Editor’s Note: This essay is part of the Texas Horn’s 2026 Inaugural Journal, “The Soul of the University.” Contact us here to request a hard copy of the journal.
An eye-catching phenomenon has swept America over the past few decades: universities have emphasized producing specialized, skilled students, but employers increasingly complain that graduates are underprepared. This disparity has visible consequences. Underemployment among recent graduates has skyrocketed to 41.2% in 2025, and this lack of required skills has led many graduates to take lower-paying jobs, increasing the difficulty of repaying America’s $1.77 trillion student debt.
So what has gone wrong? There are many factors that could explain this dichotomy, including an unpredictable job market and the oversaturation of industries as America becomes increasingly educated but cannot create enough jobs for the growing demand. Both of these realities pose significant problems. However, one often overlooked issue trumps them all: the university has lost its ability to produce insightful leaders by failing to teach students the life skills necessary to make their ‘job’ skills effective. Its focus on extreme specialization explains how students could complete copiously difficult degree programs, yet graduate without developing character or necessary skills such as critical thinking and effective communication. The university’s failure to provide all students with the opportunity to become fully educated individuals stems from confusion about its ultimate purpose. This identity crisis stems from a centuries-long debate over the university’s purpose.
There are two viewpoints: the pragmatic and the classical. The pragmatic viewpoint believes that college degrees are major financial investments and should have a clear return on investment (ROI). This entails that universities should provide students with marketable skills that lead to employment, thereby increasing the nation’s economic competitiveness. Education solely becomes a means to secure a better job. On the other hand, the classical viewpoint champions a different aspect of education. Created by classical thinkers such as Plato and continued by more modern figures like Russell Kirk, this movement views education as a formative force in the development of students’ moral character. Higher education shapes the virtues of the soul by contemplating the perennial questions of humankind.
In modern times, most universities follow the pragmatic viewpoint. STEM programs have increased across the country while funding for the liberal arts, which traditionally has been the main provider of a classical education, has been slashed dramatically in the past decade. Let me be clear: there is nothing wrong with investing in more STEM programs. In fact, the United States needs more people to innovate in such fields, and our investments are exponentially paying off in life-changing ways. Yet, universities’ increasingly myopic focus on vocationalism has simultaneously proved itself insufficient by creating many of the skill deficits that employers complain of today. For example, managers have noted how many graduates lack critical thinking and problem-solving, and often operate on very siloed knowledge. They also denounce poor communication and interpersonal skills, as well as a lack of adaptability and self-initiative. Much of this deficit stems from a purely vocational education that mistakes training for true person-formation. It produces adept technicians whose skills could become obsolete in the age of AI, instead of the well-rounded innovators and leaders needed for the unpredictable tomorrow. By constantly prioritizing extreme specialization, universities sacrifice students’ ability to develop foundational skills, such as a strong ethical framework and critical thinking, that are essential for navigating the complex, interdisciplinary problems that will persist long after the relevance of technical training has faded.
The pragmatic viewpoint’s incomplete nature leads us to examine the classical viewpoint as an alternative path for the purpose of the university. This kind of education cultivates the intellectual virtues of logic and critical thinking and provides a solid rhetorical basis in written and spoken communication through intense discussions of difficult topics that have troubled humankind throughout history. Through grappling with questions of justice, freedom, and morality, students build their own moral philosophy for navigating within the world. Conservative thinker Russell Kirk describes this idea as the “moral imagination.” He believed that through immersion in the great texts of history, individuals could develop their faculty of perceiving ethical truths and understanding of the human condition. A student cannot learn courage and prudence from a textbook; they must learn it by wrestling with the complex characters and scenarios of Dostoevsky, Plato, and Shakespeare. Such education has the potential to produce intellectually and morally grounded leaders who demonstrate the intellectual flexibility and moral stability needed to keep pace with our world’s constantly shifting state of affairs.
However, in today’s highly technical and financially driven world, a purely classical education poses a significant dilemma for many students who seek a soul-shaping education. The escalating costs of higher education often drive liberal arts-inclined students to prioritize high-paying careers, not out of passion, but out of necessity to avoid crushing, long-term debt. This pursuit of financial solvency, while often necessary and understandable, can inadvertently steer students away from less lucrative but equally valuable fields. For many first-generation students and those from challenging socioeconomic backgrounds, this pressure can be especially acute. The promise of better education and opportunities from expensive institutions can paradoxically limit their academic freedom and force them into career paths dictated by debt rather than genuine interest or societal needs.
Hence, it is clear that neither the pragmatic nor the classical viewpoints alone can provide both the personal and vocational development necessary in the modern world. The path forward for American higher education demands a clear vision that transcends the limitations of both extremes. Universities need to reclaim their vital role as institutions fostering holistic growth, and not just career training. By combining the pragmatic pursuit of marketable skills with the classical cultivation of character and intellectual virtues, we can start to address our skills gap and minimize graduate unemployment. In today’s dynamic academic and professional landscape, this renewed purpose must also extend beyond the classroom. While universities could perhaps mandate a Great Books seminar for all students to increase engagement with the great texts, much of student learning occurs outside of classes. Universities should also focus on designing experiential learning that simultaneously fosters personal development. Internships, work-study programs, and leadership roles in student organizations and extracurriculars to build communication, empathy, problem-solving, and resilience.
Crucially, in our increasingly individualistic society, a significant portion of the impetus for personal development will rest with our students. While institutions must provide the soil, students should fulfill their responsibility by actively seeking out the many opportunities for growth. The best career preparation a student can receive is a true education, in which vocational, intellectual, and moral virtues are developed. Taking this integrated approach will ensure graduates’ preparation for their first jobs, and provide them with the adaptability, ethical compass, and critical thinking abilities to thrive across diverse career paths and lead with integrity in an ever-evolving world. With this refocus on personal development alongside practical skill-building, the university can help students take charge of their formation and produce the next generation of mature and skillful leaders.
