Take the middle road, one must.

1. Mulroy sees the rules that govern liberal arts a innate - almost like Socrates, except Socrates believed it was innate because we knew of it in a prior-to-life state in another realm (or some such idea). He, meaning Mulroy, also believes that the liberal arts are "ground rules for thought."

2. Well, Mulroy thinks they are letting too many things slip into the category of 'liberal arts'. He also throws back to some of Plato's ideas stating that rhetoric was the least important or repectable of the liberal arts (because it merely pleased others, but wasn't a true art, an idea not shared by all, resulting in the continual presence of rhetoric in instruction despite opinions) - while grammar was always important and accepted as a necessary tool.

It seems to me that Mulroy placed more of an emphasis on the fields of study that help students gain insight on values, language, culture (and other abstract ideas), rather than the concrete fields like mathematics or medicine. Those concrete fields have a purpose, but they must be learned and are not innate. (I like the example that it is easier to talk someone into understanding an idea, than it is to talk someone into know where a liver is. You must look for a physcial location for the liver, but the idea is something you can personally manifest). Also, unlike the 'liberal arts' the concrete and specific fields are not a foundation for all learning.

Playing off of that idea, I think that those concrete and specific fields that ready someone for a career and such are only understandable with that foundation of the general studies or liberal arts. Those things make a person a more well-rounded individual and aid them in understanding any other intellectual endeavours they choose to follow. Sort of like how you can't muliply or divide until you know that a number represents a certain value of being. Two things are more than one of the same thing. Four things are indeed four seperate individual things. Actually, you'd need to know that there is a NEED for these values before you can multiply or divide. But the main point is, you need to know the foundations before you can move on to the specifics.

In all actuality, though, it is possible for a person who was instructed only in a specific field, only to fulfill a certain job, to be successful at that job. However, that would make for rather dull and barely helpful doctors and business men - and much worse chatting buddies.

In regards to the instruction of grammar, the middle of the road would be the best path to take. To show that grammar enables a student to think abstractly and express and learn effectively is a great thing. But to let them know that grammar will also directly help them in the field they end up working in would also be quite helpful.