We live in a world where language is regularly weaponized for political, economic, or other purposes. One of the best examples of that in recent years has been the way in which critics of higher education have seized on the term “liberal arts” to confuse and distort what is behind the term.
As a strong supporter of the liberal arts, and as a political science graduate from a liberal arts college myself, I have to say it: The name “liberal arts” is now an almost unworkable one in the public dialogue.
To be clear, the problem isn’t that what takes place in a liberal arts education doesn’t work for the modern world. The problem is that it’s a troubled brand—one that at this point may do more harm than good.
It’s tough for some inside higher education to understand how this could be. After all, the liberal arts are, at their root, about giving people a well-rounded education that deeply instills critical thinking, communication, adaptability, and analytical skills. But in today’s hyper-partisan and deeply polarized world, the mere use of the term “liberal” prompts entrenchment in today’s partisan politics. Some spit out the word with the utmost disdain—never mind that its original meaning is about freedom. The “arts” don’t fare much better, viewed narrowly and literally as not relevant to the work many people see themselves doing in the future.
Both words, “liberal” and “arts,” are a turnoff to many people, and when you put them together, it just doesn’t sound appealing to many Americans.
The disconnect is striking: While 89% of college chief academic officers consider liberal arts education central to undergraduate and professional learning, nearly the same share—88%—say Americans do not really understand what liberal arts education means.
At best, it’s an archaic and misunderstood term. Coming from Latin— artes liberales, meaning “skills worthy of a free person”—the liberal arts were meant to describe the fields that teach what is necessary to develop expansive moral thinkers and creative problem-solvers. At the level of a college major, think of degrees in fields like English, history, and philosophy.
But we’ve lost that meaning—and so we’re losing the argument for the value of the liberal arts.
And I’m not convinced that we can win that argument by simply repeating that the liberal arts are worthwhile. We need a better way of talking about the important skills that these programs develop. They are the durable skills that employers overwhelmingly value, such as critical thinking, problem solving, and teamwork. And they are the skills that will help people adapt and innovate as artificial intelligence reshapes work.
To reframe public perceptions, colleges and universities must redefine what a bachelor’s degree really means, regardless of the major a student chooses. They must connect these deeply human skills to equally in-demand technical skills and help students show what they’ve learned.
More than ever, we need people who can navigate complexity and work together across widening differences. We need people who can draw connections, explore new ideas, and ask both “why” and “how.” These are not “soft” skills; they’re enduring human skills in uncertain and rapidly evolving times.
Fixing the skewed reputation of the liberal arts
The economic outlook for liberal arts students is not as bad as many fear, as the Brookings Institution notes. In fact, their degrees still pay off, particularly in the long run and when compared to those who lack bachelor’s degrees.
But it’s true that liberal arts majors may take longer to find jobs and that they typically earn less, especially early on, than those with more technical degrees in STEM fields.
Interest in majoring in traditional liberal arts fields has seen a sharp decline. Questions over the value of liberal arts degrees pose a real threat to colleges and universities. These questions have prompted lawmakers to cut funding for degrees that initially offer lower earnings and have even contributed to the closure of small colleges. As higher education faces declining confidence and increased scrutiny, the liberal arts are a frequent target.
So how can we sustain the value of liberal arts degrees?
The first step is to avoid the tired trap of pitting a liberal arts education against a technical or practical one. The most valuable education and training will equip students with the best of both.
That means adding career relevance through experiences such as internships, research, or capstone projects—deep, hands-on learning opportunities that help lead to first jobs. This is good for all majors, frankly, and can also infuse the cross-disciplinary spirit of the liberal arts and the development of interpersonal skills across all fields of study.
I predict this will become the new norm for bachelor’s degrees: Expect to see more colleges and universities integrate project-based learning into all degree programs, making opportunities more widely available that fit into students’ course loads, budgets, and lives.
“The liberal arts are most successful when they have one foot in the library (the accumulated knowledge of humanity) and one foot in the street (the real world of the marketplace, politics and social interaction), to paraphrase the social reformer Jane Addams,” wrote Brandeis University President Arthur Levine in an op-ed calling for a rethinking of the “badly dated” liberal arts.
Why we need the liberal arts
An engineering student has a clear path to becoming an engineer. But the liberal arts are intentionally broad, seeking to prepare people for the future—for jobs that don’t yet exist. That’s exciting, as long as we don’t lose sight of the real-life applicability of these degrees.
For example, very few people become anthropologists—but that’s a measure of employer titles, not employability, notes Thurka Sangaramoorthy, chair of the anthropology department at American University.
It is anthropology majors who help untangle public health quandaries, analyze policy decisions, and address global social woes. They work at tech companies, in government, in health care systems.
“These outcomes were not produced by luck,” Sangaramoorthy wrote in a compelling opinion piece for the Washington Post. “They were produced by a discipline that teaches students to do something remarkably difficult and remarkably rare: to move between close attention to individual lives and systemic analysis of the structures that shape them; to ask whose voices are absent from any account of reality; to hold complexity in mind without flattening it into a data point.”
Or consider that the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that English majors frequently work in business and finance—because they can solve problems and communicate effectively.
Several tech executives, including Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, recently have made the case for a return to more human-focused skills. In fact, when the Wall Street Journal recently asked AI executives what they advise their own children to study, several emphasized the liberal arts.
“Metacognitive skills will be very important—flexibility, adaptability, experimentation, thinking critically, being able to challenge things. Developing critical-thinking skills requires friction, doing things that are hard, doing deep thinking,” said Jaime Teevan, chief scientist, and technical fellow at Microsoft. “For that, a traditional liberal arts education is really important.”
If the whole point of a liberal arts education is to better understand the world around us, we should expect it to evolve for what’s needed now. What we call this kind of learning matters far less than whether we deliver on its promise. As technology advances, we need to invest in our human capabilities, making sure every student gains the breadth of knowledge, depth of understanding, and real-world experience to help them succeed at anything they want to do.
If we can do that, we won’t need to argue about the liberal arts. We’ll just keep improving them for what comes next.
This article was originally published in Forbes.