The Liberal Arts Are the Future

Over the past few decades, there has been a drive to get more students into STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math). In a world of private space travel, billionaire computer nerds, and ubiquitous screens, it seems obvious that only those who know how to perform complex calculations and understand the basics of the hard sciences will be able to keep up and thrive. Lucrative salaries and astronomical profits are used to tempt students and young professionals, and successful STEM entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk have become household names.

Unfortunately, the rise of STEM has come at the expense of the liberal arts. It is apparently not enough to offer pathways to potential engineers and scientists and encourage them in their pursuits—those who want to continue their liberal arts education are frequently derided for selecting a worthless pursuit. According to the prevailing wisdom, humanities students are dooming themselves to lives as overqualified baristas, or worse, public school teachers. The collective anxiety produced by globalization and the rise of China has led conservative and progressive writers alike to express concern that China is graduating many more engineers than America. They worry that Americans are too incompetent to build or manufacture anything, let alone make new discoveries or innovate technologically.

This growing sense of alarm is usually accompanied by images of Chinese engineers diligently supervising massive microchip factories while pampered millennials bicker on TikTok about how many genders can dance on the head of a pin. These debates recall H.G. Wells’s 1895 novel, The Time Machine, in which humanity evolved into two races: the hardworking but unrefined Morlocks who labored underground and the privileged yet vulnerable Eloi who idled away their time above. If Americans don’t get their act together, these critics fret, China will soon overtake them just as the Morlocks started to overtake the Eloi.

But what if we have this all backwards? What if the singular focus on STEM, and the corresponding denigration of the liberal arts, is actually detrimental to America? What if emphasizing the liberal arts rather than STEM will benefit Americans and American national prosperity far more in both the short and long term? I don’t say this as an English teacher who harbors an inferiority complex, but as a person who has worked in this system his whole life. The push for STEM began when I was a student in the Advanced Placement bubble of a Dallas public school. Because the school received incentives from the state designed to encourage AP course enrollment, I was essentially forced to take all the AP math and science classes that the school offered.

At the time, I resented this because the classes were quite hard and fell well outside my immediate interests. Soon afterward, I was required to take more math and science classes in college. Even though I eventually graduated with a humanities degree, I somehow ended up taking calculus twice, physics three times, and a slew of other college-level science classes. While I can better appreciate now the skills and discipline I developed in my many math and science courses, I still wonder if all that time and effort would have been better spent cultivating my thinking and writing.

I only became a serious reader when I started college, and only figured out the rules for composition by the end of it—and almost all of this was due to influences outside of school. Nevertheless, when I became a teacher, I continued to defer to STEM because everyone else did. Few would argue that basic literacy is dispensable, but the teachers who taught math and science were thought to be the real heroes. After all, most campuses prioritized them as “high-need,” and all the serious students enrolled in these classes.

This mindset was reinforced by some of the books on education I read. I can recall nodding along to The Smartest Kids in the World by Amanda Ripley and Little Soldiers by Lenora Chu, which described the apparently superior education systems in China and South Korea. While Chinese and Korean students crushed the PISA tests, American students floundered behind developing countries in spite of the amount of government money invested in schools. Although this probably has more to do with how the PISA test is administered and how schools are organized in each country, Ripley, Chu, and other education experts insist that it is mainly the product of superior advanced math instruction. Simply push kids harder in math and the rest will follow.

But this simply isn’t the case. Heavier loads of math and science have not produced more competent graduates, better prepared to enter the workforce. On the contrary, students today are just as unprepared to handle the vicissitudes of today’s economy as before, if not more so. A handful may go on to make billions designing a new smartphone app, but a large portion will go on to work in non-STEM fields, regretting how little they learned at school.

I've seen this pattern repeatedly during my years as an AP Language and Composition teacher. I would work with the best and brightest juniors heading into college, many of whom would put in late nights doing their homework for pre-calculus and physics. As the year progressed, most of them grew to appreciate what they learned in my class over their STEM classes. This wasn’t because I’m a particularly charismatic teacher (I’m not), but because I always made the case for the liberal arts. If they wanted to get a job, find a date, and not elect a vicious dictator, my class would help them.

Those students who exerted themselves and embraced humanities classes would prosper and live their best lives. Those who blew off my class, and insisted that they were “math people” destined to become wealthy doctors and engineers, often struggled. They might have had hard skills in the hard sciences, but that hardness made them inflexible in a rapidly changing environment. Those who reject the liberal arts never learn how to be independent. Almost by necessity, they adopt what Friedrich Nietzsche termed a “slave morality”—they need a master to employ them, lead them, and think for them. They don’t create, they merely operate in what’s already been created. In many ways, this is easier than continually asking difficult questions and developing complex answers.

Nations that exclusively prioritize STEM end up with unimaginative, conformist cultures led by unimaginative, conformist oligarchs. They may be materially wealthier, but they are also morally and spiritually impoverished. The impulses to participate, contemplate, innovate, create, celebrate, or procreate are smothered by an illiberal education that turns human beings into human capital. Eliminating the liberal arts leads to mass self-objectification. As Arthur Brooks explains his new book From Strength to Strength, adults run into personal crises because they see themselves not as autonomous human beings but as workers fed through an impersonal machine that sorts them by their output. When a person grows older and his output necessarily decreases, he lacks the capacity to see himself as anything more than an object experiencing obsolescence.

Not only is this profoundly depressing, but it’s also untrue. In exploring the many dimensions of humanity and tapping a multitude of intellectual and interpersonal habits, the liberal arts liberate students from this tendency towards self-objectification because we are much more than the sum total of our knowledge and skills. This is not to say that the liberal arts merely offer therapy that can help people get in touch with their feelings. A person who fully realizes their own humanity can also live a better life based on reason and virtue rather than market forces, government mandates, or societal customs. On the whole, he is both happier and more productive than the person who can only follow directions.

Of course, these advantages depend on the quality of the liberal arts program. All too often, liberal arts classes become blow-offs in which students learn how to be pretentious and apply bogus postmodern theories to bogus creations. A class I took in college epitomized this mindset. We were asked to select a movie or television series (I picked the movie Napoleon Dynamite) and apply a series of “critical lenses” to its analysis—race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. Beyond mastering the fine art of bullshitting, I gained very little from that course.

The case for re-emphasizing the liberal arts must be coupled with a case for restoring objective standards. If students aren’t constantly reading and writing, their arguments won’t hold water and they won’t cultivate intellectual discipline. The benefits of the liberal arts will then vanish no matter how enthusiastic people feel about them. Standardized assessments can be surprisingly effective at restoring rigor. As I've argued elsewhere, if something isn't tested, it isn’t taught.

In the liberal arts, students do most of their learning for SAT and AP exams because this is the only time they’re really tested. In college and beyond, there is little to no testing and professors are incentivized to go easy on students. STEM courses, on the other hand, regularly test students, and most jobs in STEM involve periodic tests of competency. If liberal arts programs are to be taken seriously, this gap in assessment needs to be bridged.

A student trained in the liberal arts is much better suited for training in STEM than vice versa. Most great scientists and inventors have some background in the liberal arts. In his essay on how to boost creativity in young people, writer Adam Grant writes, “Evidence shows that creative contributions depend on the breadth, not just depth, of our knowledge and experience.” Specialists unable to see the world from different perspectives or consider the relevance of their subject matter are ultimately limited and thus dispensable.

So, as a society, what would we rather have? A population that can calculate the area under the curve, be “Google certified,” and identify the parts of the cell, or a population that can evaluate the merits of a work of art, apply basic logic, and identify the main distinctions between different schools of philosophy? Which would make for a more prosperous and harmonious community? Which has already led us to an atomized collective caught in cultural stagnation?

Along with the rest of my generation, I have lived through a STEM-struck culture, and I believe the answer to questions like these is obvious. It may sound paradoxical, but if Western nations and their citizens want to succeed in an increasingly scientific, technology-driven world, they need to preserve and empower their humanity. That means educating their people in the liberal arts first and foremost.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at

An engineering graduate asks, “How does that work?” A business or accountant graduate asks, “How much does that cost?” A law graduate asks, “Does that have a patent?” A liberal arts graduate asks, “You want fries with that?”


