“So,” said the East Asia director of the multinational commodities giant. “What is your degree actually good for?”
I blinked. That’s a really, really good question. I had spent four years reading Latin, Greek and Classical Arabic. If he had asked me about causation in the Oresteia or the structure of Qur’anic suras, I would have been all over him.

How are you going to persuade nightclubs from Phnom Penh to Ulan Baatar to buy 100,000 bottles of Smirnoff Ice with the Oresteia?
But here was the million-dollar question. Imagine 100,000 bottles of Smirnoff Ice sat there in a warehouse, smouldering with that weird inner light they have, like alien birthing tanks.
Somewhere out there is an emerging middle class tens of times the size of Britain. Nightclubs everywhere from Phnom Penh to the Ginza are packed with people who have only just discovered credit cards (and, in many cases, alcohol). But how are you going to persuade them to buy Smirnoff instead of WKD?
These are the kind of problems that matter in the 21st century. Here’s another one, framed by the new Provost of Worcester College, Oxford. He went to ten Oxford professors of the humanities and asked them this:
Imagine a civil servant responsible for the distribution of the research budget. Imagine them saying: ‘I don’t lose any sleep at night over the spending of taxpayers’ money on medical research, but I do lose sleep over the spending of it on humanities research; I like riding my horse, but I don’t expect the taxpayer to pay for me to do so.’ Imagine, then, that you have the ear of that civil servant. What will you say?
Luckily for the academics, their answers were printed anonymously. I say luckily, because they were almost uniformly crap. Here are a few of them, chosen at random:
Without British humanities academics, there would be no Oxford English Dictionary, no Macmillan Dictionary of Art, no Grove Dictionary of Music, not Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, no Oxford Classical Texts, all of which are sold on to the world. We abandon this at our peril.
There’s that telltale phrase “at our peril”, which usually means it’s probably quite safe to do whatever the writer is warning against. I don’t have the exact statistics for sales receipts from the Oxford Classical Texts library, but I wouldn’t imagine they’re in the UK’s top 10 exports. Or the top 10,000, for that matter. If he’s making an economic argument, it’s a poor one. If it’s a cultural argument, then how many heads of state or chief executives make regular recourse to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy when Wikipedia is so comprehensive and, er, free?
Let’s try another one:
Your analogy with horse riding is fallacious since it implies that humanities research is recreational. However, the slightest acquaintance with the history of ideas supplies numerous examples of curiosity driven enquiry in the humanities having great social consequences. For example, Bertrand Russell’s philosophical investigations into logic and language paved the way for the artificial languages essential to computer science.
Face it: the civil servant has switched off by the time he gets to “fallacious”. He probably thinks there’s something a bit dirty about the word. Even the example the academic gives is no good: Bertrand Russell was born into an aristocratic family of massive means (thanks Wikipedia), and would have had the leisure to snooze his way through an unlimited number of philosophy books regardless of state funding. Computer language would probably have developed out of the higher realms of mathematics in any case: David Hilbert’s thesis on the Entscheidungsproblem did far more for programming than Russell’s work on logic.
There was only one really good answer to Bate’s question, and it was put with the directness and wit of a newspaper leader:
If you believe knowledge is too expensive, try ignorance.
There is a very serious point to all this. When public finances are tight, spending money on theses on The Impact of the Pumpernickel in Medieval Westphalia or Some Problems of Being and Perception in the Later Novels of Yasunari Kawabata when people are dying of cold in their meagre flats seems perverse.
I exaggerate. Yep. Because the point needs to be driven home. Right now. Unless somebody can stand up and put a compelling defence of the humanities – the kind of argument that a frostbitten pensioner in the Wirral could understand and accept – then the humanities will die.
I’d like an answer myself. I spent four years and £27,000 learning three dead languages. Right now, as a trainee journalist, I would almost literally kill for the chance to turn back time and take a three-year degree in Economics with maybe two or three major world languages, and a year in industry.
I wish somebody had told me in sixth form that nobody – literally nobody – in the professional world gives a Yingluck Shinawatra for your culture. They regard it like your parents regarded masturbation when you were a teenager: If that’s what you want to do with your Friday evening, fine. Just don’t do it at work.

