by Laura Lai/ Comment
Some people believe that people in technical fields do not need to work on writing or reading much. Other people believe that studying humanities is a waste of time. Still, others believe that we should learn outside our comfort zone: English majors should learn some computer coding skills, and engineers should read Shakespeare. What is your opinion?
In the above opposition between
sciences and humanities, there are three opinion streams where the first is a
supposition, the second is a market observation, and the third is more of an advice.
By ‘science’ I mean here ‘technical fields’, meaning that I mean computer sciences, engineers, doctors, and other fields working with data and with numbers. It is due to the fact that their activity is more in the field of precise data that it may be – wrongly, I would say – assumed that they do not need to work on writing or reading much. There are two reasons why I disagree. First, to be a programmer, an engineer, a doctor, or a scientist in general, is the specialization one has chosen after having passed some educational levels that generally require both science and writing. It is in those pre-university years that each individual realizes what s/he has a calling for sciences or humanities. Once the individual is a specialist in sciences, it focuses more on the realm of their choice, but it is a supposition to believe that they do not need to read or write much. For example, a doctor is a scientist that needs to constantly read and update itself. Second, I disagree, because sometimes the calling for writing and reading in a scientist can be greater – actually screaming! – than the beloved science choice it once made. Such an example is Anton Checkhov, who was admitted to the I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University. He became a doctor, but his calling for reading and writing made him become one of the best playwrights and short storytellers ever. This is one example. One great example. And I am doubtful that this is the only example, especially since there are many scientists around the world, each of them with their character, personality, interests, hobbies, etc. A truly great variety of people among scientists!
The second opinion stream is based on the market observation that those having graduated from humanities wasted their time studying because jobs are scarce in this field. To be more specific, ‘humanities’ it is usually meant graduates mainly of literature, philosophy, and history (and related fields, such as political sciences). Those in this field play with words the way scientists play with numbers. I disagree with this market argument – otherwise a good argument – that because of this, youngsters should not waste their time and do something better, such as computer science that the market needs, that the future of the market requires, that you should study … or starve! J The main reason why I disagree is that I strongly believe that the progress of humanity so far relied on education. And by this, I mean education in general.
For many youngsters
on this planet, education is more of a privilege than a right. But when the
economical, social, or geographical barriers are broken and education becomes a possible
reality, why should not let youngsters choose to study the questions that
preoccupy them? Why should youngsters not be allowed to deepen a field that
is appealing to them? Because the market says so? Education is a lifetime
process, and the market is something flexible: each year demands something else, with
programmers being a constant. But concepts like ‘market’, ‘market forecast’, and ‘computer
programming’ are modern terms, and they appeared long after humanity studied
grammar, philosophy, and scribes registered historical events. Therefore, humanities
have never been a waste of time. It actually allowed the degree of evolution we
are enjoying now. Why shall it be a waste of time from now on? ‘Because it is
not a future job’ somebody would say. But many jobs have been lost doing
a pandemic that nobody predicted. So, why not let people study what they are
interested in, but truly – not superficially – study? And why does the market
only tells? Can’t it also listen?
To my mind, there are jobs that require a precise background. There are science jobs that a candidate cannot learn in training for a few months. But there are other jobs – that the market needs – that can be learned after a short training. Many companies offer training at the beginning of employment to get acquainted with the staff and to the company. It goes from a company tour to a few weeks or months of training. Some employers start from the assumption that educated people are versatile. Therefore, I subscribe to the opinion stream that encourages education whatever makes people comfortable, because education, particularly grammar, philosophy, and history has been loooong beneficial for humanity.
The third opinion stream sounds
more like a piece of advice. It encourages both scientists and humanists to leave their
professional comfort zone in order for the scientist to read Shakespeare and
for the humanists to learn some computer coding skills. I … agree with such a piece of advice for the fun of it, for some diversity in the daily activity routine, or to
learn new skills, but, in general, I disagree with this third opinion stream,
too.
I think that the reason why I disagree relates to the way I understand the ‘comfort zone’. To my opinion, the comfort zone is not a place of honey and milk – as, sometimes, some misunderstand it and they ‘kindly’ and ‘eagerly’ recommend you to leave it. From a professional point of view, the comfort zone is the area in which a person is professional and can excel. Obviously, my puzzle is clearer now: why shall somebody leave an area in which it can be professional and excel in order to learn some skills in an area that is not appealing to it, in an area it cannot stand as a professional, in an area in which it may never excel and always stay mediocre? Unless is for some fun, for some diversity in their daily activities, etc. and this I can understand.
To sum up, I disagree with all three opinion streams. First, I disagree that those in technical fields do not read or write enough, because people are different and interests are different, and some may be part of book reading clubs, or others, like Anton Checkhov, be great writers, although a scientist. Second, I disagree that studying humanities is a ‘waste of time’, because I believe that people studied grammar, philosophy, and scribes registered historical events long before concepts like ‘job market forecast’ or ‘computer programmer’ appeared. I think that the deep study of the former allowed humanity’s progress. And, third, I disagree with the advice to leave the comfort zone – understood as the field of activity in which one excels – to acquire some skills that present no current or future professional utility, unless is for fun, for finding some answers, for some diversity in the daily routine…
#cwp2x #writing #amblogging
No comments:
Post a Comment