Getting Rid of Humanities
Now, I'm not personally saying we should do this (turkeys don't vote for Christmas and all that) but what would happen if we, say, massively reduced the amount of university places for degrees like
English Literature
English Language
History
Psychology
Sociology
Politics
Philosophy
Geography
RE
etc
Degrees that are generally essay based and don't prepare you for an exact job.
Seems to me as if we're just sending too many people to university to do these kind of degrees, to go into jobs that are non-subject specific generic graduate jobs.
Now, I know we need English teachers, and RE teachers, and history teachers and geography teachers etc so yeah the subjects have some use, but do we really need as many English Literature graduates as we have? Do we need so many historians, sociologists, philosophers, psychologists, etc?
What do you think? What would be the ramifications of this if we took 60% of the places on these degrees away and put the extra funding into subjects like maths, chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, law, medicine, nursing, biomedical science, other STEM subjects and so on
English Literature
English Language
History
Psychology
Sociology
Politics
Philosophy
Geography
RE
etc
Degrees that are generally essay based and don't prepare you for an exact job.
Seems to me as if we're just sending too many people to university to do these kind of degrees, to go into jobs that are non-subject specific generic graduate jobs.
Now, I know we need English teachers, and RE teachers, and history teachers and geography teachers etc so yeah the subjects have some use, but do we really need as many English Literature graduates as we have? Do we need so many historians, sociologists, philosophers, psychologists, etc?
What do you think? What would be the ramifications of this if we took 60% of the places on these degrees away and put the extra funding into subjects like maths, chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, law, medicine, nursing, biomedical science, other STEM subjects and so on
Scroll to see replies
this country needs receptionists and universities need money
win-win situation
win-win situation
Original post by Table dust
this country needs receptionists and universities need money
win-win situation
win-win situation
We got plenty coming from Bulgaria, Romania, Pakistan...
Your suggestion seems to imply that there is no intrinsic value to a wider number of people gaining a depth of knowledge and expertise about any form of culture, be that one's own, or another. This idea is frankly disturbing. The purpose of humanities education is to broaden the mind, and to help to create a society in which knowledge and wisdom are both diverse and valued.
We already live in a society where the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is enormously limited. Any person who wishes to learn for three years of their life is now saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt. Postgraduate arts and humanities courses are bankrupting. We seem to believe that education should be financially profitable for the individual above all else.
This is not the point of education. Education should allow every individual to grow and develop to their full potential in the area about which they are most passionate. It is this, and this alone, that can create a fully-developed society.
We already live in a society where the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is enormously limited. Any person who wishes to learn for three years of their life is now saddled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt. Postgraduate arts and humanities courses are bankrupting. We seem to believe that education should be financially profitable for the individual above all else.
This is not the point of education. Education should allow every individual to grow and develop to their full potential in the area about which they are most passionate. It is this, and this alone, that can create a fully-developed society.
Just because degrees such as English Literature, History, Philosophy don't lead to an exact career, it doesn't mean that that aren't useful.
In fact, this is what makes them so good as graduates can then go in to pretty much any field they like such as the media, publishing or even go on to take law conversion courses. Would you say that these fields aren't useful? No.
In fact, this is what makes them so good as graduates can then go in to pretty much any field they like such as the media, publishing or even go on to take law conversion courses. Would you say that these fields aren't useful? No.
Christopher Hitchens, Salman Rushdie, Martin Luther King Jr and a fair few Prime Ministers did some of the subjects you listed - they are all intellectually stimulating and if anything we need less Psychology graduates, not humanities graduates.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
I agree with the OP to some extent. As well as having those graduates going off the non-specific graduate courses and teaching, there should also be some places for those who are genuinely excellent at those subjects. I think the current problem is a lot of people who are not specifically exceptional and just scrap through their degree to go onto do something completely unrelated to that degree... true there is intrinsic worth and all that, but it is of a finite value.
Instead I agree we should drastically limit places for some courses. Only those who are exceptionally talented at some subjects should go onto read it. Perhaps having the elite universities host those degrees, e.g. Oxbridge, St Andrews, Durham etc. and having other universities specialise in other subjects. Then again, as a medic, if they were going to cut my places I would be pretty annoyed.
Instead I agree we should drastically limit places for some courses. Only those who are exceptionally talented at some subjects should go onto read it. Perhaps having the elite universities host those degrees, e.g. Oxbridge, St Andrews, Durham etc. and having other universities specialise in other subjects. Then again, as a medic, if they were going to cut my places I would be pretty annoyed.