pfft - oldest joke in the book

Some thoughts

  • China has already overtaken America in this regard. America will be playing catch up for the next decade. Tesla would be the exception.
  • Unless you want to go from an in depth examination of De Tocqueville’s political philosophy to learning what a kernel is then it’s best to stay in your lane. I tried to get into computing and it was woeful for me. If I took a shot of whiskey for every time I said “I don’t care”… These sorts of STEM roles are suited to a certain type who finds that sort of thing interesting. I shuddered at the idea of spending my life telling people to use the damn thing in a wise way when they don’t.
  • A singular focus on technology and STEM will degrade culture. The problem of course also exists with those who seek to denigrate their own culture instead of taking a considered appreciation of both its flaws and achievements. Simply replacing our society with STEM warriors will turn us all into drones. I’ve met Amazon Web Service employees - personality bypasses…
  • This is a great point:
    “They don’t create, they merely operate in what’s already been created. In many ways, this is easier than continually asking difficult questions and developing complex answers”
    And it’s particularly the case in the STEM field as things are made already and you merely respond to it.
  • This is also fundamental:
    “Nations that exclusively prioritize STEM end up with unimaginative, conformist cultures led by unimaginative, conformist oligarchs. They may be materially wealthier, but they are also morally and spiritually impoverished. The impulses to participate, contemplate, innovate, create, celebrate, or procreate are smothered by an illiberal education that turns human beings into human capital.”
    China for example? India? The west? I mean everyone is falling into that category. I think however it is more accurate to use those terms to describe some people I have met lol

I’ll have what the pampered millennials are having thanks…

C P Snow wrote decades ago, in The Two Cultures, that society is fragmenting into two categories: those who are familiar with the works of Shakespeare, and those who understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (although he noted that you are far more likely to find Shakespeare-awareness among physicists than you are to find thermodynamics-awareness among English professors, which I believe was definitely true at the time)

But today, we have a very large number of college graduates who aren’t familiar either with Shakespeare or with Newton’s laws of motion, let alone thermodynamics.

The fall of the liberal arts, in the US at least, has been largely self-inflicted by academia itself…too much trend-chasing, too much focus on esoteric research interests rather than in teaching, too much pandering to students who really don’t want to work very hard.


If STEM isn’t for you it doesn’t necessarily follow that what passes as liberal arts on many campuses is also the worthy alternative. To the extent liberal arts have morphed into grievance studies, anti racism, intersectionality, and no real standards for admission or graduation a young person today might be better off financially and in happiness just learning a good trade.


The late Dr Michael Hammer, a renowned management consultant, argued that the aspiring executive needed to pursue both undergraduate liberate arts and undergrad science and math:

I often recall advice once offered to me by a senior executive at a major pharmaceutical firm, an Englishman with the advantage of a traditional public school education. “All one need learn,” he said, “is Latin and computer programming–Latin for communication and programming for thinking.” He wasn’t far off

It’s very unlikely that this executive ever writes any computer programs at work, and it’s even more unlikely that he uses any Latin in his job. So why did he say what he did, and why does Hammer agree with him?

Hammer argues that learning programming is a good way to develop thinking skills of a particular kind. “…computer programming is nothing but an exercise in systems thinking. Each line of software that you write will interact with each and every other line of software. Unless you develop some big-picture thinking capability, your program will never work. The marvelous thing about a cognitive capability is that it operates across domains; the thinking style that one needs to write and debug a substantial computer program is the same one needed for solving problems in a business process. Once the synapses are put in play, they’ll snap on anything.” Exposure to other kinds of engineering can also help develop these cognitive skills, in Hammer’s opinion: “The heart of an enginering education is not learning and applying equations but learning how to create large systems built from small components…once again, I am not concerned with the content of the discipline but with the cognitive style it requires and engenders. I like the old definition of education: what remains when you forget what you have been taught.”

Hammer goes on to argue that the conceptual skills developed by programming/engineering are only part of the mental set needed by today’s businesspeople; 'They must know how to ask why …Once again, I would submit that critical thinking operates across domains. Once learned in one area it can be applied to virtually any other. To this end, I maintain there is no better preparation for our technological age than a classical education…It might seem odd to suggest that the works of Plato and Madison and Joyce prepare one for the twenty-first century, but they are constants in a world of change…Wrestling with questions of good and evil, of democracy and justice, of personal and communal responsibilities is a quest without end. But, having engaged in this struggle, one is better prepared to deal with the more mundane, but nonetheless challenging, issues of the workplace."

