Reddit mentions of In Defense of a Liberal Education

You don't have a worthless degree. You have a liberal arts degree. Read In Defense of a Liberal Education if you don't know how to articulate the value of that degree. You should take at least a couple of years to experience the working world, and think about what your next best step is. Nothing is more pathetic than a second year law student who is $100,000 in debt and hates all their classes.

Source: Lawyer who went to law school in her thirties and loved every minute of it.

> If someone is trying to learn IT or coding, why do they need to take history classes and biology classes and chemistry classes? They don't want or need them and yet they have to take them to qualify for aid. Most people that go to college these days go to obtain skills for a job, not for a well rounded education or to become an professor or educator.

I think this is somewhat anecdotal - they might not "want" to take these courses, but I would argue that the "need" is there. There are significant benefits to a well-rounded education. Skills-based education (IT, Engineering) doesn't really get into learning how to think, in the general sense, which is probably going to be significantly more important as technology becomes obsolete more and more quickly, or as jobs disappear due to things like increased automation.

I'm not arguing that liberal arts should be mandated - some people are autodidacts enough that this sort of learning how to learn would be unnecessary - they will do it on their own. But Fareed Zakaria wrote a book defending the liberal arts education, because there is currently a tendency to devalue things like an English or History degree over a STEM/Business degree, because those taught tangible "skills," instead of wishy-washy liberal arts intangibles.

As for financial aid - I'm split. I found tremendous value in my own liberal arts education, but if someone just wants to learn the core necessities for their career goal and get out, I think that's fine too.