The price of higher education has been increasing at a rate significantly above inflation for quite some time. This has been partially justified by the fact that college graduates typically earn more than their high school counterparts and that post-college, entry-level salaries have increased over time. Admittedly, the rise in salaries has not been as fast as in college tuition, but it did help off set increased costs.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the average tuition cost has decreased 1.2 percent to $48,633. This stands in stark contrast to 2008, which had a 7.6 percent increase over 2007. The number of job losses and the rise in national unemployment further compounds the problem.

All of this makes one question the value of a traditional liberal arts degree. As an engineer, I might be biased, but it seems as the years continue, the value of an unfocused, broad-based education diminishes.

The principle is actually rather sound. By pairing classes from different disciplines, a student will gain a holistic approach to knowledge, allowing them to approach a problem with a novel solution based on their background. The idea promotes critical analysis and “out-of-the-box” thinking. That’s good.

The issue isn’t with the theory; it’s with the praxis. Most colleges, including Vanderbilt, promote a weak core education experience. Compositional classes focus more on the theme or topic of the seminar and not writing fundamentals. The W courses require the same number of papers as any normal English class would. The lab science options vary so significantly that students can avoid chemistry, biology and physics — the cornerstones of modern science. Then there’s the math requirement. Philosophy is not math. It might contain math, but all students should face calculus at some point in their college career.

It’s hard to think critically if you lack the basics. Over the years, the core requirements have been lessened as to allow students to control their educational experience. People, however, will normally take the easiest option when given a choice. Who could blame them? The typical history student will probably never need to integrate an equation to determine the volumetric flow rate of a pipe, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be exposed to such concepts.

I’m all for practicality, but decreasing the amount of required exposure to certain fields is only decreasing the range of knowledge a liberal arts major has to draw from when determining a solution to whatever problem at hand.

Originally college graduates were not run of the mill people. They were the aristocratic elite. That’s not entirely true, there were exceptions, but the fact of the matter was a college degree was a signifier of socioeconomic status. It made you seem smarter in conversation, not help you manage your family’s estate.

The fact of the matter is that a college education is still a status symbol. Most entry-level jobs don’t require a specific major and as a person advances in a company, he or she relies heavily on their work experience and not on modern interpretations of Babylonian mythology.

There is a purpose to the liberal arts; they’re just a little dated. The goal of a college education is to provide a solid background for students to succeed. Unfortunately, unless colleges and universities augment core requirements, they’re continuously sending out students who are not ready to face the realities of an increasingly complex world.

—Thomas Shattuck is a junior in the College of Arts and Science. He can be reached at thomas.w.shattuck@vanderbilt.edu.