We need humanities graduates to deliver the industrial strategy

Policymakers should take a broad view of the value of degree courses when building our future workforce, says Charlotte Hallahan

Published on
November 3, 2025
Last updated
November 12, 2025
Charlotte Hallahan
Source: istock
Read more about
Read more about: 
UK higher education policy

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Reader's comments (11)

#1 Submitted by graff.... on November 3, 2025 - 12:59am
Does the "White Paper" actually ask humanities graduates to deliver physically the so-called "industrial strategy"? Isn't "industrial strategy" a topic of the last century? How many empty metaphors can the author fit into a handful of paragraphs?
#2 Submitted by ... on November 4, 2025 - 8:08am
We must secure "the pipeline"! hahah
#3 Submitted by d.j.... on November 3, 2025 - 4:07am
Could the author explain why they believe that STEM subjects do not teach "creativity , communication and communication" if the author actually took a STRM course they would find that these transferrable' skills are essential in completing an UG course. Sadly this tired old trope is repeatedly dragged into discussion. If you are curious why graduates do not provceed into IS-8 sectors why not go out and ask the students? It might be that given the graduates skills rewards are higher elsewhere, or that the sectors are not sufficiently attractive. Despite what the government might wish it is not clear it is the job of universities to train workers for one ore other sector. The choice remains where it always has with the students.
#4 Submitted by ... on November 3, 2025 - 9:03am
Well you are right here! What is the mechanism? Students choose their subjects for all sorts of reasons: usually, I think, because it is the subject they feel they are "best" at and they will get their best degree result (or be able to cope) with them or because it is less "boring" than the others. Of course, this means that students will often avoid the subjects they perceive to be difficult. These are often the STEM subjects and in AH, Languages. These are subjects that often require specific aptitudes as well, for examine some people are excellent at languages or mathematics, but most students tend not to be. Indeed, many will opt for what their peer group of friends is doing. The impact of peer group pressure on the adolescent mind is generally regarded as crucial. Indeed, though this is a little more controversial, we in the Arts and Humanities, in an attempt to get more students, these days often adopt more the Life-Style Coach approach to our subject, in which the student brings knowledge from their own life experience, rather than by academic study as such. So it will be very difficult to channel students into subjects that promote the government's "industrial or post-industrial" strategy. The problem is many of the cohort believe they will just not be able to cope with the difficulty of certain disciplines and avoid these whatever the sticks and carrots on offer. Of course, the best students in STEM and Arts and Humanities will always engage with creativity and communication and the mutual intellectual synergies of the arts and sciences, but the less motivated or able student will opt for the subject they feel is easiest for them and the one they are most likely to get by in. Characteristically, the Arts and Humanities (in my view) is more congenial than STEM in this respect. But it's irrelevant anyway, the problem is not Universities here but our school system which needs to prepare students to take these subjects and motivate them appropriately.
#5 Submitted by ... on November 3, 2025 - 9:14am
The paper does seem to assume that STEM graduates ("high tariff" at least which I think means intelligent) are a bit like Mr Spok and the Vulkans. Surely, this is illogical?
#6 Submitted by ... on November 3, 2025 - 9:10am
"However, the courses that the government appears to have in mind are in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) disciplines." Is this true. Is not the "M" in STEM really standing for Medicine now?
#7 Submitted by m.... on November 3, 2025 - 10:58am
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." - Robert A. Heinlein Of course it doesn't mean that we shouldn't develop specific skills in a chosen area of expertise, just not at the expense of being a properly rounded individual. I'm still working on writing a decent sonnet, though.
#8 Submitted by ... on November 3, 2025 - 12:09pm
Once again the tired and idiotic “opposition” between STEM and A&H. This is an artificial divide. Its at least partly bone out of the pathetic way the subjects are taught to children. Math in particular has all its delight and fascination squeezed out before its delivered by bred teachers teaching for the exam. English is just as bad. No STEM students aren't taught communication skills and A&H students aren't taught science competency, at least not in the UK. But factory farm schooling will never do that anyway.
#9 Submitted by graff.... on November 3, 2025 - 5:07pm
Everyone: read Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolution (50th anniversary edition). Trash The Two Cultures by failed scientist and mediocre novelist CP Snow It is NEVER one or the other!
#10 Submitted by ... on November 4, 2025 - 8:19am
Well I agree with all this but when we talk about the interaction between Humanities and Sciences etc we are usually thinking about the top end of things as it were or the more generalist, large ideas kind of debate which is all well and good. Any Humanties graduate with an enquiring mind is interested in the Science etc and vice versa. But in terms of the specifics of the disciplines, that is where the divide occurs. And things are so specialist these days that we really do get the time to keep up with our own areas never mind other peoples. As a Humanities person fascinated by sciences I tend to engage with the history of science (Thomas Kuhn etc) and the larger contemporary debates (such as AI and Big Data, Tech etc), but this is not really "doing science" as I don't have the specialist knowledges. You see, in my view we in the Humanities tend to engage with the popularization of scientific ideas and paradigms by those scientist and scientific journalists who like to write for this audience. Is watching Brian Cox simpering about the Big Bang really understanding science? But Science and the History of Science are two distinct disciplines in my view. Of course, as intellectuals we are inters test in everything are we not.
#11 Submitted by ... on November 6, 2025 - 9:07pm
The Science Humanties mutual synergy paradigm seems to me to be entirely a Humanties fantasy in which we try to latch on the kudos of scientific research and its hard funding. The scientists, by and large, do not take us seriously in any way but some of them are attracted to the more celebrity creative arts figures in the media, which they see as a bit of added on bling in my view. It's also a convenient agenda to push when applying for reserach grants, the AHRC really love it if they can bring in science, however tangentially. Be honest about it for God's sake!

You might also like

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT