// essays //
May 18, 2015
The Humanities Reexamined:
A Response to Winston Mann
Maxwell Schwartz
The well-read reader will, no doubt, be accustomed to seeing headlines like “Why Coding is Your Child’s Key to Unlocking the Future,” which ran in the Wall Street Journal this past April. Such headlines are part of a wave of news stories, op-eds, and political statements calling for better education and increased global competitiveness by emphasizing the science, technology, engineering, and mathematical (STEM) fields in a revamped U.S. education system.
Alarmist articles across the media spectrum, Facebook posts about insanely difficult math problems, and statements by politicians discouraging constituents from studying the humanities stoke the growing concern that the U.S. education system is failing to adequately expose its students to fields of the future, encourage excellence in mathematics, and prepare America’s youth for potentially lucrative careers. Well-meaning people have suggested that reforming curricula and pedagogical techniques will allow American students the opportunity to climb above their East Asian and Northern European counterparts, who are currently perched atop international numeracy rankings.
Lost in much of the conversation, though, is the role of the liberal arts, especially as advocates for increased science education treat curricula as a zero-sum game or as they try to manipulate institutions for the benefit of STEM fields. In this very journal, for example, Winston Mann’s essay on the future of post-secondary education (The Death of College?) suggests that the future of college is online, as STEM majors, according to him, can learn just as effectively through Khan Academy as they can through massive lectures. He prophesies the death of college because he sees the future of college as a place of scientific learning, not as a school of the liberal arts. He sees the inefficiency and cumbersomeness of the modern engineering school as being untenable in the long-run. Perhaps he is right—though I doubt it. But where his argument is patently inadequate is in the realm of the liberal arts.
Here at Columbia, we squeeze hundreds of students into bio lectures, and we have 50-person calculus classes without TAs or discussion sections. But Columbia College proudly notes to prospective students that Core humanities classes (Contemporary Civilization, and Literature, Art, and Music Humanities) are capped at just north of twenty students per section. In the same vein, when the History Department offered a 400-student lecture on Ancient Egypt, it staffed the lecture with a dozen TAs and held discussion sections in every time slot possible. Unlike the information-oriented, quantitative fields, the qualitatively based liberal arts require discussion, and are ideally suited to the in-person setting available only at the traditional university or liberal arts college.
Mann’s emphasis on STEM education parallels the broader culture of the American public, which aims to create a more efficacious system for the purpose of economic productivity. The current trend seems to be that future earning potential is the sole raison d’être of education. Treating education as vocational training in this way might seem practical, and those who support such reforms do so for entirely noble reasons. But the singular focus of some advocates is problematic. By focusing solely on the sciences, we lose sight of other important aspects of education. And in tailoring education only to the needs of the sciences, we cripple the liberal arts. Yes, we should make sure that every child with a knack for computer science should have the opportunity to become the next high-paid programmer. But even a die-hard capitalist can understand that there is more to life than income, and that there is, therefore, more to education than vocational training.
Even Adam Smith—a god among men for us capitalists—recognized this. And it is important that his twenty-first-century disciples recognize it too. Although Smith championed the division of labor insofar as it allows greater productivity, his Wealth of Nations warns of the stultifying effects of narrowly tailored work. He notes that it is best for the economy to have separate individuals perform the functions of a butcher, baker, and brewer than having an individual farmer perform all those functions for his own family. But by giving up other trades to specialize in their own crafts, by not trying to be renaissance men, the baker, the brewer, and the butcher all miss out on the intellectual stimulation that keeps humans bright and socially valuable. By learning only their craft, they necessarily forgo training in other disciplines that instill them with certain intellectual, social, and ethical virtues.
When reforming our education system to be more competitive in the new century, we need to remember not only Smith’s lessons on the benefits of divisions of labor but also his lessons on the detriments of specialization. We cannot let the liberal arts whither, as some politicians seem to want, for the sake of the sciences—or for the sake of budgets. Literacy is every bit as important as numeracy. Without philosophers, our scientists would want for ethical boundaries. Without historians, our politicians would repeat the past’s mistakes. Without literature and art and music, our culture would decay.
