I’ve found myself in two very different conversations recently, and I can’t shake the gap between them.
At one institution, there is a deep and genuine commitment to preserving the liberal arts in its most “pure” form. Faculty are protective of the intellectual experience, cautious about anything that feels overly applied, and wary of integrating career preparation too directly into the academic environment. The concern, whether stated explicitly or not, is that doing so would reduce something meaningful into something transactional.
At another institution, the conversation has taken a very different turn. There is visible discomfort with the language of the liberal arts itself. The word “liberal” has become politically loaded. The word “arts” has become shorthand—fairly or not—for limited job prospects. Questions about indoctrination, employability, and return on investment are no longer background noise. They are shaping decisions in real time.
In one case, the liberal arts are being protected. In the other, they are being quietly distanced.
Both responses are understandable.
And both are creating real risk—around student outcomes, equity, and the institution’s ability to clearly demonstrate its value in an increasingly skeptical environment.
What should feel like a strength… is becoming harder to defend
Students still arrive at liberal arts institutions for the reasons we would hope: curiosity, meaning, intellectual challenge, and the opportunity to explore ideas that don’t have immediate or obvious answers.
But somewhere between that initial attraction and graduation, something shifts.
The labor market they are entering is more complex, more competitive, and less forgiving than it once was. Entry-level roles increasingly expect experience. Hiring processes are less transparent. Signals that once carried weight—like the degree itself—are no longer interpreted in consistent ways.
Students feel that shift quickly.
They begin to feel pressure to explain their choices. Families ask more pointed questions. Employers, often operating with limited context, struggle to interpret what a degree in history or English or sociology actually signals about a candidate’s readiness to contribute.
And too often, the responsibility for making that connection falls entirely on the student.
What we see across institutions is not a lack of intellectual preparation. It is a lack of translation. Students develop the ability to analyze complex problems, interpret information, construct arguments, and understand human systems over time. Yet many leave without a clear sense of how those capacities connect to specific pathways or how to communicate that value to others.
When that translation depends on informal mentorship, prior exposure to professional environments, or a student’s own confidence navigating ambiguity, outcomes begin to diverge in ways that have little to do with ability and everything to do with access.
What often gets framed as a philosophical debate is, in practice, a question of access.
The environment changed. The model didn’t.
I know that this isn’t particularly new information for you, but I think it bears exploring more deeply.
How the disconnect actually happened
For much of higher education’s history, the liberal arts didn’t need to be “connected” to careers.
The students they served were already connected.
In classical antiquity, the liberal arts prepared elite students for civic life—law, governance, leadership. The curriculum built the capacity to think, argue, and persuade. The pathway into professional roles was already assumed.
That pattern held through the medieval and Renaissance periods. The liberal arts served as the foundation for advanced study in law, medicine, and theology, while social class and established networks translated education into opportunity. No separate system was needed to bridge the gap.
That shift comes much later.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, higher education expanded and reorganized. Universities became more specialized. Academic disciplines deepened. Faculty roles increasingly centered on research and subject-matter expertise. At the same time, access widened, bringing in students without the same inherited networks or clear professional pathways.
And this is the inflection point that matters: The system scaled. The translation didn’t.
Students gained access to the education, but not to the mechanisms that had historically converted that education into opportunity.
So institutions responded the way they often do.
They added something.
Over the course of the 20th century, career services emerged as the place where this translation was supposed to happen—separate from the academic experience, and without fundamentally redesigning how the rest of the system worked.
And that’s the model many institutions are still operating within today.
So, if you’re wondering why it feels like you’re having to make the case over and over and over again for why your work matters, this is your answer.
The core issue
The liberal arts didn’t need to solve for career outcomes, because the system around them already did.
When access expanded, that alignment broke.
And instead of rebuilding it, we outsourced the connection.
To career services. (yay, us!)
3 moves to strengthen translation without diluting the experience
This is where career leaders have more influence than they think: → Strengthening the connection between what students are already learning and how that learning shows up beyond the classroom.
1. Make translation part of the learning process—not something that happens later
At many institutions, the moment of “connection” happens outside the academic experience: during an advising appointment, an internship, or a late realization that graduation is approaching quickly.
By that point, students are often trying to retrofit meaning onto experiences they haven’t been guided to interpret along the way.
There is a different path.
When students are prompted—early and often—to reflect on how their coursework develops specific ways of thinking, analyzing, and communicating, the connection begins to take shape as part of the learning itself. This doesn’t require turning courses into career workshops. It requires making those patterns of thinking more visible, more explicit, and more consistently reinforced.
