End of civilisation as we know it?
I can hear Sir Humphrey’s words echoing in my ears: did yesterday mark the end of civilisation as we know it? Not only did the Italians do it again but also the present Finnish ADHD Government has come up with yet another splendid idea. This time, the Ministry of Education is preparing a programme that would cut the number of university students in Arts and Humanities by half in just five years.
The reasoning is all too familiar: job market requirements. Finnish people are proud of PISA studies results, top-rankings in global competitiveness surveys, innovation industries… to the extent that it sometimes makes me blush. Yet, these same people fail to give any credit to the existing education system in achieving all the glory. It should not even require an advanced university degree to be able to see a link between free thinking and creativity or innovativeness. That is what academic pursuit should be for, ultimately. University is an institution where able individuals learn to think out of box and expand their world view.
It is very considerate of the Ministry of Education to be concerned about the job market opportunities of future students. However, my anecdotic experience is that few students of humanities choose their field of study for the excellent labour market prospects it offers. On the contrary, they are fully aware about the insecurity associated with the choice. And yet, most find a job, eventually. Whilst there are certainly professions that require very specialised skills and knowledge, a fair share of jobs today call for ability to think, adapt and apply existing knowledge to new, sometimes surprising context. Humanities should be at least as good a ground for this as any other academic field (Sir Humphrey studied Classics in Oxford).
A deep-seated idea among the policymakers nowadays seems to be that the business life would be the most competent quarter to ask for the future needs of education. Whilst this kind of thinking may have some credit in terms of vocational labour, it is naïve and extremely short-sighted at best if applied to academic field. Why would the industry have the best idea about what kind of skills and knowledge is required in, say, 20 years from now? Nobody knows that with any significant level of certainty. However, we can be quite sure that ability to think and a comprehensive all-round education will always help to cope with whatever challenges tomorrow will present.
The reasoning is all too familiar: job market requirements. Finnish people are proud of PISA studies results, top-rankings in global competitiveness surveys, innovation industries… to the extent that it sometimes makes me blush. Yet, these same people fail to give any credit to the existing education system in achieving all the glory. It should not even require an advanced university degree to be able to see a link between free thinking and creativity or innovativeness. That is what academic pursuit should be for, ultimately. University is an institution where able individuals learn to think out of box and expand their world view.
It is very considerate of the Ministry of Education to be concerned about the job market opportunities of future students. However, my anecdotic experience is that few students of humanities choose their field of study for the excellent labour market prospects it offers. On the contrary, they are fully aware about the insecurity associated with the choice. And yet, most find a job, eventually. Whilst there are certainly professions that require very specialised skills and knowledge, a fair share of jobs today call for ability to think, adapt and apply existing knowledge to new, sometimes surprising context. Humanities should be at least as good a ground for this as any other academic field (Sir Humphrey studied Classics in Oxford).
A deep-seated idea among the policymakers nowadays seems to be that the business life would be the most competent quarter to ask for the future needs of education. Whilst this kind of thinking may have some credit in terms of vocational labour, it is naïve and extremely short-sighted at best if applied to academic field. Why would the industry have the best idea about what kind of skills and knowledge is required in, say, 20 years from now? Nobody knows that with any significant level of certainty. However, we can be quite sure that ability to think and a comprehensive all-round education will always help to cope with whatever challenges tomorrow will present.
