The humanities and social sciences are failing. Their popularity in the US has been waning in recent years, as many students enter science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields to seek skills directly applicable to their careers, but the last few months have exposed a deeper weakness: The humanities and social sciences are no longer training students to be critical thinkers.
Not only does this failure create serious challenges for our culture and democracy. It also leaves students less able to manage a changing economy.
In the last decade, humanities enrollment has fallen 17 percent, as surveys show that more US citizens now question the value of a college education: In 2015, 57 percent had a great deal or a lot of confidence in the US system of higher education, and now only 36 percent do. There is less desire among taxpayers to finance the humanities. West Virginia University is making drastic cuts to some of its humanities departments. North Carolina will no longer fund distinguished professorships at public universities in non-STEM fields.
Illustration: Louise Ting
It is not surprising that many students are flocking to classes in STEM. The primary reason, if you ask students, is that they want to major in subjects that can get them good jobs. Reading great books, learning history and debating philosophy do not appear relevant to this goal.
However, perhaps students feel this way because the arts are not doing what traditionally made them valuable: teaching people to how to think.
Critical thinking has never been more important. A changing economy offers no guarantees. Just a few years ago, learning to code seemed to offer stability. Now artificial intelligence (AI) can write code, but the ability to think analytically, reason well and communicate clearly with a wide range of people — even those you disagree with — would remain invaluable.
This is not the first time the economy has been rapidly transformed. Arguably, modern liberalism can be credited for the tremendous rise in wealth and living standards that came from the last major transition, from agriculture to industry. Economic historian Deirdre McCloskey said that it is no coincidence 18th century Europe was both the center of liberal thought and the birthplace of industrialization.
What made this place and time exceptional was a pervasive belief in the individual and the ability of anyone, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, to become their best self, she said.
These ideas might have come from academia — especially in Scotland, where I went to university — but they radiated through society. They helped bring about universal education and an atmosphere in which ideas could be freely debated. This kind of culture has economic value, too: It enables the discovery of new things and building on the last thing.
After all, a lot of countries had engineers and mathematicians in the 18th century. Europe’s liberal outlook, and the intellectual openness promoted by its universities, helped create the conditions for exponential growth in wealth and living standards. Dogma drags down curiosity, innovation and growth.
Lately, as my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Clive Crook has said, many in the humanities have rejected notions of openness and free inquiry crucial to the university. Instead of teaching liberal principles, they emphasize a hierarchy of oppression and define people based on immutable characteristics. Such a reductive and ahistorical view of the world increases skepticism of academia in general and the humanities in particular.
The events of Oct. 7 and its aftermath further exposed the intellectual inadequacy of the oppressor-victim approach. Reasonable people can disagree on many aspects of this long and complex conflict. Yet in the humanities, which ought to be a helpful guide to the situation, too many academics have enabled a cartoonish version of history. Some of the most egregious “open letters” about the Israel-Hamas war, for example, have come from academics in humanities and social sciences. The more balanced letters tend to be signed by professors in STEM, business and economics.
US universities have always been different than their overseas counterparts: Rather than study just one subject, such as law or philosophy, many US students receive a four-year undergraduate liberal arts education, including philosophy, history and literature in addition to the sciences. Still, it is not too much of a stretch to say that, in the 20th century, US universities played a similar role to Europe’s in the 18th century.
However, here in the 21st century — as the economy undergoes a transformation every bit as radical as that of 200 years ago — US universities have lost their way.
That is unfortunate, because educating people in the spirit of liberal principles is more important than ever. If you have a simplistic or reductive view of the world, AI would outthink you, but if you can reason, manage ambiguity and adapt to novel situations and new information, you can use AI to help you navigate and prosper in the changing economy. That is not the only reason US universities should re-establish the spirit of openness and free inquiry, but it is a compelling one.
Allison Schrager is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering economics. A senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, she is author of An Economist Walks Into a Brothel: And Other Unexpected Places to Understand Risk. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
RSS