Bibliographic record
Abstract
This issue of Canadian Journal of Higher Education includes articles based on presentations made at International Conference on Liberal Arts: Looking Back and Moving Forward; Next 100 years of Liberal Arts: Confronting Challenges, held at St. Thomas University, September 30-October 2, 2010. The conference, which focused on challenges facing liberal and how these might be addressed, was one of events that marked centenary of St. Thomas University, an undergraduate university dedicated to liberal arts.A liberal education implies distinct purposes: breadth of awareness and appreciation, clarity and precision of thought and communication, critical analysis, honing of moral and ethical sensibilities (Shoenberg, 2009, p. 56). Liberal can cover a range of subjects and seeks to impart general knowledge and develop student's rational thought and intellectual capabilities. As George Will stated, it connotes a certain elevation above utilitarian concerns. Yet liberal education is intensely useful (as cited in Shoenberg, 2009, p. 56). The vast number of liberal programs and universities dedicated to study of liberal speaks to value of liberal education. There is a long-standing tradition in many professions (such as social work, which is my profession) of valuing a foundation in liberal education.Despite claims of its value, a liberal education is not without its critics and challenges, especially in light of attention given to financial cost and value of the arts relative to more focused study in higher education in programs such as those dedicated to business, engineering, and sciences. Further, as Schoenberg (2009) notes, a liberal education is possible only if faculty members are committed to liberal learning and not primarily to apparatus of their own disciplines (p.58).Before initiating planning for this conference, conference planning committee was aware of some of issues and challenges confronting liberal arts; however, as proposals were reviewed, it became evident that post-secondary education was changing in profound ways and that issues and challenges facing liberal were even greater than originally thought. As planning progressed, I became more aware of diverse areas where liberal are being challenged and of depth and severity of consequences. Of course, some of these challenges are faced by all university programs-shifts in demographics, cutbacks in government funding, advances in technology, and increases in costs of university education. Several of these factors impact enrolment and determine who attends universities.While there are commonly accepted observations, there is a sense of urgency now, urgency brought on by factors that more directly challenge liberal arts, such as emphasis on job-ready graduates, pressure for training rather than education, and research linked to business and job creation. As I became more cognizant of these challenges, I learned that other university faculty members were similarly unaware of seriousness of these challenges and breadth of their impact on liberal arts. The pressures of modern academia lead faculty to be very engaged in discipline-specific issues that are important for teaching, scholarship, and promotion; as a result, many are less engaged in issues surrounding impact of larger international and national structures within which liberal education operates. What perhaps is more alarming is that many academics are not aware that they are not aware, and, as a result, are not in a position to effectively argue for proper role of university in Canadian society. I hope this publication will help put issues in focus and, more importantly, move more faculty members to participate in dialogue.Of many challenges that confront universities, a number pose specific challenges to liberal programs:* The cost of education is increasing. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".