Liberal arts education and Economics 101

In an earlier blog entry, I spoke of the need one often feels to come up with good economic arguments for an education in the liberal arts.  Now, again, I’m no economist, but the president of Yale, Richard C. Levin, is, and I’ve read a couple of recent addresses in which he does just that. 

His argument goes something like this.

Diversification is good—in any economy, as in life.  The more an economy is diversified, the better off it is, especially In Times Like These.   (The relative success of the Manitoba economy over the past few years as compared to its richer, less-diversified neighbour a couple of provinces over is testimony to this.)

What can be said about an economy in general can be said about its labour force in particular.  The more a labour force is diversified, the better off it is, and the better off the economy is as a whole.  A diversified labour force should include people with many different types of training, including those having a good ole liberal arts education.

Dr. Levin’s argument seems pretty compelling to me.  We often forget that although universities are involved in training in the widest possible sense of the word, the training that we do is different from that done elsewhere in similar institutions of higher learning.  Economically speaking—ahem—there is no substitute for a liberal arts education, as there is no substitute for other types of training.  A labour force or an economy that is lacking in it is an impoverished one.

We need to hear this type of argument more often—especially In Times Like These.