That is not to say that the humanities are for everyone. Perhaps a BA in English is not worth a quarter of a million dollars in student debt. Students who are happy to focus on STEM fields either for academic interest or employability should do so, and America should provide them the best resources possible. But the same is true for those who want to learn from and contribute to the culture of this nation. That is, we should not encourage everyone to go into STEM fields by holding them to be somehow superior to the liberal arts, as many current initiatives do. We should allow every student to seek his or her own maximum comparative advantage for excellence.
Some of us who have had the privilege of studying the liberal arts seek excellence in a field—in the humanities, sciences, professions, or anything else—as a means to some sort of Aristotelian virtue. This drive for excellence is corrupted in policy circles where the emphasis is not on helping the nation’s youth find happiness through virtue, but on outward projections of excellence. Such circles are concerned that America is losing its edge, that future Americans will not be creating the next Google or raking in Nobel Prizes. This is a potentially valid concern. As other large nations such as China and India continue to develop, they may threaten U.S. dominance in certain economic and technical realms. But if we are concerned about U.S. excellence in the sciences, then should we not also be concerned about U.S. excellence in the liberal arts? An American hasn’t won the Nobel Prize in Literature since 1993. But from 1993 to 2014, a staggering 135 Americans were Nobel Laureates in Chemistry, Physics, Economics, and Physiology/Medicine. Granted, there are more awardees in the sciences than in Literature. The fact remains, though, that whereas America received more science awards than any other nation, it trailed in Literature behind France, Germany, China, and the United Kingdom during that same period of time. The United States may be facing increased competition from across the world, but it is still dominated every field—everything, except the liberal arts.
With stiffening global competition, now is as important a time as ever to ensure that Americans receive the best scientific and technical training in the world. But that does not discredit the need for the humanities and liberal arts. We can encourage our bright young writers, philosophers, and historians to excel in their respective fields while also training more computer scientists to quench the ever-growing thirst for labor in the technological sector, and continuing to produce more Nobel laureates in science than any other country. What we cannot do is sell ourselves and our progeny short by letting the liberal arts slip away as a casualty of modernity.
Alarmist articles across the media spectrum, Facebook posts about insanely difficult math problems, and statements by politicians discouraging constituents from studying the humanities stoke the growing concern that the U.S. education system is failing to adequately expose its students to fields of the future, encourage excellence in mathematics, and prepare America’s youth for potentially lucrative careers. Well-meaning people have suggested that reforming curricula and pedagogical techniques will allow American students the opportunity to climb above their East Asian and Northern European counterparts, who are currently perched atop international numeracy rankings.
Lost in much of the conversation, though, is the role of the liberal arts, especially as advocates for increased science education treat curricula as a zero-sum game or as they try to manipulate institutions for the benefit of STEM fields. In this very journal, for example, Winston Mann’s essay on the future of post-secondary education (The Death of College?) suggests that the future of college is online, as STEM majors, according to him, can learn just as effectively through Khan Academy as they can through massive lectures. He prophesies the death of college because he sees the future of college as a place of scientific learning, not as a school of the liberal arts. He sees the inefficiency and cumbersomeness of the modern engineering school as being untenable in the long-run. Perhaps he is right—though I doubt it. But where his argument is patently inadequate is in the realm of the liberal arts.
Here at Columbia, we squeeze hundreds of students into bio lectures, and we have 50-person calculus classes without TAs or discussion sections. But Columbia College proudly notes to prospective students that Core humanities classes (Contemporary Civilization, and Literature, Art, and Music Humanities) are capped at just north of twenty students per section. In the same vein, when the History Department offered a 400-student lecture on Ancient Egypt, it staffed the lecture with a dozen TAs and held discussion sections in every time slot possible. Unlike the information-oriented, quantitative fields, the qualitatively based liberal arts require discussion, and are ideally suited to the in-person setting available only at the traditional university or liberal arts college.