Start where this is already happening and expand it.
2. Clarify the institutional narrative before others define it for you
In the absence of a clear, shared narrative, the liberal arts are increasingly being defined by external voices: families, media, policymakers, and even prospective students trying to interpret conflicting signals.
Some of those interpretations are rooted in misunderstanding. Others reflect real concerns.
Either way, silence creates space for distortion.
Institutions have an opportunity to be far more precise in how they describe what a liberal arts education develops and why it matters. Not in abstract terms, but in ways that connect directly to how graduates contribute in professional and civic contexts.
What does it actually look like when a student applies historical thinking to a policy challenge? When they use narrative analysis to shape communication? When they draw on ethical frameworks to navigate complex decisions?
The more concretely those connections are described, the easier it becomes for others to recognize their value.
3. Replace informal pathways with intentional structure
Mentorship, alumni connections, and experiential learning opportunities are often among the most powerful elements of a liberal arts education.
They are also among the least consistent.
When access to these experiences depends on who a student knows, how proactive they are, or whether they happen to encounter the right opportunity at the right time, the distribution of outcomes will reflect those differences.
A more intentional approach ensures that every student—not just the most confident or well-connected—has access to the kinds of experiences that make their education legible and actionable.
What it looks like when this isn’t happening in isolation
In most cases, the work is already happening. Career centers are building strong programs, expanding experiential learning, and creating meaningful connections for students.
🎯But what I see over and over again is that these programs reach only select students. They aren’t designed to be integrated into the academic or student experience. It’s not just scale; it’s design.
Let’s look at some examples of what it looks like to be more integrated:
Career-connected coursework, not just career programming
Instead of asking students to attend a standalone workshop on “how to talk about your major,” the connection happens inside the learning itself. Faculty incorporate structured reflection into assignments, prompting students to think about how their work translates beyond the classroom.
Questions like:
Where does this skill show up in real-world contexts?
How would you explain this work to someone outside your field?
The learning doesn’t change.
But the translation does.
Alumni engagement embedded in the academic experience
Not just panels hosted by the career center, but sustained, structured interaction tied to coursework. Alumni join class discussions, offer short project briefs connected to real roles, and provide feedback on student work from a professional perspective.
Students don’t have to seek out the connection.
They experience it as part of how learning works.
Experiential learning with built-in interpretation
Internships, research, and projects already exist across campus.
The gap is often not access to experience but the ability to make meaning of it.
The shift is ensuring that students don’t just have the experience—they can use it.
That means guided reflection tied to competencies, consistent language across faculty and career staff, and repeated opportunities for students to practice articulating what they’ve done and why it matters.
Shared ownership across academic and career units
Not “partnership” as an occasional collaboration, but alignment around a shared expectation.
Every student graduates able to:
explain what they know
demonstrate what they can do
connect it to what comes next
That’s not a career services outcome.
It’s an institutional one.
Final thought
Career centers have not been standing still.
Across institutions, they’ve expanded experiential learning, strengthened alumni engagement, introduced career competencies, and created more opportunities for students to connect their education to what comes next.
This work matters, and I will continue to advocate for it.
In many cases, it’s working. But it’s still happening largely on its own.
Separate from the academic experience that defines how students spend most of their time, build their knowledge, and make meaning of what they’re learning.
That’s where the gap is. And it’s not just a structural issue.
It’s an equity issue.
When the connection between education and opportunity is informal, dependent on mentorship, confidence, or who a student happens to know, some students will always be better positioned to benefit than others.
At institutions working to preserve the liberal arts in their “purest” form, that often means the students who already have access to networks and social capital are the ones most able to translate their education into opportunity.
At institutions distancing themselves from the liberal arts, the risk is different, but no less real. In narrowing the educational experience, they can unintentionally limit the very capacities that allow students to adapt, move across roles, and build long-term trajectories.
Different responses. Same outcome: uneven access to opportunity.
Career centers are not the problem.
Reader- In many cases, they are the only part of the institution systematically working to connect education to opportunity.
The challenge is that they’ve been positioned to do that work alone.
So the question isn’t: “How do we do more?”
It’s: How do we stop doing this alone?
And, just as important: Where are we still relying on students to figure it out, and who is most likely to succeed in that model?
Start there. This one shift is enough to change the trajectory.
As always, thank you for reading and exploring these ideas with me,
P.S. Know someone who would benefit from this newsletter? Encourage them to sign up here!