Hammer’s (rather contrarian) recommendation for aspiring businesspeople is this–a double major in computer science and classics . For those who don’t find this combination particularly appealing, he suggests alternative double-major possibilities:

–electrical engineering and philosophy
–mechanical engineering and medieval history
–aeronautics and theology

The general idea is one “hard” and one “soft” discipline. (I’m sure, though, that Hammer would be looking for humanities disciplines/programs which, while “soft” in the conventional sense, are taught in a highly-rigorous manner.)


Tell you what. Let’s do an Ike and make the problem bigger.

Forget STEM vs. liberal arts. How about formal education versus learning and doing?

The dirty little secret of all education systems is that they are all cunning plans to make sheep out of humans. You go to school to learn the reigning narrative. “You have to be carefully taught.”

Now I am second-to-none in my faith in the liberal arts and in science, and the value for every human in learning both.

But I suspect that putting gubmint teachers in charge of them is the way to destroy both science and the liberal arts.

1 Like

I am by no means a Mark Zuckerberg fan, but would note that he studied classics at his prep schools…when he entered Harvard, he could already read and write in Hebrew, Latin, and ancient Greek.

Paul Graham, software entrepreneur and venture capitalist, is also an art school graduate.

Steve Jobs, famously, got part of the inspiration for the Macintosh from his study of calligraphy and typography, just for fun.

There are more liberally-educated people in the ‘tech’ industry than one might think, but there were probably even more (in proportion) among the scientists and engineers of earlier times. I believe that the majority of the Manhattan Project physicists and mathematicians, for example, had educations that went beyond their professional specialties. Alan Turing was familiar enough with literature to use a character from Dickens in his original description of the Turing Test. Simon Ramo, pioneer of systems engineering (and cofounder of the company that was systems manager for the Atlas missile project) got his first job out of school at GE, because the interviewers knew that the Schenectady symphony orchestra needed a good violinist.


I’ve been surprised over the years to learn how many people who write code are also musicians. They keep popping up in my world.

1 Like

I’d say the lack of students who want to work hard exists in a large part because of the esoteric interests of the professors and the things you’ve highlighted.

The “liberal arts” of which the author speaks, is simply just a well-rounded education. There is plenty to recommend about that. I’d be a duller person had I not studied some of the classics whilst doing the stem thing.

Objective testing? Quantifying ability, and measuring how well something has been learned? Yes please.

However, what the author is advocating isn’t really a “liberal arts” education as it is currently on offer, is it?


I agree with the main point made. An education that is not liberal, that is not an encounter with the riches of western thought that includes the literary, artistic, philosophical, and scientific traditions that trace through European history back to ancient Greece, is less than complete.

I am thankful that I was able to receive such before higher education became polluted and perverted by the current postmodernist/neoMarxist madness that has made it mostly irrelevant.

I went on to obtain my professional STEM credentials as a mathematician and computer scientist in graduate school. It was a rewarding experience in its own right, but it did not enlarge and enrich my world the way my undergraduate liberal education did.


Just a thought and completely off topic, but have you thought about using deliberate practice to develop your student’s writing skills? There is a huge degree of variation in the sources promoting deliberate practice in writing online, but as a concept I’ve found it highly useful. Even relatively short comments, made frequently online every day, can greatly develop one’s writing skills over time- and in a larger sense, clear writing can help improve critical thinking skills.

As usual, my essays are to be found on my Substack and are free to view and comment:


Looks like you’re describing the Obama years…

1 Like

Indeed! We spend too much time refusing to tell stupid people how truly fucking stupid they really are… civility sucks.

But be of good cheer! It is never to late to call a fool a fool! Fuck Obama and his class…! They were fools all!

1 Like

People in the heterodox sphere greatly overestimate the extent to which grievance studies have taken over college curriculum, particularly at the lower-tier state universities and community colleges where the vast majority of American students are educated. I’m a strong opponent of Woke nonsense and think it should be resisted wherever it rears its ugly head, but it’s false (and fatalistic) to assume that the battle is already lost.


Or, in your case, extremely long ones! :wink:

1 Like