In August, The University Times reported that in 2015, Trinity’s engineering, maths and science courses saw significant rises both in the number of applications and the points required, with Engineering with Management seeing a rise of 45 points to 505, while MSISS rising 40 points to 555. Such increases are in line with a broader national focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects. At the same time, in October, Trinity became the first Irish university to be ranked in the top 100 universities list for arts and humanities by Times Higher Education, a rise of 86 places. QS, another world ranking system, ranks the university even higher, placing us at 61st for arts and humanities and 78th overall. Such progress is undoubtedly reassuring – it means that we are successfully competing with many larger and better universities across the world. But as College gradually moves to prioritise STEM subjects, a very apparent concern for the future of other courses remains.
In April, Prof Peter Coxon, the Head of Geography and then a member of the College Board, emailed students urging them to fight severe cuts that had been imposed on his department, threatening to reduce modules and staffing to a significant degree. He described it as an “incredible erosion of our ability to teach whole sections of a Geography degree without the discipline being given any indication of future staffing”. Cuts made to the School of Natural Sciences were said to be potentially highly detrimental to “laboratory, field and teaching exercises, including dissertation work”. In the same article, this newspaper reported similar patterns across non-STEM subjects, including the School of Social Work and Social Policy, Philosophy, PPES and BESS, as well as German and English.
Last year, a well-placed source in the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, speaking on the condition of anonymity, commented on the news that eight members of the Department of Philosophy’s adjunct teaching staff had been removed, stating its potential to do “irreversible harm” to the department’s teaching ability. Significant cuts were made to third-year modules in PPES and BESS courses, while an external review of the School of Social Work and Social Policy found the department to be “at a tipping point”, when six members of staff were scheduled to retire without known replacement, threatening to “significantly reduce the quality of both the research and teaching activity of the school”. All in all, it does seem as if Trinity’s administration may be failing to see its numerous disciplines as equally valuable.
Speaking to The University Times, the new Head of the Department of Philosophy, Prof Paul O’Grady, mentioned how the cuts to his department “had affected the student to staff ratio” and that this could be a focal point, particularly considering that this influences the making of the university rankings of QS, Times Higher Education and others. This mirrors a statement made in a recent interview with The University Times by the Head of the School of English, Prof Chris Morash: “One of the things Irish universities have been consistently hit for in international rankings are staff–student ratios vis-à-vis some of the better funded universities in the United States or Oxford or Cambridge. In some ways, it forces the university administration to prioritise things that can actually really affect the quality of life for students. If you have better staff-student ratios, you have more faculty who have more time to spend with students. You’re going to be in smaller classes. There are going to be more options – you know, all the things that are actually going to make being a student better.”
However, O’Grady mentioned that while in the past, lack of funding has prevented it, new developments mean his department will soon launch a much-anticipated master’s programme.
In the Renaissance, a polymath was used to describe someone who possessed diverse knowledge on a range of subjects. Such people were considered to have an “unquenchable thirst for knowledge”, and the desire to expand their horizons in as many disciplines as possible. Leonardo da Vinci has often been seen as the archetypal Renaissance figure, with the extent of his capabilities and ingenuity of his inventions seemingly knowing no bounds. Galileo, Newton and Einstein championed the importance of a well-rounded understanding of the universe, even though their principal contributions were in the realm of science. Since then, the advent of the so-called “Information Age” has meant that instead, it is technological advancement and modernisation that has been taken to define human progress. It seems we have lost the respect for the medieval polymath, or at least for those attempting to emulate their achievements.
Some argue that we are living through a “crisis of modernity”, where we prioritise materialism and commercialism. Students of STEM subjects are statistically more likely to succeed in today’s economy in comparison to students of humanities subjects, which are often depicted as “soft” and their students “less employable” than their hard science counterparts. Equally, it is no coincidence that arts students in areas like philosophy and English are plagued with questions like, “Do you want to be a teacher?” or “Are you going to do something else?” In essence, political criticism of the humanities has been widespread, and by all observation, reduced their standing not only at Trinity but at public universities worldwide. Even world leaders are driving this trend, with Obama and Cameron openly advocating STEM study over and above other pursuits.
Perhaps the problem lies with current approaches in primary and secondary education. From a very young age, a sort of crude “Jack of all trades, master of none” doctrine is emphasised, with students more or less unable to pursue both STEM and humanities subjects equally, even before they are 18. There is no reason why students should feel pressured to pursue STEM subjects purely because they will guarantee them a job, and frankly there are benefits to other courses of study that STEM subjects simply don’t offer.
If we assess ourselves on technological terms alone we will leave ourselves woefully lacking in art, literacy, diplomacy, and numerous other areas. Humanities provide us with critical thinking, facilitate intercultural understanding, and teach us about the human condition. History allows us to learn from our past mistakes as well as our breakthroughs, while ethics provides us with vital insight into morality. In short, the humanities are essential to our success, both as a society and as individuals.
It is for this reason that our apparently fading interest in humanities and other non-STEM subjects is a grave concern. Though they may lack the objectivity and certainty that science and technology offer, we cannot afford to disregard their importance. On the contrary, we must value the arts and the sciences equally, and not segregate the two disciplines. More to the point, it would be tragic for Trinity to let itself slip from its position as a top-flight humanities university. Of course, we can’t all be polymaths. But we can at least try.
