A Call for the Continued Study of Critical Thinking

Behind the excitement of new friends and new parties lurks a fundamental conflict in the mind of the American undergraduate: do I learn to better myself or do I learn to get a job? Unfortunately, the classes that support the modern need for quantitatively skilled workers oftentimes do not overlap with those that fulfill the need to understand the human condition. And as STEM jobs have grown increasingly lucrative, the opportunity cost of taking creative writing has grown greater. Are the humanities an anachronism of a bygone era.

During his time as President, Obama pushed multiple STEM educational initiatives and constantly reiterated the importance of a mathematically and scientifically literate population. Trump seems to be following in his footsteps. In a recent speech, Trump stated that “the workplace is changing, we need to create new pathways for our citizens to get the best jobs. Greater access to STEM and computer science programs will ensure our [children] have the skills they need to compete, and win, in the [workforce].” The data seems to back him up. A study by the United States Department of Commerce found that “employment in STEM occupations grew much faster than employment in non-STEM occupations over the last decade.” The reality of the situation is not lost upon college students - a precursory look over most college meme pages reveals a student populace well aware of the competitive reality of the modern day employment landscape. Does the ascendance of engineers and computer scientists render Faulkner and Homer obsolete? What place do words and ideas have in a world filled with hard data and empirical proofs?

Despite the increased importance of quantitative skills, qualitative analytical abilities buoyed by the study of literature should still play a central role in the modern college education. While the employment environment has changed, and is liable to change again in the future, humans remain as dependant as ever upon intuition and the ability to integrate new information into a compelling narrative. Studying the humanities is not only important for the students’ prospects as employees, but is also a key driver of their own personal growth. 

Arguably, the greatest danger to the American political system lies in an increasingly common inability to interact with opposing opinions. In previous eras, education systems built upon the study of philosophy and literature exposed students to a wide range of ideas. This contrasts to the modern era, in which the professional environment emphasizes the study of quantitative majors and social media algorithms serve users a carefully curated array of agreeable media. Without the humanities, students likely won’t learn to deal with fundamental disagreements.

Such polarizing forces have real world effects. While the statisticians amongst us might remind me that correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it is interesting to note that in the 1972 election, forty-three percent of congressional districts voted for presidential and congressional candidates belonging to different parties. Contrast this to the 2012 election when only 6% of districts did the same. Obviously, Americans are either having difficulty dealing with contradictions on the individual level, or are refusing to even live near people who disagree with them. Both outcomes are far from optimal, indicating a populace that could greatly benefit from exposure to strange ideas. Humanities classes are the ideal environment for such exposure because readings present perspectives in a format similar to that of newspapers and magazines. Furthermore, classroom debates can act as a training ground for participation in the national dialogue. 

The study of the humanities is also vital for the training of employees who are not only able to calculate the big picture, but are also able to quickly understand it on an intuitive level. Oftentimes, humanities students are given more reading than they can hope to methodically digest - instead, they have to skim through their assignments and quickly figure out what matters, why it matters, and then rigorously support their conclusions. While oftentimes painful for students who are unable to discern between fluff and substance, this process eventually teaches students to unconsciously drop superfluous information and more quickly reach accurate conclusions. Similarly, in business, the ability to discern signal from noise is oftentimes a vital skill. There’s a reason why psychologists rank unconscious competence above the conscious variety - oftentimes “right” intuition is more valuable than “right” analysis.

Regardless of one’s analytical or intuitive talents, “right thought” is useless without the ability to convince others to follow one’s plan of action. Whether we like it or not, humans are emotional creatures and the increasing prevalence of computers has done little to change this. Even if quantitative analysis eventually crowds out its qualitative brethren, decisions about who to follow and how to act in the face of such information will remain largely dependent upon which leaders are able to most effectively relay their thoughts and ideas. If nothing else, the 2016 election ought to have taught us this - a charismatic leader with little in the way of well-developed policy initiatives was able to beat out a boring but highly analytical leader precisely because of his mastery of rhetoric. Unless we overhaul our democratic political system, such events are liable to happen in the future. If one wants their analyses to matter, it is necessary to study the methods of persuasion.

Lastly, the study of the humanities continues to be one of the most valuable defenses against nonsense - it’s easier to identify when someone is using their “very good brain” to say “a lot of things” when you yourself are adept in the art of manipulation. In order to inoculate our population against ideologues, it is vital for the citizenry to be able to identify when their emotions are being used against them. 

No, the rise of the engineer does not signal the demise of the philosopher. Instead, universities need to continue to push for holistic educational initiatives that teach students to consider all sides of the story. Scientists without literature will struggle to convince others that their work matters - case in point, the public’s relative indifference towards climate change. And philosophers without statistics will struggle to find empirical proof that their theories are correct - a prime example being the increasing irrelevance of theologists due to their inability to reconcile belief with science. Far from being at odds with one another, both quantitative and qualitative analyses are required for undergraduates to develop into effective employees and wise adults.