) that aggressive atheism in higher education derives from the elite liberal arts schools and those trying to mimic them.

Steve Gehrke said...

One more RenMus-relevant quote from Nov 2010 First Things (p.4):

"...we are increasingly coming to see that college must have an identity. The old idea of the multiversity appears more undead than we had thought, and it needs a final stake through its heart. The drift at schools without an identity is now rapid and precise: They all wind up at the same place, second- and third-tier would-be Harvards...Such schools may well be doomed. There isn't all that much point to them...But colleges with an identity and a purpose alive inside them-those are the ones to attend. The choices are almost endless. There are science schools and Great Books schools, art academies and yeshivas..."

Room for a modern Wittenberg U in the mold envisioned on this blog?

Perhaps also relevant is the comment on Valpo: "The administration and some of the faculty are trying hard to undo the school's Lutheran heritage-which is why Valparaiso is on our list of declining schools. Why rush, this late in the game, to become just like everyone else?" (they do note though that Valpo "can offer a supportive environment for their faith").

Steve Gehrke said...

For an academic, there's nothing quite like coming up with evidence to confirm a long-held hypothesis, is there? For years I've heard concerns from conservative Christians about whether it is 'safe' for their children to study science or engineering, assuming that such fields are anti-Christian because of a few noisy scientific materialists like Richard Dawkins. And I've always said that by and large the study of engineering and the applied sciences at least, will reinforce faith, not diminish it. But this has always been purely anecdotal.

Now First Things does a survey (still significantly anecdotal, but broader than just my experiences) and finds that a small, elite, highly selective secular science and engineering school like Caltech can be described as devoted to the pursuit of truth, and is absent hostility to Christianity even though it is not a church school by any means, nor designed to appeal to the religious. Rather First Things finds that it is the small, elite, highly selective secular liberal arts schools that are the institutions that are, in general, the most hostile to religion.

Question: Is that simply a historical accident, or does that reflect the nature of the intellectual disciplines? I believe the latter, though it is certainly not proven.

Nonetheless, please excuse me while I do my victory dance! (OK, so my hypothesis is far from proven, still...)

Steve Gehrke said...

Jon,

Speaking as a former college administrator myself, I do think that college administrators cannot be criticized for asking "If we build it, will they come?" They do have a responsibility to their institutions to be financially responsible stewards.

I really like the Wittenberg education idea philosophically, but you do have to sell the parents and the students on the idea before you can be ready to implement such an idea. I do think the Ren Mus blog is helpful to get people thinking about whether is another way to approach higher education for Lutherans that to try to become a second- or third tier Harvard wannabe as First Things states, or even a second or third (or fourth) tier state university wannabes. I agree with the First Things editors that this approach is a dead end for a private school.

Jon Bruss said...

Steve, where to start? Perhaps with the most provocative of the statements. I don't know whether it's the intellectual disciplines that are particularly hostile to Christianity, but it certainly is the humanities. On the basis "science" the humanities ridicule those who believe in such things as the resurrection of the dead. I put "science" in scare quotes only because it's a silly appropriation of science to claim knowledge about something out of one's ken. ("Do the dead rise?" "Dunno. But I ain't ever seen it. So it must not happen. And science says dead is dead.") Scientists are, it seems to me, much more humble about these kinds of claims.

Second, it doesn't help that Christianity is associated with conservativism in the U.S. Generally, because Christians espouse things like smaller gov't, are pro-life, pro-family, and so on, they become a convenient whipping boy for those who don't buy it. The question why there are so few conservatives in the academy is another altogether. But it is most especially true in the humanities and social sciences.

So could Caltech be good for Christians? One could say of a certitude that it can't harm them any more than a humanities department, and maybe and probably even less.

All of these things said, the guises worn by unbelief are many, ranging from the obvious (Foucault) to the subtle (bourgeois life). Both of the examples given CAN, certainly, prompt unbelief.

More anon.

Thanks!

jon

Jon Bruss said...

Steve, where to start? Perhaps with the most provocative of the statements. I don't know whether it's the intellectual disciplines that are particularly hostile to Christianity, but it certainly is the humanities. On the basis "science" the humanities ridicule those who believe in such things as the resurrection of the dead. I put "science" in scare quotes only because it's a silly appropriation of science to claim knowledge about something out of one's ken. ("Do the dead rise?" "Dunno. But I ain't ever seen it. So it must not happen. And science says dead is dead.") Scientists are, it seems to me, much more humble about these kinds of claims.

Second, it doesn't help that Christianity is associated with conservativism in the U.S. Generally, because Christians espouse things like smaller gov't, are pro-life, pro-family, and so on, they become a convenient whipping boy for those who don't buy it. The question why there are so few conservatives in the academy is another altogether. But it is most especially true in the humanities and social sciences.

So could Caltech be good for Christians? One could say of a certitude that it can't harm them any more than a humanities department, and maybe and probably even less.

All of these things said, the guises worn by unbelief are many, ranging from the obvious (Foucault) to the subtle (bourgeois life). Both of the examples given CAN, certainly, prompt unbelief.

More anon.

