That utilitarian worldview is a slippery slope. History, classics, literature, pure maths, theoretical physics... don't offer inmediate economic benefit to individuals or society, but they are still knowledge and the must be protected. The University is not a factory of workers.
Many will still study liberal arts in droves, even if they have to pay for it themselves. People naturally gravitate toward such subjects. What's needed is to help out those people who want to make tangible contributions to society.
-
-
can you point me to your stats about this? and the research stating what is and is not of benefit what is meant by 'benefit' and to which society and who within that society?
-
Would you rather live in medieval times or now? Would you not agree that technological advancement makes things better, generally speaking?
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I'm a historian. I help you to understand the present. I help you not to misrepresent the past. Why should my discipline not be funded? Do economics and political science contribute to society? What is a tangible contribution to society? Who decides that?
-
Supply and demand should regulate such things. History is useful and important, and if there ever became a shortage of historians, it would make sense to fund more of them. But until then, it makes sense to prioritize those topics that could make the most impact on society.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.