Some quick thoughts on all the heat coming out in response to the @TACollege Curriculum: 1. Of course the details of the curriculum can be debated. It is one of the great hobbies of TAC grads. A group of us were involved in founding a new college @WYOCathCollege that is fundamentally a readjustment of aspects of the curriculum. 2. Saying this should be done in high school misses a key reality: 18-22 year olds, in my experience, are able to do this curriculum in a way that high schoolers cannot. We might even call that age the philosophical stage of education. There is something very valuable about doing such an education after high school. 3. No one thinks this curriculum makes you immediately ready to be a practitioner of modern science. But it does give you an insight into the principles of modern science that isn't found many other places. You can think deeply about the modern scientific project. Are there biases and limits in the approach? Sure. But few places are asking their students to do this and that creates problems too. 4. Saying the degree is not for a job, doesn't mean it is opposed to a job. While I happen to think some outdoor leadership would help form the students to live out the reality of a liberal arts curriculum a little bett​er (one of those adjsutments to the curriuclum we do at at WCC), it's hard to see how being a well​-read, articulate, person ​trained to reflect on the fundamental principles of human activity makes you less employable...