Most students can’t rely on a combination of natural aptitude, writing skills and diploma prestige to land a good job. If you’re at Arizona State, majoring in Greek is probably a big mistake. Most college students should be focusing on developing marketable human capital, which means taking courses that will leave them with specific job skills. Classics doesn’t fit this bill.I also think Freddoso overstates the importance of “the classics” or Great Books for developing a sound worldview, though this is probably my bias coming through. I think Dickens (whom Freddoso includes in an expanded definition of “classics”) is dreadfully boring, and I have no use for ancient philosophy. I actually liked the courses I took in early modern philosophy, but I think my worldview would be basically the same without them. The readings I did in my high school Latin classes made ancient Rome sound like a tawdry soap opera–fun, but not really edifying.
Is Majoring in “Classical Studies” a Good Idea? - By Josh Barro
I think Barro needs to reply to the obvious objection to his argument: that if all your training is in “specific job skills,” what do you do when changes in technological and/or economic conditions eliminate that job? The primary job-oriented argument for liberal-arts education is that it produces students who are resourceful, adaptable, and wide-ranging in their thinking and skills. Now, you may not think that liberal-arts education does in fact produce such students — in which case, make that argument, please — but it would be very foolish to deny that a rapidly-changing economy needs people with the virtues I’ve just listed. Detailed training for a single job won’t cut it any more.