Methinks you have confused "university" with higher ed.

"Hint: universities don't exist for the purpose of providing 'private sector skills' (read: job training). They exist to provide a broad-based education in many, mostly non-'useful' fields so that a person might legitimately be considered educated."

Wrong. Universities exist primarily for research. If you look at a university's budget by line item much of the income is derived from private research grants, the in-house press for the scholars' monographs, and government-funded research (federal, NSA, state, Army, etc). Tuition, especially in the major land-grant universities, is secondary. This is why if you apply for a tenure track faculty position at a university, whether public or private, and tell them that you consider research/publication secondary to teaching those undergrads World Cultures 101, you can expect your CV to hit the shredder five minutes after you leave the department chair's office. They will not be interested. Universities today are in the business of being America's research engines, whether in polymers, biotech or understanding the 18th century.

The other 99.2% of us who live outside the ivory tower actually consider the education of undergraduates important. I certainly do. But as a parent, paying $12,000 per year for tuition/fees at State U. (don't even talk about private school tuition), in addition to overall development of my kid I'm also going to consider what the school has to offer in the way of preparing her for a career she can support herself with (because it's sexist to assume a MAN will come in, sweep her off her feet and take care of her). In other words, if my daughter comes to me and asks me to pay for college so she can study acting or basketweaving or the like, without a plan as to a career path, I'll question that. A lot. My job as her father to prepare her for the real world.

So, that's my understanding of Higher Ed. If that sounds strange to you--that a person should go to college as part of an overall career plan, as opposed to "discovering themselves"--well, you may want to get out and talk to more people. An education may be broad, but it must be focused to have any purpose.

Higher ed, in this country, has always been about job preparation. Harvard College was founded to train ministers--the ruling elite of Massachusetts Bay. So was Yale. The other colleges were founded to train the sons of the colonial aristocracy to become acquainted with law and the social niceties expected of them as the elite.

Public colleges, such as Massachusetts Agriculture College (today's UMass system), started out as farming and later engineering schools. Same with Cooper Union. Same with MIT.

The only schools I can think of that were founded specifically to educate students in a nontraditional, nonfocused method were Hampshire College and its ilk--most of them were founded in the '60s.

Yes, I can certainly allow that the coursework of the Universities of Bologna, Padua et. al. were liberal arts training, but you make the point I was making--it was considered job training for clerics (actually, for theologians, since these clerics would not be posted as parish priests out in Montaillou, so to speak). Similarly, a 17th-century gentleman of good family in England would not likely go to Oxford unless he sought out a clerical preferment, but more likely to the Inns of Court to be a barrister, or apprenticed to a counting-house for business.

Yes, a broad-minded education is widely seen as the goal today. I myself have a B.A., so I can hardly bash the liberal arts. I also took a Women's Studies course, co-listed as a History course, taught by a professor who was a historian first, WS person second, and she was fantastic.But I generally saw it--and still see it--as part of a pathway to a career. Most history majors, from what I remember, end up either as a) teachers, b) law students, or c) sales/managerial careers. And that's fine for all three of them, because a broad, critical-thinking education is very important for many reasons.

I suppose, to be fair, if my daughter said to me, "Dad, I want to major in Women's Studies", after my initial reaction ("huh?") I would want to know what she would do with herself after graduation. Yes, I would insist on that, if I'm paying for it. If she told me she planned on pursuing law, working for an NGO or non-profit, and believed the program of studies would help her reach that goal, I would be fine with it. My peeve really lies in that IME too much time is spent by WS professors railing against the Patriarchy, exploring academic rabbit holes and politicizing the disciples, and too little time is spent preparing the students who major in it for a paying gig after Senior year.