"All a humanities degree gives you is vague, loft aspirations and a thorough knowledge of what happens when you hold down Shift and press F7"
What graduate employers want are experienced, motivated young people with a full set of practical and personal skills and a clear vision of where they want to be in 10 years’ time. Spanish or Russian is a bonus. You are more likely to get a job the closer you are to the finished article.
What a humanities degree gives you is vague, grandiose aspirations and a phenomenally detailed knowledge of the Shift+F7 function on Microsoft Word.
I spent my last year at uni managing a graduate employment survey of final year students. Generally, arts students fell into two camps. There were those who were tightly focused on their future, had already taken two or three internships, and applied for a dozen grad schemes.
Then there were those who hadn’t. They took their degrees seriously, dabbled a bit in sport and acting and maybe a bit of writing, and did all the things young people are supposed to do at university. As for the next few years, they either planned to drift along until the perfect job – offering challenging, creative work, world travel and a bumper salary to boot – or to put off the future by ploughing yet more debt into a master’s.
It’s not that the first approach makes people any happier or better as individuals. Probably the opposite. But it does mean you’re far more likely to have a job when you leave university, and more likely to be making a useful contribution to public life and the economy.
And here’s the crux of it all. As far as that horse-riding civil servant is concerned, the humanities are doing little or nothing for Britain. They are a poor preparation for the real world, and they keep many of the country’s best minds sequestered in medieval libraries. Sure, they’re cheap. But every little saving helps.
The government has a gun to the head of every arts professor in the country. And I am perfectly happy for them to pull the trigger. Let Latin die. Let Greek die. Let the whole of medieval literature go up in flames. Fling open the dusty windows, and let the raging storm of the free markets gambol through the libraries.
It’s useless now to pretend that there is any objective reality beyond the harsh, liquid-crystal light of economic necessity. The notion that some intangible but invaluable public truth will emerge from the contemplation of literature and philosophy is an unfortunate hangover from the 19th century. It has no place in our logical-positivist today. Drop it.
Butbutbut you splutter. Critical thinking. Quality of life. You’d make us a nation of philistines. Well, the Philistines got stuff done. They may have been driven out of southern Canaan by the Egyptians – who themselves had a pretty utilitarian attitude to culture – but they captured the Ark of the Covenant, and lasted a good four centuries before they were absorbed by the no more sentimental Assyrians. I’d be pretty happy with that.
By the way, I never got that job.


Ollie, I’m in a similar boat as you. Expected to immediately know what I wanted to do with the next four or so years of my life after sixth form I had to decide between Classics and Maths. Now, three years on I’ve realised I’m more interested in what happens in the real world and if I could turn the clocks back I would definitely have applied to do the latter.
However, you make it sound like the be all and end all of anybody’s university life and subsequent career should be to have a positive impact on the British economy, and that university’s sole task is to equip you with the tools to tackle ‘the kind of problems that matter in the 21st century.’ Who cares if the humanities are doing ‘little or nothing for Britain’? The amount of public money that goes into humanities funding is (quite rightly) an absolutely minute fraction of that which goes into scientific research. The professors you quote were foolish to attempt to assign any economic value to humanities degrees themselves – there is none.
The usefulness of humanities versus science subjects is only really relevant when you directly convert your degree into a job. However, for most jobs this isn’t necessary, unless it’s been your aim since school to become a doctor/lab assistant. Plenty of people going to work in banks don’t have economics degrees; law firms encourage the applications of non-lawyers and plenty are accepted. Conversely I know dozens of people who have come out of uni with degrees in science, economics and law and proceeded to do nothing with them. It’s surely most about drive – there are no free rides. Presumably studying Classics at Oxford has equipped you with more than an extensive knowledge of the Oresteia. You’ve come out with honed skills that are relevant to any job.
If you’ve now realised that you made a mistake, and would have been best off doing a subject more relevant to the real world than Classics, as I have – don’t blame ‘humanities’ itself, but blame the British education system for expecting you to know what you want to do with your life at the age of 17.
Steve Jobs gives the following account of studying calligraphy while at college:
“It was beautiful, historical, artistically subtle in a way that science can’t capture, and I found it fascinating. None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But ten years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography.”
(http://news.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/jobs-061505.html)
This is only one tiny example, and Jobs obviously owes far more to his technological abilities than his love of advanced handwriting studies. But it does show that the benefits of seemingly frivolous subjects are easy to overlook.
Pingback: Ninth Level Ireland » Blog Archive » A shotgun to the head of the humanities
You’re right, of course. There is no moral or cultural benefit to the humanities, and in this era of postmodernism, we can’t even cite ‘beauty,’ nor even a more vacuous ‘aesthetics’ as a reason to condemn our young people to squander their lives away reading poetry and plays, or listening to Mahler, when they could be getting proper, hard-nosed degrees in positivist subjects like chemistry or economics.
But wait. If there’s no objective reality but economics, and creation should be the preserve only of the idle rich (or those like Blake willing to write off their lives in service of a visionary compulsion, then what are the rest of us poor sods, trudging through our utilitarian life, supposed to actually do?
Again. I mean that seriously. Of course, the ability to skillfully offer another reading of Sonnet 114 is functionally useless, and the academy isn’t ever going to rival the international economic might of, say, Glaxo-Smith-Klein (although it might bring over a surprising amount of money from rich international students after a ‘cultural experience’). But, on the other hand, we’re not all good at STEM subjects. And if we were the problem would remain – where are the jobs? Flooding the jobs market with thousands of perfectly-skilled graduates won’t actually improve our economic standing. Instead, the hordes of unemployed graduates whose skills exactly match the requirements of business will merely drag into the glaring light the fact that it’s not the humanities which are at fault, but the whole rotten system. At which point, of course, we’ll lack the skills to immediately resurrect our international standing, as well as the broad ability base to change course.
Scapegoat the humanities if you must, but the problem goes much deeper, and ideological debates about positivism and the value of knowledge/skills won’t help the people freezing in their flats any more than an obscure dissertation will.
Sound like an article born out of your predicament. There are so many arguments for the humanities and what sort of Oxford student has to wiki who Bertrand Russell is – I hope that this was a joke + he was a mathematician as was David Hilber and saying that programming would have developed without mathematics is such an odd statement.