The case for liberal education in technical fields
Origins
Etymologically, the word education originates from the Latin terms educare and educere, both of which convey the idea of drawing out or bringing forth what already exists within an individual. Viewed this way, education is not simply the transmission of knowledge, but the cultivation and development of a person's inherent potential; ideally in an environment that fosters freedom and growth.
If we believe that education should inherently develop intellectual freedom, critical thinking, and open-mindedness — qualities central to the very concept of education — then the term 'liberal education' might seem redundant. After all, does the word education itself not suggest a liberal spirit, making the qualifier 'liberal' appear unnecessary?
However, in practice, education is not always liberal. There is a wide gap between the ideal and the reality. Education systems that prioritise narrow specialisation or vocational training frequently neglect the broader and more reflective goals that liberal education seeks to advance. This is precisely where the term liberal education becomes meaningful. It underscores an approach that values a multidisciplinary perspective over a single-discipline focus, critical and creative inquiry over routine skill-based training, and civic responsibility over mere career preparation.
Thus, we can argue that, in essence, liberal education is not a superfluous label and is a necessary reminder of what education is truly meant to be.
The true purpose of education is to liberate the mind from all forms of shackles. Only when individuals are free can they truly think, imagine, and create. Without freedom, independent thought becomes impossible and without independent thought, new ideas cannot emerge.
'Education is freedom,' proclaimed Paulo Freire, a strong advocate for critical pedagogy and liberation education. The idea highlights that true education is not about enforcing conformity but about fostering liberation. When education is meaningful, it frees people from ignorance and passivity, empowering them to think critically, act purposefully and live responsibly and liberates learners from conformist, dogmatic, and passive mindsets.
If it fails to cultivate the ability to think for oneself, it stops being education and turns into indoctrination. As Noam Chomsky points out, education and indoctrination are fundamentally different: the former encourages critical inquiry and independent thought, while the latter imposes unquestioned beliefs and suppress critical analysis.
Liberal vs. technical
The core principles of liberal arts education emphasise holistic development, multidisciplinary learning, and the idea of education as a means to enrich life, not merely a tool for survival. This raises an important question: Does technical education in India go against these principles? Opinions may differ, as institutions vary in their approach. However, broadly speaking, technical education in India tends to prioritise specialised skills, offers limited scope for interdisciplinary learning, and remains largely focused on employment and industry needs.
In the U.S. and many other countries, Engineering and Medical programmes incorporate Humanities courses such as Literature, Philosophy, History, Political Science, and Economics to offer a more well-rounded education. Unfortunately, this kind of integration is still largely absent in India. Recently, during a conversation with a group of engineers and academics, I brought up the importance of including Humanities subjects in Engineering curricula. To my surprise, the idea was quickly dismissed by many, who regarded such courses as irrelevant and a waste of time.
Liberal education complements science and technology. When its principles are integrated into technical fields like Engineering and Medicine, they help produce well-rounded, ethically grounded, and adaptable professionals equipped with critical thinking, effective communication, and interdisciplinary understanding. In their paper 'Toward a Liberal Education in Medicine,' Raymond H. Curry and Kathryn Montgomery propose a model that goes beyond ensuring competence in core knowledge, skills, and clinical perspectives. They argue for a more holistic approach—one that prepares not only competent physicians but also reflective, well-rounded individuals capable of navigating the moral, cultural, and intellectual challenges of contemporary medical practice. Technical education can become a true form of education and even a tool of liberation if it nurtures intellectual autonomy, ethical reflection, and critical inquiry. Without these elements, it risks becoming merely utilitarian training.
A true champion of liberal education is not merely a teacher or academic, but a custodian of the liberal spirit; someone who embodies intellectual curiosity, upholds freedom of thought, and is deeply committed to the lifelong pursuit of knowledge. In the 21st century, this role is not limited to liberal arts educators; engineers, doctors, and other professionals, too, are expected to advocate for the values of liberal education.
Today, qualities and values matter more than mere employability skills. A highly skilled individual lacking emotional intelligence may achieve technical success but is likely to struggle with empathy, leadership, collaboration, and earning public trust. Integrating liberal education into technical fields can not only help engineer minds but also doctor the hearts of society.
