On Liberal Arts
Where do the students of liberal arts go, after mastering history’s truths, philosophy’s provocations, and sociology’s structures? They exit universities with minds sharpened but pockets empty, not for lack of intelligence, but because the market deems their knowledge untranslatable. Their CVs are heavy with ideas but light on “hard skills.” They drift into underpaid roles or unrelated industries, watching the very disciplines that scaffold society be dismissed as indulgent or obsolete.
But is this the fault of liberal arts? Or is it the blindness of an economy that can quantify code but not conscience?
The current system appears to conflate demand with value. Tech is in demand, so tech is valued. But politics, economics, law, philosophy—these are not industries. They are inheritances. They are the ancient ligaments of the body politic, the compass for collective existence. Long before a line of code was ever typed, societies were debating governance under banyan trees and in Greek agoras. Without understanding justice, no software can solve social inequality; without political wisdom, no innovation can protect peace.
And yet, here we are—treating the liberal arts as ornamental in a house that is crumbling.
Education is not merely a production line for employment—it is the crucible in which societies sculpt their conscience.
As liberal arts students, we do not seek pity. We seek purpose. And we offer something indispensable in return—context. A code without context can build an empire or a surveillance state. But a society that knows its stories, its struggles, its philosophies—that is a society that endures.
In a world obsessed with speed, liberal arts teaches us why we are running.
And that question—more than any algorithm—is what might save us.
(Read full)
