>structuring departments based on market demand vs. academic interest (no more liberal arts)

This sort of view is rampant on HN, and I can kind of see why. The core mental skills engendered by a truly study in the liberal arts, users here pick up on their own. The more technical skills were either self-taught or learned in a technical educational program. And finally, many of you probably knew from a somewhat early age, at least college, that you wanted to do the sort of technical fields often discussed here. I don't think it's a false assumption to say that many users, probably like yourself, are "smarter," by some core measurement of reasoning and reading and writing, than the general populace. It's easy to see why you should brush away something like the liberal arts--it didn't do anything for you!

Yet this ridiculous shortsightedness reminds me of recurring clarion calls about the end of religion. "Any second now, it will no longer become necessary. It's been central to (spirituality and life/education) for, literally, thousands of years, but THIS is the year we stop needing it."

Even if we eliminate the huge debt that (Western) intellectualism owes to the liberal arts of classical era, reasons abound for continuing the tradition beyond mere duty.

Before I continue, let me clarify what I mean by liberal arts. A degree in anything from a large public university is probably not a true liberal arts education. The liberal arts, to me, implies small classrooms, the Socratic method, great/classic literature, heavy reading assignments and papers, emphasis on reasoning and essay writing as opposed to memorization and test-taking, and faculty that take an active approach to students' lives, engaging them after hours.

That sort of education, to me, is worth what I'm (currently) paying for it. I admit, the financial aid/tuition is in dire need of restructuring. The athletic departments and non-faculty employees are, more often than not, unneeded at their current levels.

It is absolute folly to throw out the system that has worked nearly as long as civilization itself because the "market" demands different skills. I am all for changing departments to fit market skills, but we must remember:

Departments can only change so fast, and sometimes the best way to learn those skills it simply by trying them, and not by learning about old models of them. I frequent this place enough to know that CS degrees are not necessarily the best way to make your living in programming. Though I offer no personal anecdote, one sentiment I come across is, they're simply outdated, and move too slow. YET, a department shifted to fit "market demands" might simply expand the CS department, despite the department's inability to quickly adjust to market demands. We must realize that there is a limit to how "new" an education can be. I trust the market to certain tasks, but not to determining what is most useful to study.

That, in itself, presents an argument for the liberal arts. Technical skills change. Homer does not. Four years spent studying a now-dead skills are wasted years. Four years spent reading the Odyssey in Greek will almost certainly not grant any useful skills, but it will sharpen the mind far greater than any program shifted to meet "market demands."

My greatest personal support for the liberal arts comes from long hours spent studying a single endeavor. I would think this is a universal feeling: time spent pouring over a subject or work or project should be rewarding. The more time I spent last semester delving into the Aeneid, the more rewarding and revealing it became. I have never felt this way about any subject, and certainly not ones adjusted to meet "market demands." I'll be damned if I devote four years to something unimportant.

We can wax eloquent about useful skills, or we can draw a sharp contrast between needing to learn specific skills for a job, and needing to learn to learn, to "think outside the box," however cliche that may sound, to analyze arguments, and trends, and people, and events, to question, not authority, but everything, to develop a love of mental exploration and challenges, and to take "technical skills" with a grain of salt.

Surely the college system needs overhaul. But it needs more of the true liberal arts, like what I described, not less of it. HN needs to take a step back, remember that programming is not reflective of every industry, not academic department, and finally...

realize what the power would be in a mentorship with the figures the OP mentions. Surely the power would be in more than the networking, but what that person could learn. Not the mere marketable, technical skills you speak of, but the experiences that challenge them, and force them to think on their feet, and examine their beliefs, and learn, (FAST). These are the same core skills taught in a true liberal arts environment, and could be achieved by a mere alteration of the thread's title:

"We need an AirBnB for tutorship."