If a review chaired by a distinguished literary publisher and president of the British Academy had recommended that government funding for undergraduate teaching be entirely concentrated on the humanities and social sciences, one could imagine the accusations of conflict of interest that would have arisen from the science community.
Yet when the former chairman of a major oil company and president of the Royal Society of Engineering proposes the withdrawal of funding from the humanities and social sciences, we are asked to accept it as an impartial recommendation.
Here is an alternative to Lord Browne's proposal. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics are important, but much of their value lies in their economic benefits. We may therefore safely leave their funding to business, either by way of voluntary contributions or, if necessary, a tax on profits.
The humanities and social sciences, by contrast, bring comparatively few economic benefits, but the creativity and thought that they foster immeasurably enrich our society. They therefore have the nature of a public good and, as such, should be funded by us all through the Treasury.
Andrew Connell, Cardiff.
Register to continue
Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.
Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:
- Sign up for the editor's highlights
- Receive World University Rankings news first
- Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
- Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to THE’s university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber? Sign in now