The writer is an ELT resource person and education columnist. Email rayanal@yahoo.co.uk
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
The case for liberal education in technical fields
Recently, I was part of a panel discussion on the topic 'Liberal Education in the Age of Intelligence,' organised by the Rajagiri Round Table Conference. The topic provoked questions and reflection: Is the term 'liberal education' a misnomer or perhaps even redundant, since the very idea of education implies openness, inquiry, and freedom of thought? Are we truly living in an age of intelligence, or is it more accurately the age of Artificial Intelligence? Can the principles of liberal education be meaningfully integrated into technical and vocational training? Perhaps most significantly: What truly defines a liberal educator or a genuine champion of liberal education? Origins Etymologically, the word education originates from the Latin terms educare and educere, both of which convey the idea of drawing out or bringing forth what already exists within an individual. Viewed this way, education is not simply the transmission of knowledge, but the cultivation and development of a person's inherent potential; ideally in an environment that fosters freedom and growth. If we believe that education should inherently develop intellectual freedom, critical thinking, and open-mindedness — qualities central to the very concept of education — then the term 'liberal education' might seem redundant. After all, does the word education itself not suggest a liberal spirit, making the qualifier 'liberal' appear unnecessary? However, in practice, education is not always liberal. There is a wide gap between the ideal and the reality. Education systems that prioritise narrow specialisation or vocational training frequently neglect the broader and more reflective goals that liberal education seeks to advance. This is precisely where the term liberal education becomes meaningful. It underscores an approach that values a multidisciplinary perspective over a single-discipline focus, critical and creative inquiry over routine skill-based training, and civic responsibility over mere career preparation. Thus, we can argue that, in essence, liberal education is not a superfluous label and is a necessary reminder of what education is truly meant to be. The true purpose of education is to liberate the mind from all forms of shackles. Only when individuals are free can they truly think, imagine, and create. Without freedom, independent thought becomes impossible and without independent thought, new ideas cannot emerge. 'Education is freedom,' proclaimed Paulo Freire, a strong advocate for critical pedagogy and liberation education. The idea highlights that true education is not about enforcing conformity but about fostering liberation. When education is meaningful, it frees people from ignorance and passivity, empowering them to think critically, act purposefully and live responsibly and liberates learners from conformist, dogmatic, and passive mindsets. If it fails to cultivate the ability to think for oneself, it stops being education and turns into indoctrination. As Noam Chomsky points out, education and indoctrination are fundamentally different: the former encourages critical inquiry and independent thought, while the latter imposes unquestioned beliefs and suppress critical analysis. Liberal vs. technical The core principles of liberal arts education emphasise holistic development, multidisciplinary learning, and the idea of education as a means to enrich life, not merely a tool for survival. This raises an important question: Does technical education in India go against these principles? Opinions may differ, as institutions vary in their approach. However, broadly speaking, technical education in India tends to prioritise specialised skills, offers limited scope for interdisciplinary learning, and remains largely focused on employment and industry needs. In the U.S. and many other countries, Engineering and Medical programmes incorporate Humanities courses such as Literature, Philosophy, History, Political Science, and Economics to offer a more well-rounded education. Unfortunately, this kind of integration is still largely absent in India. Recently, during a conversation with a group of engineers and academics, I brought up the importance of including Humanities subjects in Engineering curricula. To my surprise, the idea was quickly dismissed by many, who regarded such courses as irrelevant and a waste of time. Liberal education complements science and technology. When its principles are integrated into technical fields like Engineering and Medicine, they help produce well-rounded, ethically grounded, and adaptable professionals equipped with critical thinking, effective communication, and interdisciplinary understanding. In their paper 'Toward a Liberal Education in Medicine,' Raymond H. Curry and Kathryn Montgomery propose a model that goes beyond ensuring competence in core knowledge, skills, and clinical perspectives. They argue for a more holistic approach—one that prepares not only competent physicians but also reflective, well-rounded individuals capable of navigating the moral, cultural, and intellectual challenges of contemporary medical practice. Technical education can become a true form of education and even a tool of liberation if it nurtures intellectual autonomy, ethical reflection, and critical inquiry. Without these elements, it risks becoming merely utilitarian training. A true champion of liberal education is not merely a teacher or academic, but a custodian of the liberal spirit; someone who embodies intellectual curiosity, upholds freedom of thought, and is deeply committed to the lifelong pursuit of knowledge. In the 21st century, this role is not limited to liberal arts educators; engineers, doctors, and other professionals, too, are expected to advocate for the values of liberal education. Today, qualities and values matter more than mere employability skills. A highly skilled individual lacking emotional intelligence may achieve technical success but is likely to struggle with empathy, leadership, collaboration, and earning public trust. Integrating liberal education into technical fields can not only help engineer minds but also doctor the hearts of society. The writer is an ELT resource person and education columnist. Email rayanal@
