Letters to the Editor

will no doubt be full of budget comment for the next few days.

I managed to get my piece in before that but it will no doubt be swallowed up by comments from people concerned about the price of their next cup of takeaway coffee.

Here's my bit:

Scientists use language in order to think, to learn, and to teach. Without it they would not be able to function. They use the arts in order to develop their creativity. They do this even while they are unaware of doing it.

The best and most effective researchers are those that can ask questions like, "What if....?" and "How can I...?"

One reason Australia is falling behind is because educators have failed to acknowledge the importance of language, creativity and the arts in general.

Mathematicians need a high level of language just in order to understand a problem, let alone solve it or apply it to a situation. The same is true of physicists, chemists, engineers and all other scientists.

We therefore need people who understand something about our use of language and people who can use more than one language for more than commercial purposes. We need people who know where our present ideas have come from and how they are developing.

We need culturally literate people in order to have a scientifically literate workforce.

The role of a university is to teach these things and encourage the development of ideas. Universities should not be seen as job factories. They should not be seen as places to indoctrinate students in "politically correct" thinking or "desired outcomes". They need to be places where creative thought and a diversity of ideas is encouraged in all areas.

That will not happen under the current proposals.

 

The current proposals - which will almost certainly now be put  in place are that people should pay more for doing a degree  in  arts, languages and the like. They will pay much less to do a degree in the sciences, engineering, technology and the like. The idea is that this will prepare students for the world of work, that they will be trained and ready for employment. 

This is truly muddled thinking. It is not the role of a university to train people for employment. Universities are surely there to encourage people to think, to develop ideas. Yes, those ideas might be the life-saving drugs of the future but the people who develop them are going to be people who can imagine, dream, think and create. To do that you need to know more than the chemical formula for something. You need more than the capacity to read a sequence of DNA.

Ms W is currently being pressured at school. She has to make decisions shortly about the subjects she will do next year, decisions which will now be final. She is good at maths and science because she is a good all round student but she loves language and languages. Those are the things that set her alight with enthusiasm, "Do you know that there is a word for.... but we don't have it..." and "Doesn't this sound delicious....I can't say it like that in English." Still the school is saying she should think about maths and science, that she would learn to love it as she matures and recognises the value of it. No, I don't think so. There would never be that same spark of enthusiasm there.

I am trying not to influence her. Her father is trying not to influence her. Her late mother had spent time in Vanuatu and spoke quite fluent French. We have not raised that with her because she needs to make up her own mind. 

A friend in the UK, someone who  taught Spanish at university, has told her there is employment to be found if you know more than one language. 

I hope she will choose the thing she is so obviously enthusiastic about, that she will choose the sort of career she wants. Yes, she would no doubt do well in science but it won't be her choice. 

There will be other young people facing the same problem, many of them not particularly enthusiastic about anything. They will "choose" maths and science under pressure - but will they make the best scientists?