I was heartened to receive news from William Fahey, President of Thomas More College in New Hampshire, that TMC has been judged as amongst the top 2% of American Colleges and Universities. Two other orthodox Catholic schools were also amongst the top 2%: Thomas Aquinas College and the University of Dallas. Whilst this represents a true vindication of the good, solid Catholic liberal arts education being offered at these three excellent institutions, I feel that the criteria for the survey of over a thousand colleges and universities by the Association of College Trustees and Alumni is a little skewed. The school at which I teach, Ave Maria University, failed to find a place alongside TMC, TAC and UD because composition and economics are not required subjects on AMU’s curriculum. Many schools rightly insist that students should have already mastered the mechanics of writing before being accepted as a student, on the assumption that composition is something that belongs as a requirement in high school curricula. Such schools should not be considered second-rate. And as for economics, I fail to see why this should be a requirement ahead of theology, philosophy, European History, or Western Civilization, none of which were considered important enough to merit inclusion amongst the criteria for judging the quality of the colleges. I note, in fact, that the vast majority of colleges do not require economics and this is the primary reason why so few received an “A”. The fact is that the Association of College Trustees and Alumni has an idiosyncratic and quirky obsession with economics and one suspects that one of the purposes of the survey was to lobby for the adoption of economics as a requirement in more liberal arts institutions. Considering the woeful ineptitude of most economists and their evident inability to understand the global economy and the crisis into which it is plunging, I fail to see why we should be requiring students to be blinded by a pseudo-science rooted in false premises.
Having acted as a damp squib I am nonetheless delighted that Thomas More College has been recognized in this survey and am publishing William Fahey’s e-mail, which contains links to news stories about the survey.
Dear Friends,
I don’t know whether you saw this great news or not. Thomas More was ranked by the Association of College Trustees and Alumni (ACTA) as among the top 2% of American Colleges/Universities.
That is a big feather in our cap and quite a tribute to the faculty and students here. ACTA is quite a prestigious group. This was based on a year-long study of the best 1000 College and Universities. Only 19 were give an “A” for the curricula. We were one of them.
You will also be interested to know (but not surprised) that only 3 of the top 19 received a straight “A” (as opposed to an “A minus) and all three were Catholic (Thomas Aquinas College and Dallas joining us).
Thomas More was the only “A” College in New England (not counting the Coast Guard Academy… all the military academies ranked in the top 2%).
As you can see, the story was carried on a variety of news sites (including CBS).
In Christ the King,
William Fahey
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/thomas-more-college-receives-high-marks-for-its-curriculum/
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=115116
http://moneywatch.bnet.com/spending/blog/college-solution/19-colleges-that-make-you-think/6453/
With all due respect, I think your lack of background in economics shows up in your comments. Three short observations:
1.) Economics is first and foremost a field of philosophy. It depicts a rational man — that empirical evidence validates over and over again.
2.) Micro and Macro economics are very different fields. An understanding of micro economics allows students (and all people) to have a better (and more realistic) perspective of humanity. It is tool that is greatly needed. It suggests how people and markets will behave. My undergraduate degrees in Economics and Politics — combined with other liberal courses–taught me to generic understanding of human behaviors. This occurs on both a micro level (how people behave) and on the macro level (how economies create wealth). It also shows how public policies with the best of intentions such as rent control and minimum wage laws — can help people but cause damage in the long run.
Please don’t equate today’s macro economic debate about Keynesian economics, small business confidence, and a weak banking system with a failure of all economic learning.
3.) A knowledge of the economics makes us all better Catholic Citizen. It is impossible to truly understand the Rome’s encyclicals about policies and economics without a knowledge of economics. How can you understand the issues like subsidiarity (akin to the political notion of neo-federalism) without a knowledge of economics? To have faithful Catholics coming out of wonderful schools like Ava Maria without an informed knowledge of economics is shame. It can make them naive: why not just nationalize the means of production, and give everyone a fair wage? Why not? Because it doesn’t work. Why? Philosophy–including micro economics, issues of freedom, and the impossibility of earthly utopia explains allows this question to be answered.
I wrote this message too quickly–I have to get back to work. My wife and I are big fans of Ave Maria U– I am a college professor with a Phd in an economics-related field. If you want continue this discussion, I would be happy to.
cheers and blessings.
Richard, Thanks for your helpful and thought-provoking comments.
You note that you “wrote this message too quickly” because you had to get back to work. I understand. I also wrote my own initial and evidently provocative post too quickly because I too had to get back to work. Such is the nature of writing for blogs. One consequence of my haste was the sweeping dismissal of economics per se, which was not really what I intended. We offer economics as a major at Ave Maria and I have nothing but respect for the AMU economics faculty. My argument was simply that the survey was clearly quirkily insistent on economics being adopted as a requirement. I maintain that other subjects not seen as necessary by the ACTA have more reason to merit inclusion as requirements. I note, for instance, that you maintain that “economics is first and foremost a field of philosophy”. I couldn’t agree more, which is why it shouldn’t be treated as a so-called “science”, except in the broadest sense that everything, including philosophy, is a science, i.e. a branch of knowledge. If economics is a branch of philosophy, isn’t it singularly odd that the ACTA thinks that economics is necessary but that philosophy isn’t?
Dear Richard,
I can’t help but note the excitement in your comment about economics. Such excitement is commendable because it ensures good teaching, and so it’s good that you’re a professor in an economics-related field.
It also bespeaks, however, a tendency to see the whole universe in terms of economics, even to the point of a more-or-less unspoken conviction that other disciplines are dependent on, branches or extensions of, or in some way lesser than your own. That’s a professional hazard, I think, of those whose study (and enthusiasm) causes them to delve deeply into theoretical thought in their respective fields. It’s not peculiar to economics; one finds that tendency among sociologists, educational psychologists, political scientists, and behavioral psychologists. They could all say, as you do: “My undergraduate degrees in {Economics and Politics }– combined with other liberal courses–taught me generic understanding of human behaviors.” You, at least, include the phrase, “combined with other liberal courses”; many don’t include “other” courses.
There is endless fascination with wealth and power in modern times. It wasn’t always so. The Industrial Revolution is what brought about this increasing scrutiny, which arrived at the Bolshevik Revolution and now sits on the dime of “globalization.” It is an evolved and evolving field of study that has its historical origin in Rationalism and the Age of “Enlightenment.” But to have a perspective on its relative importance, one must have a foundation of some kind in History of Western Civilization and/or Philosophy. In short, economics isn’t the “whole” as its enthusiasts proclaim; rather, it is but a “part,” along with other modern studies of human behaviors.
I suspect, along with Joseph, that “one of the purposes of the survey was to lobby for the adoption of economics as a requirement in more liberal arts institutions.” Which is not to diminish its importance, but to provide perspective.