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Hindustan Times
The More Trump Pressures the Fed, the Less Likely He Gets Lower Rates
The Trump administration has ramped up its attacks on Fed Chairman Jerome Powell in the past few weeks as the president pushes for lower interest rates. The louder he shouts, the less likely he is to get what he really wants: lower government borrowing costs and cheaper mortgages. At the highest level the dispute between the White House and the Fed is a battle about institutions versus populism, the question of whether experts operating at arms length from the government will do a better job than the elected politician of the day. President Trump's views are captured by the Latin phrase vox populi, vox dei: The voice of the people is the voice of God. The Fed is exactly the opposite, deliberately set up not to be beholden to day-to-day politics. The two sides disagree about the economics of tariffs, which the administration expects to have little effect on prices. The Fed—burned by its mistake in missing the inflationary boom under former President Joe Biden—is waiting to see if tariffs feed through into higher prices before restarting rate cuts. Republicans have been happy to weaponize both Powell's failure to act quickly against the Biden-era inflation and the Fed's handling of cost overruns on a big office redevelopment, which Trump visited on Thursday. But both are merely sticks to beat the Fed into lowering rates. Trump has talked of slashing interest rates by 3 percentage points, which would mark a radical shift and upend conventional economic models. I could talk about the rapid feed through into inflation likely to follow from such arbitrarily low rates at a time of a decent economy. But let's assume that is just rhetoric and what he really wants is rate cuts sooner and larger than the market is pricing. Futures are priced for almost no chance of a cut next week and about a 60% chance of a cut in September, with 1 percentage point of cuts by the midterms next year. The problem is that how rate cuts are achieved matters, because the Fed's institutional structure matters. At one extreme if the Fed cut rates because Trump broke the Fed's independence, it would trash investor confidence and push up Treasury yields. Signs of this show up every time Trump launches a new assault on Powell, including last week. The day after his call for a three-point rate cut, the New York Fed's measure of the 10-year term premium, the extra yield baked into Treasurys to compensate for the risk of locking up money for a decade, rose to 0.84 percentage point. That is up from 0.6 point after he backed down from similar attacks in April—and from zero a month before the election last year. The more politics enters into interest rates, the more volatile inflation is likely to be, and the more compensation investors will want for long-term investing. The same issue would come if Trump tried to dismiss Powell for cause before his term ends next May, or if calls by some Republicans to change the law governing the Fed left it beholden to pressure from Congress. Investors would expect politicians to take the easy route, preferring to accept a bit of inflation to nudge up growth, especially ahead of elections. Again, they would want compensation in the form of higher bond yields. That would mean higher mortgage rates and higher financing costs for longer-dated government borrowing, the opposite of what Trump wants. Construction on the Federal Reserve building in Washington, D.C. The strength of this investor belief was demonstrated most clearly in the U.K., when a new government in 1997 surprised markets by making the Bank of England independent. Bond yields adjusted over the course of a few days to price in inflation coming in a third of a percentage point lower over the long run once the politicians gave up direct control of monetary policy—allowing permanently lower interest rates. Trump is misguided in thinking Fed cuts would necessarily feed through into cheaper mortgages, because the standard 30-year fixed-rate mortgage depends not on the overnight interest rate set by the Fed but on long-dated Treasury yields. 'People aren't able to buy a house because this guy [Powell] is a numbskull,' Trump said this week. 'He keeps the rates too high, and is probably doing it for political reasons.' There is a loose connection between Fed rates and mortgage rates over long periods, but they can move significantly in opposite directions, especially if the market thinks the Fed is making a mistake. Since the central bank started cutting last September, overnight rates are down a full percentage point, while the 30-year mortgage rate is up from 6.2% to 6.75%. I'm broadly in favor of the Fed's precautionary approach to the inflationary effect of tariffs, because a second inflation shock in five years would be so damaging, and I don't think interest rates are especially high given the strength of the economy. But monetary policy isn't a science, and there is a perfectly reasonable case to be made for cuts to begin next week. A half-decent case can be made for the Federal Reserve cutting rates faster than markets expect. But it can't be made by the president. The case would point out that tariffs haven't boosted inflation much so far; that inflation, measured the way the Fed prefers, is only just above target and is in line with the average this century, and that rates are still high. The handful of trade deals Trump has done involved tariffs that are too high for my taste but still far below the scary-high levels of April. Inflation expectations are under control, private-sector hiring is weak and wage growth has slowed somewhat. Meanwhile, signs of stress from high rates are visible in elevated delinquencies for student loans, credit cards and auto loans. It is clearly frustrating for Trump that Powell is delaying cuts. But better to wait than to have the higher bond yields that come with attacking Fed independence, let alone the chaotic interest rates that come with politicians—and their electoral cycles—taking over rate-setting. If Trump thinks the Fed is hard to deal with, wait until he tries to negotiate with the bond market. Write to James Mackintosh at
Mint
3 days ago