As someone who studies Economics and Philosophy and has recently attended a career's panel with alumni, I have to admit philosophy students do pretty damn well. Just because it is essay based doesn't make it any less important than any other subject. I've gained skills from philosophy that I just wouldn't get from learning economics by itself.
Also you are seem to not understand what philosophy actually entails. It's involved in more or less every other discipline you study. For example, without philosophy you wouldn't even have some basic mathematical principles you use (Descartes contributed a lot to mathematics e.g geometry). Law and Politics also hold many examples of philosophical influences.
Now if you were talking about football studies, surf studies or anything similar to these I would be more inclined to agree with you.
Also you are seem to not understand what philosophy actually entails. It's involved in more or less every other discipline you study. For example, without philosophy you wouldn't even have some basic mathematical principles you use (Descartes contributed a lot to mathematics e.g geometry). Law and Politics also hold many examples of philosophical influences.
Now if you were talking about football studies, surf studies or anything similar to these I would be more inclined to agree with you.
Original post by Muppet Science
I think the current problem is a lot of people who are not specifically exceptional and just scrap through their degree to go onto do something completely unrelated to that degree... true there is intrinsic worth and all that, but it is of a finite value.
This is also true of many science graduates - a lack of direct correlation between one's degree course and one's career is not limited to the arts...
Because this has never been asked before...
But since you asked what would happen - it probably wouldn't increase the amount of people doing sciences substantially for one thing. People don't study science because they don't enjoy it or find it difficult. If it did increase sciences there would probably be a very large dropout rate. Getting rid of humanities means people will just end up being underqualified for the huge service industries that dominates our country's economy. Only a small proportion of our jobs require science degrees. There are not enough science jobs for scientists in this country! A university education qualifies people to do jobs that require a general education. Getting rid of it is a bloody stupid idea.
As for individual subjects:
English Literature: Even fewer people would read. Definitely can't be a good thing. Destroys culture. Fewer students would grow up with an interest in literature and THEIR children wouldn't read.
English Language: Who is going to teach English? English language is a very good degree for the thousands of editors, writers, copywriters, publishers etc.
History: Well, the fewer people there are who learn history, the greater number of people there are who are doomed to repeat it. So that can't be good.
Psychology: Not a humanity. It's half science, half social science. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. Nothing much would happen if less people took it besides what it says in the top paragraph, simply because there are just not enough psychology related jobs to go around. However, psychology is important for jobs like marketing etc.
Sociology: Not a humanity. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. Sociologists go on to be vital contributors to social policy.
Politics: Not a humanity. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. Often politics students go into social policy.
Philosophy: Makes people more intelligent, critical thinkers. Philosophy is what founded society so it's probably not a good idea to lose it.
Geography: Not a humanity. It's a complex science / social science. Arguably the most important of all the degrees listed to retain students. Geographers become vital members of society working on vital parts of infrastructure. Geographers go into environmental science, urban planning, social policy, computer mapping, immigration planning, academia (e.g. economic geography, health geography) to name a tiny number of things (aside from teaching). It also teaches people a lot about the world, about economies and is generally an extremely useful asset to society. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. To lose it would be bad.
RE: Nothing much would happen. Probably does more harm than good.
But since you asked what would happen - it probably wouldn't increase the amount of people doing sciences substantially for one thing. People don't study science because they don't enjoy it or find it difficult. If it did increase sciences there would probably be a very large dropout rate. Getting rid of humanities means people will just end up being underqualified for the huge service industries that dominates our country's economy. Only a small proportion of our jobs require science degrees. There are not enough science jobs for scientists in this country! A university education qualifies people to do jobs that require a general education. Getting rid of it is a bloody stupid idea.
As for individual subjects:
English Literature: Even fewer people would read. Definitely can't be a good thing. Destroys culture. Fewer students would grow up with an interest in literature and THEIR children wouldn't read.
English Language: Who is going to teach English? English language is a very good degree for the thousands of editors, writers, copywriters, publishers etc.
History: Well, the fewer people there are who learn history, the greater number of people there are who are doomed to repeat it. So that can't be good.
Psychology: Not a humanity. It's half science, half social science. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. Nothing much would happen if less people took it besides what it says in the top paragraph, simply because there are just not enough psychology related jobs to go around. However, psychology is important for jobs like marketing etc.
Sociology: Not a humanity. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. Sociologists go on to be vital contributors to social policy.
Politics: Not a humanity. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. Often politics students go into social policy.
