An education without Humanities is a meager diet

The educational reforms encouraged by many governments has prioritized STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) subjects. In a world dominated by digital technology, many people believe that the Humanities today play a secondary role. However, as leading American thinker Martha Nussbaum argues, exorcising the Humanities from studies impinges on achieving other relevant educational goals such as the practice of civic virtues, developing the creative imagination and critical thinking. She believes, in line with classical thinking from Aristotle to Cicero, that the Humanities play a fundamental role in the development of global citizens, as well as in the development of our democracies.

 Among the arguments I often use when defending the study of the Humanities, is a comparison between the US and European university systems.  

-The traditional European system. Based on the ideas of the German 19th century academic Wilhelm Von Humboldt, whereby university students attend specialized programs from the first year onward with the sole aim of achieving the best preparation for jobs after graduation. For example, mining engineers study subjects like geology from the beginning, which correspond to their future profession, rather than spending time on unrelated matters. The same applies to doctors, architects, lawyers, etc. At the same time, this specialization is reflected in the structure of university departments, which encourage specialized research. 

 As was Von Humboldt’s intention, specialist research has produced a huge leap in science over the last century, matched by exponential growth in academic publications. In the field of degree programs, it has created professionals with highly focused training, ready to join the labor market as long as their knowledge and skills adjust periodically to the changing demands of companies and institutions. If programs do not change, which unfortunately happens due to resistance to change in some university departments and professional associations, curricula are rendered obsolete.  

 -The American system. In contrast, many US universities and colleges offer a generalist degree program, typically focused on the Humanities and the Liberal Arts, with specialization taking place at Master’s or equivalent level. 

 Having described the two university systems in this general way, I usually ask my audience the following question: which of the two produces more entrepreneurs? The unanimous response is usually the US system. I won’t go into the details of how entrepreneurship works in both continents, and while my approach may lack scientific rigor, it certainly reflects the entrepreneurial spirit instilled in so many US graduates.  My point is that the study of the Humanities, offered by many US colleges, far from prejudicing innovation and entrepreneurship, in fact favors it. 

This is also the conclusion of venture capitalist Scott Hartley, who questions the division of university programs into the arts and the sciences in his 2017 book, The Fuzzy and the Techie: Why the Liberal Arts Will Rule the Digital World. At Stanford University, "fuzzies" is the term used to describe students of the social sciences and Humanities; "techies" are those enrolled in engineering and hard sciences. Hartley argues convincingly that despite the best efforts of universities to maintain this traditional separation, there are any number of technological entrepreneurs with a background in Humanities. 

The traditional separation between the Humanities -the fuzzies- and the Sciences -the techies- is based on the common belief that people are predisposed to one discipline or another. This approach guides education from the earliest years and of course determines students’ career opportunities after graduation, as well as their salaries, promotion and mobility opportunities, among others. Moreover, it consecrates professional paths that are difficult to cross or change. There is little room for outliers who may work on the verge of professions or for those wanting to switch careers over their lives.

Alternatively, let’s imagine that instead of prolonging this divisive model, opposing the Sciences to the Humanities, schools and universities provided a solid grounding in both fields with the goal of encouraging a more rounded personality in our students. Wouldn't this be so much more positive? 

Hartley cites the following cases in support of this integrative approach: Stewart Butterfield, founder of communications platform Slack, who studied Philosophy at the University of Victoria and the University of Cambridge; LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman took a Master's in Philosophy at the University of Oxford. Peter Thiel, co-founder of Paypal, studied Philosophy and Law. Ben Silbermann, founder of Pinterest, studied political science at Yale. Airbnb founders Joe Gebbia and Brian Chesky graduated in Fine Arts at the Rhode Island School of Design. Steve Loughlin, founder of RelateIQ, studied Public Policy. Parker Harris, co-founder of Salesforce, studied English Literature at Middlebury College. Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, majored in Medieval History and Philosophy, while YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki studied History and Literature at Harvard and Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, studied Liberal Arts at the Phillips Exeter Academy before entering Harvard. 

Lest we forget, Steve Jobs, who attended liberal arts institution Reed College, said “technology alone is not enough — it's technology married with liberal arts, married with the Humanities, that yields us the result that make our heart sing.”  

In short, perhaps we can now leave aside discussion questioning the value of the Humanities in business education and higher education at large. 

-In the first place, as we know, because many of the most important things we learn are only useful in the long term and guide the formation of our personality, our worldview, our beliefs and principles, the mental structure that allows us to order and associate the rest of the knowledge we acquire throughout life.

-Secondly, because the education provided by the Humanities is not of a technical or applied nature; it doesn’t teach us a specific skill, such as handling a machine or driving a vehicle. Instead, the Humanities helps us to develop more abstract capacities related to human development, and as Nussbaum argues so forcefully, the Humanities underpin democratic societies. 

Therefore, discussion of the “usefulness” of the Humanities is a contradiction in terms, at least if we’re talking about how to measure the learning of a specific skill or knowledge directly applicable to a task.

Foto above: Vitruvian man digitized