- Mint
The more Trump pressures the Fed, the less likely he gets lower rates
President Trump has talked of slashing interest rates by 3 percentage points, which would mark a radical shift and upend conventional economic models. The Trump administration has ramped up its attacks on Fed Chairman Jerome Powell in the past few weeks as the president pushes for lower interest rates. The louder he shouts, the less likely he is to get what he really wants: lower government borrowing costs and cheaper mortgages. At the highest level the dispute between the White House and the Fed is a battle about institutions versus populism, the question of whether experts operating at arms length from the government will do a better job than the elected politician of the day. President Trump's views are captured by the Latin phrase vox populi, vox dei: The voice of the people is the voice of God. The Fed is exactly the opposite, deliberately set up not to be beholden to day-to-day politics. The two sides disagree about the economics of tariffs, which the administration expects to have little effect on prices. The Fed—burned by its mistake in missing the inflationary boom under former President Joe Biden—is waiting to see if tariffs feed through into higher prices before restarting rate cuts. Republicans have been happy to weaponize both Powell's failure to act quickly against the Biden-era inflation and the Fed's handling of cost overruns on a big office redevelopment, which Trump visited on Thursday. But both are merely sticks to beat the Fed into lowering rates. Trump has talked of slashing interest rates by 3 percentage points, which would mark a radical shift and upend conventional economic models. I could talk about the rapid feed through into inflation likely to follow from such arbitrarily low rates at a time of a decent economy. But let's assume that is just rhetoric and what he really wants is rate cuts sooner and larger than the market is pricing. Futures are priced for almost no chance of a cut next week and about a 60% chance of a cut in September, with 1 percentage point of cuts by the midterms next year. The problem is that how rate cuts are achieved matters, because the Fed's institutional structure matters. At one extreme if the Fed cut rates because Trump broke the Fed's independence, it would trash investor confidence and push up Treasury yields. Signs of this show up every time Trump launches a new assault on Powell, including last week. The day after his call for a three-point rate cut, the New York Fed's measure of the 10-year term premium, the extra yield baked into Treasurys to compensate for the risk of locking up money for a decade, rose to 0.84 percentage point. That is up from 0.6 point after he backed down from similar attacks in April—and from zero a month before the election last year. The more politics enters into interest rates, the more volatile inflation is likely to be, and the more compensation investors will want for long-term investing. The same issue would come if Trump tried to dismiss Powell for cause before his term ends next May, or if calls by some Republicans to change the law governing the Fed left it beholden to pressure from Congress. Investors would expect politicians to take the easy route, preferring to accept a bit of inflation to nudge up growth, especially ahead of elections. Again, they would want compensation in the form of higher bond yields. That would mean higher mortgage rates and higher financing costs for longer-dated government borrowing, the opposite of what Trump wants. Construction on the Federal Reserve building in Washington, D.C. The strength of this investor belief was demonstrated most clearly in the U.K., when a new government in 1997 surprised markets by making the Bank of England independent. Bond yields adjusted over the course of a few days to price in inflation coming in a third of a percentage point lower over the long run once the politicians gave up direct control of monetary policy—allowing permanently lower interest rates. Trump is misguided in thinking Fed cuts would necessarily feed through into cheaper mortgages, because the standard 30-year fixed-rate mortgage depends not on the overnight interest rate set by the Fed but on long-dated Treasury yields. 'People aren't able to buy a house because this guy [Powell] is a numbskull," Trump said this week. 'He keeps the rates too high, and is probably doing it for political reasons." There is a loose connection between Fed rates and mortgage rates over long periods, but they can move significantly in opposite directions, especially if the market thinks the Fed is making a mistake. Since the central bank started cutting last September, overnight rates are down a full percentage point, while the 30-year mortgage rate is up from 6.2% to 6.75%. I'm broadly in favor of the Fed's precautionary approach to the inflationary effect of tariffs, because a second inflation shock in five years would be so damaging, and I don't think interest rates are especially high given the strength of the economy. But monetary policy isn't a science, and there is a perfectly reasonable case to be made for cuts to begin next week. A half-decent case can be made for the Federal Reserve cutting rates faster than markets expect. But it can't be made by the president. The case would point out that tariffs haven't boosted inflation much so far; that inflation, measured the way the Fed prefers, is only just above target and is in line with the average this century, and that rates are still high. The handful of trade deals Trump has done involved tariffs that are too high for my taste but still far below the scary-high levels of April. Inflation expectations are under control, private-sector hiring is weak and wage growth has slowed somewhat. Meanwhile, signs of stress from high rates are visible in elevated delinquencies for student loans, credit cards and auto loans. It is clearly frustrating for Trump that Powell is delaying cuts. But better to wait than to have the higher bond yields that come with attacking Fed independence, let alone the chaotic interest rates that come with politicians—and their electoral cycles—taking over rate-setting. If Trump thinks the Fed is hard to deal with, wait until he tries to negotiate with the bond market. Write to James Mackintosh at
