Dr. Scott Lowe of the Philosophy department sent me the link to an article on the importance of the liberal arts, written by a chemist and published on the Washington Post website:
" ... if American STEM grads are going lead the world in innovation, then their science education cannot be divorced from the liberal arts."
"Our culture has drawn an artificial line between art and science, one that did not exist for innovators like Leonardo da Vinci and Steve Jobs."
I love this article. Yet the use of the word "training" in its title gave me pause: training, to me, only teaches someone (or something) how to respond to certain stimulus. Ivy can be trained to grow into topiary shapes and dogs trained to obey commands. We do--and should--train students. But more importantly, we also educate them. Regardless of their major, they will as leaders be called upon to go beyond the bounds of training, to use their judgment to apply what they've learned from the arts, the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities--to solve problems and create opportunities we can't even yet imagine.
There's no training for that.