Thanks!

jon

Steve Gehrke said...

Jon,
I suggested (and then discarded) the idea that the reasons for the differences could be historical rather than disciplinary, among other reasons. For example, the differences could also be associated with the different types of people attracted to different fields - engineers aren't generally rebellious or confrontational people, so that may explain a some of the differences between the schools. I think the only concept inherent to the disciplines that IS different is that in the hard sciences and engineering the idea that some things are true and some things are false is foundational. In contrast, what things in the humanities are considered non-negotiable truths (has Pilate's question been answered)?

However, the main point I wanted to make was simply an empirical observation about where hostility toward religion lies in higher education, and to note the contrast identified by First Things between a school like Caltech and its liberal arts counterparts. I'm sure the reason for the contrast is multifaceted and not strictly defined by the disciplinary subject matter. So you may penalize me 15 yards for my unsportsmanlike touchdown dance!

Jon Bruss said...

No unsportsmanlike conduct, gleeful laughing included. It's a great shame of the humanities that they hold nothing as true, even while what they purport to devote their attention to DOES.

In all fairness, however, it's my impression, having hung around humanities types for a number of years, that there are a great many who do hold some things true--and often just those things that should be held true--but that it's inconvenient to talk in those terms. The problem, alas, is that bugaboo of empiricism. It's one thing to say that it's a fact that a bridge built across the SF bay of gum and wire won't do the job it needs to; it's quite another to assert metaphysical truths or to argue from "the law of nature" on moral conduct. That's the mire the humanities find themselves in. And this conversation now enters into the whole sphere of metaphysical grounding, epistemology, etc., something that becomes complicated very quickly.

jon

Steve Gehrke said...

Jon,

Yes, your latter point is exactly mine. But of course scientists and engineers are also human, and technology in particular is driven by human wants and desires, and thus scientists and engineers also need the humanities. They are just fortunate that their higher education does reinforce a general insistence that true and false are real and exist independently of culture. Thus the idea of ultimate truth claims in Christianity sound familiar, not naive.

Their weak spot is that they are also instinctively drawn to utilitarian ethical arguments, and the idea that one should not do something even though it is possible is hard to accept. Engineering accreditation requires that we teach ethics, but I don't think we are very effective - as we then wander off into the realm of the humanities and "you have your truth and I have mine." Absent regulations, why is it bad to pollute a river and kill off the wildlife if that maximizes corporate profits? In the presence of regulations, if you can find a way to be in technical compliance with the regulations even though you still kill of all the wildlife in the river, again why is this bad? Why build something beautiful if it is easier and cheaper to build something ugly that accomplishes the same purposes? And etc., etc.

Steve

Steve Gehrke said...

BTW, the example of being in technical compliance with environmental regulations while clearly being out of compliance with the intent of the regulation (i.e. dead fish being observed where effluent runs into the river although assays of the effluent meet the EPA requirements) is a real example.

Is ignoring the presence of the dead fish ethical? What about turning off costly pollution-prevention equipment except when the EPA announces a pending compliance visit? (another real example) Engineering equations can't answer this. What say the humanists? What says Luther/Lutheran theologians?

Cornelia said...

The main thing the top 15 (I didn't check all 50) on the list shared was the characteristics of their student population. An admissions officer can't know which individual student will go on to seek a Ph.D. in science or engineering, but he does know what pool of candidates he will come from. So it seems largely a matter of advertising to and recruiting highly prepared students.


Carleton students, 13% majored in physical sciences, math not listed separately*
2000 undergrads*
525 S&E Ph.D's within 9 years***

University of Chicago had 7% in physical science and 7% in math**
5000 undergrads**
873 S&E Ph.D's within 9 years***

So, no apparent disadvantage for those individuals choosing a smaller but still high quality liberal arts college who would then wish to pursue graduate study.

*http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?match=true&collegeId=509&searchType=college&type=qfs&word=carleton#

**http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=1713&profileId=0#

***http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf08311/#tab2

University Business reported in 2007 that small colleges were successfully attracting science majors.

http://www.universitybusiness.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=732

A college with a Wittenberg view, I assume, would be a small liberal arts college and would offer programs that students interested in various fields including sciences could feel confident would prepare them for whatever they would pursue after graduation. If Carleton can do it, then it can be done. The college would really need to attract the students and faculty who want to do it. There would have to be a commitment to recruit at least the students if not also some faculty. The program would have to be communicated to those prospective students, many of whom are sitting in the pews Sundays. They can't choose what doesn't exist, or if it does and they are unaware of it. Just pure supposition but perhaps the faculty at some particular Lutheran campus already want to move in that direction. It seems that if they can have a meeting of the minds within their departments they could be able to steer in that direction. That would take some confidence, but seems within possibility. In fact, it may be more effective than a university president trying to make it happen. I don't know how strong the current leaders are. If they are not very strong, they may depend on the faculty for direction or worse, fear change.

Looking at the horizon for my own children, it would be nice for them to have a great Lutheran college to attend. It would be great to be assured the colleges and congregations are really walking together in providing the most appropriate education for their capable college aged church members.