When the Arts-Science divide becomes government policy

The arts-science divide used to be a thing in British universities. The artsy (humanities and languages) undergraduates looked down on the nerdy scientists, and the scientists considered themselves a good deal brighter than the average arts student. That divide began to fade when even artsy students began to regard nerdiness as cool and respectable thanks to Bill Gates and the dotcom bubble of the 1990s.

Even before that the divide had begun to blur with the growing popularity of the social sciences . Subject fields grew up which combined the old humanities with scientific enquiry. Nowadays it is hard to say where economics, psychology, anthropology or geography would sit in the old arts/science divide. The rise and rise of joint honours degrees and combinations like physics with philosophy or engineering with Chinese have further smudged the edges.

But now the old division has returned with a vengeance, with the UK governments’ proposal to fund the old STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) from taxes as part of its review of higher education funding, while leaving the humanities wholly dependent on fees charged to students.

Humanities students could, under current proposals end up paying £6000-£9000a year for an undergraduate degree, while Scientists may have lower fees, subsidized by government funding.

The arts-science divide has suddenly remerged in sharp focus. All learning is not equal. The arts and humanities are being divided again, this time by the monetary value put on them by policymakers.

Some humanities students have seen the writing on the wall already. Many try to hedge their bets by combining history, say, with economics or business in order to increase their earning power in a market that is saturated with humanities graduates but values economics and finance. That they do this at all shows a pragmatism about the humanities and the sciences that simply did not exist in the era when ne’er the twain would meet.

Those who have watched these trends over decades say there is no doubt that there will be a shift towards the sciences at undergraduate level if the current proposals become policy. The surplus in humanities graduates will soon disappear, and we could see some not very motivated science students, mainly intent on getting an affordable first degree rather than pursuing science. The big shifts from the pure sciences into economics and business degrees that occurred in the 1990s could well be reversed in the scramble for an affordable degree.

So where will this new divide take us? There could be some creative solutions such as new hybrid degrees that compromise funding with inclination for the humanities – chemistry with history, mathematics with law, for example, so that the chemistry and mathematics part will be taken in subsidized ‘science’ departments and perhaps reduce the cost of a full degree.

Or will courses like Psychology and Geography become ‘sciences’ with more modules of biology in Psychology and more geophysics in geography in order to qualify for government money and attract more students?

And who will teach the humanities in schools? Will there be enough good, inspirational English and history teachers who genuinely passionate about their subjects? The situation where economics graduates are hired to teach maths A level because of a shortage of maths teachers may become a thing of the past. In 30 years time we may either be importing history teachers from other countries, or history will be taught in schools by people with a maths degree topped up with a year max of history training.

Interesting that this should be happening at a time when China and Singapore have realised that they may have overemphasized the sciences, and that to have good managers and civil servants they need to develop the teaching of humanities and social sciences in their universities. They see the limitations of technocratic management. Singapore has invited in Yale University to set up a liberal arts campus. Hong Kong's universities are shifting to four-year degrees so that students can get a strong grounding in the liberal arts in their first year, before specialising.

The real problem, whether in Britain or Asia, is the huge difference in attitudes towards the humanities on the one hand and the sciences on the other by governments and policy makers. What we really need is a mixture of both and of individuals passionate about their chosen subject rather than forced by economic circumstances or government diktat to chose another calling.

From Rags to Riches in One Easy English Lesson

Slumdog Millionaire is a rags to riches story. But not just in the way you think. The Chinese have taken note of the part where the slum kids are at slum school reading ‘The Three Musketeers’ in English. That strikes a very strong chord in China, where recently billboards have appeared in remote and poor villages that proclaim (in English) “Success in English means Success in Life.”
I was asked by a Chinese academic recently, do poor children in India really know English? He was impressed to hear that you can indeed find slum children in Mumbai or Delhi who can prattle away (albeit with a limited vocabulary) in English. It made him very, very thoughtful.
Why does it matter what slum kids speak? No one in Europe would consider Indian slum kids much competition in the world jobs market.
But China wants to be ahead. And it wants to be ahead of India. In a globalised world countries who can manufacture cheaply AND speak English, so can provide cheap services, will be a global economic superpower all the way up and down the production pyramid.
Currently China “outsources” much of its internationally-oriented management, and services to Hong Kong, with its English-proficient population. But China is looking into the future. And services rather than production will become bigger in the future.
You would think that China already regards itself as being ahead of India economically, so why regard it as a rival in this regard? However, at a recent International Symposium on cross border investment organised by the Judge Business School in Cambridge, Chinese delegates became quite prickly about the number of Indian businessmen invited to share the same platform. They wanted ‘Asia’ to themselves. That was not what you would expect from a nation that is confident about being ahead. Or perhaps they did not want to be shown up for speaking poor English.
Chinese children now learn English in primary school, and that tells you a lot about the priorities of the Chinese government. If you could stop the clock and wait for these children to grow into adulthood, any one of them could take on an Indian slum kid at reading ‘The Three Musketeers’. That is the thinking in Beijing, which specialises in the long view. But of course India is expanding its education generally, and has a younger population, so the number of India’s English speakers will always overtake China’s. Right?
Not everyone would agree, including applied linguist David Graddol. In a new British Council study “English Next India”, to be published early next year Graddol says India is not learning English “fast enough.”
“Much of the world is catching up (on India) in terms of the English proficiency of their populations,” he said at the British Council’s palatial building tucked between the big international banks in the centre of New Delhi. In fact, China may soon have more people who speak English than India, he predicted.
Now that could be frightening if it wasn’t absurd.
Graddol has gathered an impressive array of statistics for his report even delving into India’s census statistics, where few academics dare to tread. But he is unable to say how many Indians speak English. Others put the figure at anything between 15 million people and 35 million people.
But even those who are not officially proficient in English – many slum kids would be among them – will hear people speak English around them. They see the big advertising hoardings in English and they hear English on the Radio and TV, even if they tune into Hindi channels. It may be a mish-mash of Hindi and English but they will understand those English words.
That is not the case in China. Anyone who has been in a Chinese classroom will know that the way English is taught is far, far from the living, breathing way it is experienced in India.
China’s universities do not teach in English as many of India’s do. Its legal system (if it can be said to have one at all) does not operate in English as India’s does, it barely has any English language newspapers, and no English TV channels compared to India’s vibrant media landscape.
There are very good reasons that some prefer to do business in India rather than China, and the culture and rule of law are part of it.
That is not to say that there are not Chinese people who speak very good English. Many do. What appears to interest China more, though is India’s emergence as an outsourcing magnet and as a general service industry backroom processing centre, due in large measure to the level of English. Of course India’s real export earner, as a software-IT hub does not merely depend on English language skills.
Graddol said: “India will need many more people speaking English to sustain its economic growth.” That may be so. But if it looses business that requires English to other countries, it is hardly likely to be China. If it were just about English, and only English, it might loose business to The Philippines, but never to China.
The British Council has every reason to be pushing English (and textbooks and courses) overseas. It is big business for British publishers. But it is guilty of overstating the case for English.
To suggest that any country an internal market size of India or for that matter China, Russia or Brazil’s will “fall behind” without English is patently absurd. Japan became an economic power without English.
English is an important economic skill. But it is not enough to get slum kids out of the slum. And equally, a nation’s economic fortunes does not dependent on it.