Economics

أزمة العلوم الإنسانية

Nov 12, 2013 Andrew Delbanco

نيويورك ــ تشهد المناقشات الدائرة الآن حول مستقبل التعليم العالي في مختلف أنحاء العالم نشوء نوع من التساوق اللافت للنظر. فمن ناحية، هناك قلق متزايد إزاء احتمال فشل الولايات المتحدة والعديد من البلدان الأوروبية في إعداد خريجي الجامعات بالقدر الكافي في المجالات التي تحرك "اقتصاد المعرفة" في القرن الحادي والعشرين، مثل الهندسة وتكنولوجيا المعلومات. وقد أدى هذا التخوف إلى تضييق مفهوم التعليم حتى أصبح محصوراً في الدلالة على اكتساب المهارات العملية.

ومن ناحية أخرى، يخشى الناس في بعض أنحاء آسيا أن الشباب الذين يدخلون قوة العمل وهم يتمتعون بتدريب فني قوي يفتقرون في واقع الأمر إلى الخبرة الكافية لتمكينهم من "التفكير خارج الصندوق". ويتجلى هذا التخوف في المحاولات الناشئة الرامية إلى توسيع التعليم بحيث يشمل غرس المشاعر والخيال.

وتمتد جذور كلا التخوفين إلى مخاوف اقتصادية. ففي الولايات المتحدة، حيث يتحمل أغلب الطلاب الجامعيين جزءاً على الأقل من تكاليف تعليمهم الجامعي، تتصاعد الضغوط السياسية لتوفير الحوافز مثل خفض رسوم الدراسة أو إعفاء قروض طلاب العلوم أو التكنولوجيا أو الهندسة أو الرياضيات. وتتطرق المناقشة الآن إلى الاستعانة بتدابير خفض التكاليف، مثل ضغط برامج الشهادة الجامعية التقليدية إلى ثلاث سنوات بدلاً من أربع ــ وبالتالي الحد من أو إلغاء المقررات الاختيارية في المواضيع "غير العملية" مثل الأدب والفلسفة والفنون الجميلة.

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to PS Digital

Access every new PS commentary, our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – including Longer Reads, Insider Interviews, Big Picture/Big Question, and Say More – and the full PS archive.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 6 Comments on this article

Giorgi Kankava May 16, 2014

Indeed, the topic is among the most important ones, if not the most important. Yet the problem of the humanities itself is that it has already been reduced to science such as positivism and naturalism. like or not, we have science and the humanities reduced to science theoretically and methodologically, and even epistemologically. To lift the humanities to its specific subject, differing from that of science, is necessary condition of bridging "this putative divide."
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jean nutson Jan 15, 2014

It's obvious the many unemployment issues around the world today could be linked to the lack of coherence between the academic institutions or programs and the job market causing lack of qualified personals for the job market but it's also very important to note that the world's problems can not be solved through education alone or only by academicians as such depending on education and academicians to solve the world's problem will result into an unfulfilled expectation.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
sande cohen Dec 11, 2013

Too much smokescreen thrown up by the author's list of questions. The humanities are politics. period--the selection of what is taught and how it is taught is tightly controlled in the U.S. I recently read an editorial in the NYT by Sean Kelly, chair of Harvard philosophy dept., and in a few lines, he managed to misrepresent Nietzsche by turning the latter into Mr. Scary. Distressing: ideals that don't work, can't work, are still circulated to attract young people to the academy. What we could use is some intellectual upheaval instead.....
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Filbert Lam Nov 24, 2013

Unfortunately, even Yale-NUS has failed to avoid the politicisation of education institutions in Singapore. For example, I quote a 25-year-old political science major, Wee Shi Chen, "By vehemently opposing the Yale-NUS collaboration on the grounds of "liberty", it seems that the Yale professors have a clear idea of what "ideal civil liberties" ought to be. If that were the case, I feel that they are merely using their moral yardstick to impose judgment on what they perceive to be the current state of affairs in Singapore." (Taken from: http://sg.news.yahoo.com/blogs/singaporescene/yale-nus-partnership-debate-continues-launch-120517952.html)

Clearly, the differences in values with respect to the civil right of freedom of speech in Singapore and the USA, where Yale University hails from, has resulted in a conflict of interest between the professors from Yale and their Singaporean counterpart.

To demonstrate the difference, very briefly, I quote from the Constitutions of Singapore and the USA.

In the Singapore Constitution, Article 14 clearly states that there are some restrictions on the freedom of speech and assembly. Apart from restrictions placed on foreign media, there also exists the Sedition Act, in Chapter 190 of the Statutes of Singapore, which states,
"3. —(1) A seditious tendency is a tendency —
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall not be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —
(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;
(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;
(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or
(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore,
if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

(3) For the purpose of proving the commission of any offense under this Act, the intention of the person charged at the time he did or attempted to do or made any preparation to do or conspired with any person to do any act or uttered any seditious words or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed, reproduced or imported any publication or did any other thing shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact such act had, or would, if done, have had, or such words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency."

It is true that the Act was enforced in very very few situations. However, the fact that such a law is in the books clearly demonstrates the stance of the legal system to restrict freedom of speech on grounds of sedition.

In contrast, the famous First Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This suggests that apart from cases of libel and slander, all US citizens have a right of unrestricted freedom of speech. In fact, I remember of a situation (that I can't quote offhand) where the US Supreme Court argued that freedom of expression secured by the First Amendment limits a State's power to award damages in actions for libel!

It is clear that because of the different notions of freedom of speech and expression in the legal systems of Singapore and the US, it has become a source of unhappiness by Yale professors, though not unreasonably so.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Edward Ponderer Nov 13, 2013

Its unfortunate that the level of human ego is the real problem, and that only in working towards a true world of mutual responsibility will anything actually be accomplished. Simply put, no one in our me uber alis world will be willing to diminish even from the most extravagant life style in any significant way so that we could all live decently. And more to the point in the present debate, if it became eminently clear to any of the learned gentlemen that the situation today is so fundamentally different from the past that their own training and experience boxes were obsoleted to the point of stymieing, rather than aiding the development of the needed global out-of-the-box solution -- would they admit it and step down?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Zsolt Hermann Nov 13, 2013

My personal opinion is that the debate in this article is more or less obsolete.
The present education system is still preparing young people for a human system that is falling apart day by day.
Every aspect of human life is in crisis from economics to finances, from culture to education, from health to the family.
The present human structure is built on a fragmented, "rectangular", polarized world-view while we evolved into a globally interconnected and interdependent human network, and the whole lifestyle is based on excessive and artificial demand and consumption which has become unsustainable in a closed and finite natural system.
So before we want to find any solutions, before we want to adjust anything we all need a completely new, global, integral education program so we all understand the system we evolved into, and what kind of available resource and natural necessity based lifestyle we need to build a sustainable future.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/Aodyl1sar

أزمة العلوم الإنسانية

Subscribe to PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

أزمة العلوم الإنسانية

Subscribe to PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification