The author is dismayed to find that the liberal-arts curriculum--the so-called "core"--is under attack, especially at two-year schools. It "is" under attack, from legislators with no understanding of the aims of higher education; from administrators focused short-sightedly on the bottom line; from chamber-of-commerce types who read "college" as "work-force development"; and even from some of one's own colleagues, advancing their narrow agendas. A certain amount of training is necessary in any profession. However, the liberal arts curriculum provides students with a solid foundation for their own thought processes, enabling them as they take in and process information on their own to benefit from the collective wisdom--and folly--of the ages. The author does not suggest that schools should devote students' entire four years of college to reading Aristotle. The author suggests that the system does not need to dilute, any more than it already has, the part of its educational system that's actually educational. Yes, students do need two math courses, at least, just as they need at least a couple of history courses, a couple of science courses, a literature course or two, an art course. Those are as vital to the personal and professional success of a future bank manager as any upper-division accounting course.