Philosophy: Makes people more intelligent, critical thinkers. Philosophy is what founded society so it's probably not a good idea to lose it.
Geography: Not a humanity. It's a complex science / social science. Arguably the most important of all the degrees listed to retain students. Geographers become vital members of society working on vital parts of infrastructure. Geographers go into environmental science, urban planning, social policy, computer mapping, immigration planning, academia (e.g. economic geography, health geography) to name a tiny number of things (aside from teaching). It also teaches people a lot about the world, about economies and is generally an extremely useful asset to society. It qualifies people to do a range of jobs which utilise statistics, report making and general skills. To lose it would be bad.
RE: Nothing much would happen. Probably does more harm than good.
(edited 11 years ago)
I wouldn't limit places, but I would fund degrees based on their usefulness, so a science student would have a free degree and a film studies student would pay full international fees (I.E. no government subsidising). And I'd move vocational courses back to colleges, where they can actually be taught in a real work environment by learning theory in the classroom and then apprenticing at the relevant workspace.
Original post by tory88
I wouldn't limit places, but I would fund degrees based on their usefulness, so a science student would have a free degree and a film studies student would pay full international fees (I.E. no government subsidising). And I'd move vocational courses back to colleges, where they can actually be taught in a real work environment by learning theory in the classroom and then apprenticing at the relevant workspace.
Edit: Putting to one side the issue of who would ever have the authority to decide which degrees were 'useful', and which ones weren't...
1) The sciences are already heavily funded, particularly at postgrad level, while those seeking to become experts in their field are limited by crippling fees.
2) Such a system would immediately move the arts out of the realms of accessibility for less wealthy students, and leave it the privilege of those who could fund their education themselves.
Establishing a hierarchy like that would force the less affluent into fields in which they may not excel, limit their future prospects and their chances of fulfilment, and create an even greater class divide in the education system.
(edited 11 years ago)
1.) What about all the science graduates who have jobs unrelated to their degrees? Were their courses a waste of time as well? Outside academia and teaching, there are very few jobs that require a specific degree.
2.) Is it actually the case that we need more science students? Medical/dentistry degrees are hugely oversubscribed, so it's not like they need any more competition. If we don't have enough candidates for scientific jobs, then how about trying to attract the science grads in unrelated fields to go a different route, rather than forcing university candidates to read a science?
3.) Not to mention, it's way more expensive to teach science. Degree costs would go through the roof.
2.) Is it actually the case that we need more science students? Medical/dentistry degrees are hugely oversubscribed, so it's not like they need any more competition. If we don't have enough candidates for scientific jobs, then how about trying to attract the science grads in unrelated fields to go a different route, rather than forcing university candidates to read a science?
3.) Not to mention, it's way more expensive to teach science. Degree costs would go through the roof.
Original post by ilickbatteries
Now, I'm not personally saying we should do this (turkeys don't vote for Christmas and all that) but what would happen if we, say, massively reduced the amount of university places for degrees like
English Literature
English Language
History
Psychology
Sociology
Politics
Philosophy
Geography
RE
etc
Degrees that are generally essay based and don't prepare you for an exact job.
Seems to me as if we're just sending too many people to university to do these kind of degrees, to go into jobs that are non-subject specific generic graduate jobs.
Now, I know we need English teachers, and RE teachers, and history teachers and geography teachers etc so yeah the subjects have some use, but do we really need as many English Literature graduates as we have? Do we need so many historians, sociologists, philosophers, psychologists, etc?
What do you think? What would be the ramifications of this if we took 60% of the places on these degrees away and put the extra funding into subjects like maths, chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, law, medicine, nursing, biomedical science, other STEM subjects and so on
English Literature
English Language
History
Psychology
Sociology
Politics
Philosophy
Geography
RE
etc
Degrees that are generally essay based and don't prepare you for an exact job.
Seems to me as if we're just sending too many people to university to do these kind of degrees, to go into jobs that are non-subject specific generic graduate jobs.
Now, I know we need English teachers, and RE teachers, and history teachers and geography teachers etc so yeah the subjects have some use, but do we really need as many English Literature graduates as we have? Do we need so many historians, sociologists, philosophers, psychologists, etc?
