Voices: I’m a professor. Utah’s universities are not, and should not be, vocational boot camps.

As a professor, I’m frequently asked about the efficacy of higher education. The questions are fueled by headlines that trumpet surveys of employers dissatisfied with recent graduates’ career readiness. Utah recently passed HB265, which cuts funding to all Utah higher education institutions by 10%, making those funds available only through alignment with high-income job sectors. Many feel the economically driven bill makes complete sense. However, it relies on a fundamental misunderstanding of what a university is for — and an unfair expectation of what graduates should be the moment they cross the stage.

Let’s set the record straight: Universities are not, and should not be, vocational boot camps.

Philosopher and Harvard professor Alfred Whitehead warned against the dangers of transforming universities into vocational boot camps. He believed that effective university education must move beyond technical skill building towards inspiring students to connect with ideas, explore meaning and grow as whole persons. In his essay, “The Aims of Education,” Whitehead argued that the central purpose of universities is to foster imagination.

Whitehead was insinuating that students need to develop the ability to see beyond the immediate information presented in their classes and synthesize knowledge in creative and adaptive ways. Simply put, universities need to teach students how to think across topics, to combine ideas across and through disciplines and apply these skills to solve complex problems. Students must acquire the skill of adaptability. According to Whitehead, universities need to be centers where this type of imaginative spirit is nurtured, not stifled. And what better way to stifle imagination than by cutting funding to programs that enhance perspective, generate awe and wonder, and make students question their perspectives?

According to Whitehead, a properly educated individual must balance the liberal arts and technical discipline. He wrote: “The antithesis between a technical and a liberal education is fallacious. There can be no adequate technical education which is not liberal, and no liberal education which is not technical.”

The phrase “liberal arts” has been given a bad rap, especially among more conservative crowds. I do not refer to liberal arts in the modern politically charged meaning. Rather, I refer to liberal arts in the classical sense of a neutral marketplace of ideas stemming from literature, history, philosophy and the fine arts that aid in cultivating judgment, empathy and imagination.

The liberal arts give students a broader view of the human condition and help them navigate ethical complexity, societal change and the diversity of thought they will inevitably encounter in professional life. Traditional liberal education promotes a free market in education, parental choice and individual liberty, diversity of thought, and limiting the role of government.

And yet, critics argue that universities have “lost their way.” Legislators have responded by demanding that programs justify their existence through economic metrics alone — earnings, placement rates and direct alignment with industry needs. But this is an unfair standard. No university can, or should, produce fully trained specialists tailored to every niche in the job market. Universities have always been a launching pad for careers, yet now we want our graduates to be able to plug and play within any industry? This seems unreasonable.

Instead, universities should equip students with the foundational skills to think critically, communicate effectively and learn continuously. These attributes make adaptable, long-term contributors in a rapidly changing world. This holistic vision was proposed a century ago, yet we keep pushing universities to operate in a space they are ill suited for. The economic metrics placed on universities don’t account for the societal value of educators, social workers, artists, historians or scientists and limit the free choice and options of students to pursue their educational interests.

All this is not to say that workforce preparation isn’t important, on the contrary, universities still have a lot of work to do. But universities are more than a job pipeline. They need to be viewed as developmental playgrounds, places where students learn how to think, not what to think, how to engage empathetically within society and to question systems, not just follow them. A purely economic driven higher education policy misses the mark. Universities shape minds, which help shape society. The pursuit of knowledge should be for its own sake, not because it leads to a high paying job.

As we look to the future of higher education and debate education budgets and policy realignments, we must ask: Are we cultivating competent workers, or thoughtful citizens? Are we training students merely to follow the world as it is or prepare them to imagine the world as it could be?

If we believe in the latter, then we must defend the university as a space where imagination, wisdom and purpose are not just welcomed but expected. Because you can’t have the competent worker without the holistic education that comes from university studies.

Dr. Tyson Riskas is a professor at Utah Valley University, where he teaches in the field of Information Systems. He holds a Ph.D. in career and technical education from Utah State University, an MBA from the University of Utah and is completing a graduate certificate in artificial intelligence. His work focuses on helping students and organizations navigate the evolving intersection of technology, education and human development.

The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.