Current location - Education and Training Encyclopedia - University rankings - How should the majority of liberal arts students refute the growing "uselessness of liberal arts"?
How should the majority of liberal arts students refute the growing "uselessness of liberal arts"?
In Fortress Besieged, Qian Zhongshu once pointed out a very interesting phenomenon in the school: science students look down on liberal arts students, foreign languages departments look down on Chinese departments, Chinese departments look down on philosophy departments, philosophy departments look down on sociology departments, sociology departments look down on education departments, and students in education departments really look down on teachers. ......

Although it is a phenomenon in universities, it is also a microcosm of half of China's education circle.

Undeniably, it is difficult for liberal arts students to take any advantage in choosing arts and sciences from high school, studying in universities and finding jobs after graduation. And even if there are countless people who have used Ma Yun, Yu and other successful people to explain it many times? Liberal arts students? Than? Science students? Poor, but? Useless theory of liberal arts? In the helplessness of the employment situation, the voice is still rampant.

To tell the truth, the theory of uselessness in liberal arts really feels ridiculous.

As for how to refute it, you can ask those who say that liberal arts are useless. Do you know what subjects liberal arts include and what they can do? I'm afraid nine times out of ten he can't answer.

Liberal arts, that is, humanities and social sciences. Its research object is the unique politics, economy and culture of human society. If the liberal arts are useless, doesn't it mean that the politics, economy and culture of human development are useless? Who will interpret the cultural heritage of our ancestors? Who will make laws? Who will improve the system? Who will unite the people? Who will design it? Who would have thought?

Well, that's enough complaining. Let's demonstrate the important role of liberal arts.

In fact, sociology, anthropology, politics, law, Chinese language and literature, history and so on. All belong to the liberal arts category. This kind of subject requires high understanding and memory ability, and does not need science foundation.

This has led many people to think that liberal arts are empty and have learned nothing, unlike science? Really? Especially in the occupations corresponding to disciplines and majors, what's more, quite a few majors have no corresponding occupations at all. When it comes to learning foreign languages, they are translators, and when it comes to learning Chinese, they are secretaries, not to mention majors like philosophy and diplomacy, which the public usually have no chance to contact. They have no idea what these majors do.

Due to the different stages of social development, since the founding of People's Republic of China (PRC), especially since the reform and opening up in the late 1970s, the state has emphasized the development of the industrial sector. There is a great demand for all kinds of technical talents, good employment and relatively high income, which leads to the inability to learn liberal arts. Popular? Over time, society has formed this kind of consciousness, and liberal arts are useless, but this is a collective prejudice.

Compared with science, liberal arts is more like? Superstructure? Only when the economic base is fully developed, which ones? Fake sky? There is room for display, such as business majors and literature majors, which are becoming more and more popular, which also reflects that social development has entered different stages.

It is obviously unreasonable to judge whether it is useful or not by income level, and the definition of success cannot be limited to having a lot of wealth. Are these the ones? Useless? Artistic expression under the category of liberal arts has greatly enriched human life and satisfied human spiritual pursuit. There is no way to measure its function with a quantitative index, but its value is immeasurable.