Humanities academics might not like it, but students are resolutely voting with their feet for STEM and business subjects.
That is particularly true of international students, whose numbers in major anglophone systems have mushroomed over the past decade as public funding has declined. And however interesting they might find the humanities, many domestic students, too – including a rising percentage of first-generation students – are attracted by shiny, state-of-the-art STEM facilities and swayed by parental wishes for them to graduate with good job prospects.
Government statistics underscore the stark reality of how much has changed across the US. Between 2007 and 2020, the number of awarded bachelor’s degrees in the humanities plummeted by 34 per cent; in the social sciences (including law and communication) the fall was 18 per cent, while graduates in business, engineering and other professional programmes rose in almost perfect mirror image. By 2020, 24 per cent of all bachelor’s students were studying STEM majors, with 22 per cent in business, 21 per cent in social sciences, 15 per cent in health-related subjects and just 6 per cent in humanities. And the picture is almost identical in Canada, the UK and Australia.
The trend is no less troubling for being explicable. Independent monitors of the state of global democracy (Stockholm-based International IDEA, Washington’s World Justice Project, London’s EIU Democracy Index) all confirm a continuing five-year tilt toward authoritarianism, an erosion of human rights and deterioration of basic freedoms – of speech, press, assembly – even in many Western countries. And one of the key findings of a 2020 study on authoritarian attitudes by the Center on Education and the Workforce at Georgetown University is the mitigating effect of post-secondary education in general and of liberal arts majors in particular.
That is why, within the past five years, liberal education institutions and programmes have been either closed or gutted in Hungary, Singapore and Bolsonaro’s Brazil. And even in more liberal regimes, the humanities are dangerously under-valued as governments chase the economic gains promised by STEM. Australia has used tuition increases to push students from philosophy and literature programmes, while the UK government’s determination to crack down on “low-quality” courses has also been seen as an attack on arts and humanities subjects.
In the US, some governors and state legislatures outright censor liberal arts curricula and ban books. In other states, declining course enrolments in the humanities justify cutting majors and redirecting replacement faculty positions to “high-demand” programmes in business and engineering, depriving the humanities of renewal and reinforcing the vicious circle.
In the short term, that only increases the frustration of humanities doctoral graduates who can’t land permanent academic jobs; in the longer term, it could see demand for humanities expertise actually exceed supply as young people see the writing on the wall and stop enrolling in doctoral programmes. That will threaten remaining general education breadth requirements for all degree majors, as well as the development of interdisciplinary programmes. More importantly, it poses a threat to the quality of future political leadership and the direction of democracy.
Think of new developments in artificial intelligence (AI), such as ChatGPT, and the battle for online dominance, not only among BigTech companies, but also between major nations. Think of the ways fake news, propagated by social media, has derailed free elections. If we take to heart Stephen Hawking’s prophetic observation that “our future is a race between the growing power of our technology and the wisdom with which we use it”, we need to ensure that the essential knowledge and skills for making wise decisions are not sidelined.
Most higher education mission and vision statements mention the importance of promoting liberal values. If university leaders really believe that, they must guide the content of the programmes they offer and facilitate the best teaching infrastructure to draw students back to the liberal arts.
As well as allowing arts and humanities to renew themselves (ideally with positions that can play a role in developing those much-touted interdisciplinary programmes), leaders can ensure that technology and business programmes include a prescribed liberal arts core.
Presidents, principals and provosts also have an important advocacy role to play, preaching the value of the arts and humanities to politicians, industry leaders and the public (parents and grandparents), as well as their own trustees. Leveraging success in that endeavour could elicit donations to create new and richer scholarships and endowed professorships in the arts and humanities.
Employers should be engaged to talk to students about the soft skills they look for in job applicants – and which they are likely to need in the future. Critical and creative thinking, inquiry and analysis of information, understanding of historical context, problem-solving, quantitative literacy, ethical reasoning and conduct, human empathy: these have been the goals of a liberal education for centuries and also align strikingly with the World Economic Forum’s list of essential skills for entering a future of uncertain jobs.
University graduates move into leadership roles in government and industry, and they are the teachers of students at all levels. The humanities deficit of today’s graduates has implications for at least the next two generations. University leaders must do better. In the race between technology and wisdom, we’re depending on them to give wisdom a fighting chance.
Kathryn Shailer is a higher education consultant and former provost and vice-president, academic at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta.