Mann’s emphasis on STEM education parallels the broader culture of the American public, which aims to create a more efficacious system for the purpose of economic productivity. The current trend seems to be that future earning potential is the sole raison d’être of education. Treating education as vocational training in this way might seem practical, and those who support such reforms do so for entirely noble reasons. But the singular focus of some advocates is problematic. By focusing solely on the sciences, we lose sight of other important aspects of education. And in tailoring education only to the needs of the sciences, we cripple the liberal arts. Yes, we should make sure that every child with a knack for computer science should have the opportunity to become the next high-paid programmer. But even a die-hard capitalist can understand that there is more to life than income, and that there is, therefore, more to education than vocational training.
Even Adam Smith—a god among men for us capitalists—recognized this. And it is important that his twenty-first-century disciples recognize it too. Although Smith championed the division of labor insofar as it allows greater productivity, his Wealth of Nations warns of the stultifying effects of narrowly tailored work. He notes that it is best for the economy to have separate individuals perform the functions of a butcher, baker, and brewer than having an individual farmer perform all those functions for his own family. But by giving up other trades to specialize in their own crafts, by not trying to be renaissance men, the baker, the brewer, and the butcher all miss out on the intellectual stimulation that keeps humans bright and socially valuable. By learning only their craft, they necessarily forgo training in other disciplines that instill them with certain intellectual, social, and ethical virtues.
When reforming our education system to be more competitive in the new century, we need to remember not only Smith’s lessons on the benefits of divisions of labor but also his lessons on the detriments of specialization. We cannot let the liberal arts whither, as some politicians seem to want, for the sake of the sciences—or for the sake of budgets. Literacy is every bit as important as numeracy. Without philosophers, our scientists would want for ethical boundaries. Without historians, our politicians would repeat the past’s mistakes. Without literature and art and music, our culture would decay.
That is not to say that the humanities are for everyone. Perhaps a BA in English is not worth a quarter of a million dollars in student debt. Students who are happy to focus on STEM fields either for academic interest or employability should do so, and America should provide them the best resources possible. But the same is true for those who want to learn from and contribute to the culture of this nation. That is, we should not encourage everyone to go into STEM fields by holding them to be somehow superior to the liberal arts, as many current initiatives do. We should allow every student to seek his or her own maximum comparative advantage for excellence.
Some of us who have had the privilege of studying the liberal arts seek excellence in a field—in the humanities, sciences, professions, or anything else—as a means to some sort of Aristotelian virtue. This drive for excellence is corrupted in policy circles where the emphasis is not on helping the nation’s youth find happiness through virtue, but on outward projections of excellence. Such circles are concerned that America is losing its edge, that future Americans will not be creating the next Google or raking in Nobel Prizes. This is a potentially valid concern. As other large nations such as China and India continue to develop, they may threaten U.S. dominance in certain economic and technical realms. But if we are concerned about U.S. excellence in the sciences, then should we not also be concerned about U.S. excellence in the liberal arts? An American hasn’t won the Nobel Prize in Literature since 1993. But from 1993 to 2014, a staggering 135 Americans were Nobel Laureates in Chemistry, Physics, Economics, and Physiology/Medicine. Granted, there are more awardees in the sciences than in Literature. The fact remains, though, that whereas America received more science awards than any other nation, it trailed in Literature behind France, Germany, China, and the United Kingdom during that same period of time. The United States may be facing increased competition from across the world, but it is still dominated every field—everything, except the liberal arts.
With stiffening global competition, now is as important a time as ever to ensure that Americans receive the best scientific and technical training in the world. But that does not discredit the need for the humanities and liberal arts. We can encourage our bright young writers, philosophers, and historians to excel in their respective fields while also training more computer scientists to quench the ever-growing thirst for labor in the technological sector, and continuing to produce more Nobel laureates in science than any other country. What we cannot do is sell ourselves and our progeny short by letting the liberal arts slip away as a casualty of modernity.
// MAXWELL SCHWARTZ is a Junior in Columbia College and a Staff Writer for The Current. He can be reached at mes2235@columbia.edu. Photo courtesy of www.galleryhip.com.