You know in a world where the hard sciences rule, everything is put on practicallity and nothing on the ideal. For the record I do think a nation needs the hard sciences, especially in the world we have today, but I think we also over-emphasize it. One thing the Jesuits used to teach was the ideal education, where a man studies not for practicallity but for the ideal study of mankind and his condition. That is why a "liberal education" heavy on philosophy, theology, Greek and Latin still remains for me to this day the ideal and how I would want my sons taught. Under this education men would not only be given lessons in Latin, Greek, and math but also given the values of a religious education, not only in the classroom but how one lives one life. That in my opinion is education of the "whole man."

 Also this would extend to the area of sports, since a physical education heavy on teamwork, cooperation, and physical health rounds out the whole man. This is all against the ideal values of liberalism which puts the ideals at individualism, at materialism, at practicallity, etc.

The Scholastic focus on philosophy is dangerous when it degenerates into a kind of Humanism where philosophy is studied for its own sake rather than to come to a better understanding of God.

There's a famous dispute between the Latin West and Greek East called the Hesychast Controversy, which was mainly the result of an argument between a Scholastic named Barlaam and an Eastern monk named Palamas. Palamas was a hesychast, meaning he practiced a kind of prayer life which is centred upon quietness (hesychasm is the Greek term for quietness, I believe). Barlaam disliked the hesychasts. From what I can gather, the argument comes ultimately down to Barlaam asserting that knowledge of God is best acquired through philosophical disputation/reflection, and Palamas taking a contrary position, that knowledge is best acquired mystically through a life of quiet prayer. Apparently, according to Orthodox, Barlaam asserted that the Scholastic philosophers had a better understanding of God than the Old Testament prophets, though I'm not sure that he made such an assertion. The Orthodox, apparently, claim that Barlaam was a kind of humanist and an enemy of religion.

I need to look into this controversy more to form a proper conclusion, but I currently favour the side of Palamas in that I think philosophy is merely a tool and isn't as valuable as prayer. Remember that St. Thomas Aquinas said this:

All that I have written seems like straw compared to what has now been revealed to me.

So St. Thomas would seem to judge the mystical life of prayer as being above the philosophical life of reasoning. Also, after the golden era of the Scholastics we have the Carmelite mystics like St. Teresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross. St. John of the Cross works seem to me to be reconcilable with Eastern hesychasm. Although I believe the hesychasts have a false theology related to their hesychastic practices where they say that the essence of God is completely unknowable and only the "energies" (St. John of Damascus uses this term) of God can be known in this life or the next, while I believe I remember reading a papal decree saying that the blessed who experience the beatific vision know the essence of God.

I think my bias is beginning to lean towards a Benedictine education being superior to a Jesuit education, i.e. having a simpleminded devotion is superior to the baroque ornaments of learnedness. Reading St. John of the Cross's Ascent I get the picture that St. John advocates giving up any kind of distinct knowledge/learning altogether in order that the mind can be totally and always enveloped by God (I believe the Eastern hesychasts advocate the same; they look at distinct forms of knowledge/imagination to be tempting "logismoi" that keep people trapped in illusory worldly thinking); although he assumes that he who takes up this life should already be immersed in the Catholic life and in submission to the authority of the Church.
I suppose the Dominicans are a middle way between Benedictine/Carmelite simplicity of heart/mind and Jesuit refinement.

I'll stop posting now lol, I've probably filled an entire page.

In a liberal education, the teacher is the Refined Gentleman.
In a religious education, the teacher is the Holy Ghost Himself.

And yeah, as you mention Traditional Guy, I believe it was the Jesuits who invented the liberal education. In the mid 1600s a Jesuit published a book called "The Art of Worldly Wisdom", which professes the liberal gentleman from beginning to end.

Well I would support both. I do agree with your emphasis that having a scholastic approach to everything impedes and makes one detached from your common man, however the Jesuits always emphasised that a man who becomes a famous scientist, teacher, etc. but lost the Catholic Faith is a tragedy since the Catholic education of the young child should be first and foremost. Besides one should have an appreciation of the fine arts, whether it is architecture, paintings, literature, and music as appreciation of true art (as opposed to the modern art around these days) makes one a real man as does dramatics, contrary to today's ideal that a 'real man' should not be interested in art. Obviously a religious education of the child in how they practice their Faith should be the ideal so that they become faithful Catholics. However an appreciation of the classics is also important as a look into the world of the Greeks and Romans makes one appreciate the finer ideals of Western Civilization (I took Latin back in high school and it was the best decision I ever made).

Having as much an emphasis on sports as on learning lets the young man also have a well-formed body able to cope with the real world. Also, universities are hot-houses of intellectualism, one reason I support military service for the young man before he goes to a university so he knows what his fellow man goes through (if he goes at all). Also social justice towards his fellow man should be engendered in the young boy as well.