What do you think? What would be the ramifications of this if we took 60% of the places on these degrees away and put the extra funding into subjects like maths, chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, law, medicine, nursing, biomedical science, other STEM subjects and so on
I'm going to argue from a different point to every one else. Without all these humanities subjects, the fees for my own course would be substantially higher OR the uni wouldn't be able to spend so much money on the equipment, so in a sense, the humanities guys are subsiding the STEM guys (Sorry guys
)
Original post by tory88
I wouldn't limit places, but I would fund degrees based on their usefulness
Who decides how "useful" a degree is?
so a science student would have a free degree and a film studies student would pay full international fees (I.E. no government subsidising).
In which case humanities degrees would cost even more than current international student fees.
And I'd move vocational courses back to colleges, where they can actually be taught in a real work environment by learning theory in the classroom and then apprenticing at the relevant workspace.
Vocational? So....law? Engineering? Town Planning? Medicine? Occupational Therapy? Nursing? Speech and Language Therapy? Social Work?
Why shouldn't these degrees be taught at universities?
Original post by ilickbatteries
Now, I'm not personally saying we should do this (turkeys don't vote for Christmas and all that) but what would happen if we, say, massively reduced the amount of university places for degrees like
English Literature
English Language
History
Psychology
Sociology
Politics
Philosophy
Geography
RE
etc
Degrees that are generally essay based and don't prepare you for an exact job.
Seems to me as if we're just sending too many people to university to do these kind of degrees, to go into jobs that are non-subject specific generic graduate jobs.
Now, I know we need English teachers, and RE teachers, and history teachers and geography teachers etc so yeah the subjects have some use, but do we really need as many English Literature graduates as we have? Do we need so many historians, sociologists, philosophers, psychologists, etc?
What do you think? What would be the ramifications of this if we took 60% of the places on these degrees away and put the extra funding into subjects like maths, chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, law, medicine, nursing, biomedical science, other STEM subjects and so on
English Literature
English Language
History
Psychology
Sociology
Politics
Philosophy
Geography
RE
etc
Degrees that are generally essay based and don't prepare you for an exact job.
Seems to me as if we're just sending too many people to university to do these kind of degrees, to go into jobs that are non-subject specific generic graduate jobs.
Now, I know we need English teachers, and RE teachers, and history teachers and geography teachers etc so yeah the subjects have some use, but do we really need as many English Literature graduates as we have? Do we need so many historians, sociologists, philosophers, psychologists, etc?
What do you think? What would be the ramifications of this if we took 60% of the places on these degrees away and put the extra funding into subjects like maths, chemistry, biology, physics, engineering, law, medicine, nursing, biomedical science, other STEM subjects and so on
biomedical science is a worthless degree, or worth very little, same goes with biology and to a lesser extent chemistry
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- In your opinion, is it cruel to vacuum a spider & why?
- Worried my boss will be angry
- A level politics help
- Is Elon Musk right? AI will replace all jobs?
- What does ‘probably best’ mean here?
- Why are uni dropouts looked down on?
- will university find out in future if someone uses CHATGPT
- Getting rid of fruitflies
- unmarked school work
- how to fix my boyfriend’s smelly house?
- TOF Mass Spec
- scared my friends are going to leave me now a levels are ending
- True or false - non-STEM degrees are a waste of time?
- Rishi Sunak gives Net Zero speech: PM waters down key policy goals
- Postgraduate Grade Worries
- can i remove a gcse?
- What degree do you have no respect for?
- Can some one mark my English literature essay
- maths gcse question
- Free ocr biology and chemistry book
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 1 minute ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 1 minute ago
Official University of Sheffield Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 2 minutes ago
Woodhouse College applicants 2024Last reply 4 minutes ago
Customer Services Group - Operational Delivery - Administrative OfficersLast reply 6 minutes ago
Goldmansachs Degree Apprenticeship 2024Posted 10 minutes ago
Tenancy transfer en-suite Stratford One London start June for Summer.Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 11 minutes ago
Official University of York Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 14 minutes ago
Government Social Research - Research Officer Scheme 2024Last reply 15 minutes ago
Official: University of Bristol A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 18 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryPosted 19 minutes ago
Does anyone have summarized notes of UK politics, US politics and Political ideas?Last reply 20 minutes ago
November 2023 Illegal Migration Intake Unit - Intake Response Team - Immigration OffiTrending
Last reply 1 week ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 1 month ago
Do employers care more about the degree subject or the uni you went to?Last reply 1 month ago
Schools failing bright pupils says teen taking 28 a levelsTrending
Last reply 1 week ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 1 month ago
Do employers care more about the degree subject or the uni you went to?Last reply 1 month ago
Schools failing bright pupils says teen taking 28 a levels
