Like Tom and Morgan, I spent quite a bit of time thinking about what type of education Cicero was advocating. Well, first, I was really interested in the way that Cicero criticized teachers of the young, and that led me to questioning the type of education that Cicero was advocating.
In particular, I had a question on one particular part. On page 119 (in section XXXI), the text comments upon "notice[ing] the capital error in those masters to whom we send our children; not that it has much to do with speaking, but that you may see how stupid and unpolished a set of men they are who imagine themselves learned." The text goes on to say that the error these supposedly learned teachers make is distinguishing the different kinds of causes. I took this section to be a criticism of a narrow form of learning/oratory. That is, these "learned" men were distinguishing between only two types of causes -- the error was that they were limiting themselves to two causes -- they were too narrow. But, here's the question -- As I read on I though, I thought Cicero was advocating for this narrowness in a way (at least as it applies to causes). So, that's the question.
But, beyond my question, here's the connection I see to Tom and Morgan. I, too, feel like Cicero is one of the first people who is acknowledging that rhetoric is expansive and that it acts. Not particularly in the Isocretean (is that a word) way of advocating for a rhetoric of civic action, but in saying that experience means something and with experience you can do things with language. This is referenced in a way on page 118 when Cicero (as Antonius) talks about the business man having a sort of genre knowledge that comes from his experience in business.
It is in this way that I envision writing in the liberal arts tradition (like Morgan and Tom discussed). While I never attended a liberal arts school, I am aware that many of these schools do not require a freshman writing course, per se. Often writing is integrated into a first-year-experience type of course (or courses). It seems that this model of writing gives students the experience to think of writing in an expansive way. I'm not ready to jump ship (with Sharon Crowley) and say that we should abolish the first year writing course, especially since that would put me out of a job. But, I also wonder whether a more holistic/liberal arts focused approach to writing would actually expand our idea of rhetoric?