Abstract
It is always useful when a thoughtful critic zeroes in on one’s own ambivalence and confusion, and I thank Daniel DeNicola for that. To clarify matters a bit, I should start by saying that my main criticisms are directed at the liberal arts as they are presented in secondary schools. Some of the criticisms apply to colleges as well, but what passes for the liberal arts in high school — the specific disciplines of English, mathematics, history, and the sciences — are little more than preparation for further study in those narrowly defined subjects. Not only do they make few connections to existential themes, they make almost no connection to one another. Harold Rugg put his finger on the problem years ago, noting the conglomeration of facts within the social sciences: “Nothing short of genius on the part of a student could create an understanding of modern life from such a compartmentalized arrangement of material.”
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
