Read on Twitter
One pernicious thing about the perceived "use" or "relevance" of academic subjects is the frequent imbalance between the way humanities/soc sciences and STEM subjects are treated, so it's sad to see it replicated *within* the humanities today. /1
You might study cell structure or string theory in a STEM degree, neither of which are likely to be "relevant" to your future working life, but the assumption is that the skills you learn will be good so the relative remoteness of the knowledge itself is fine. 2/
But if you study, I don't know, Viking poetry or postmodern film or Chinese syntax, then the perceived superfluity of the content overtakes all other considerations - despite the fact you'll practice critical thinking, writing, research planning, creativity... /3
...language-learning, communication, qualitative and quantitative data analysis, handling and synthesising huge amounts of complex information, formulating coherent arguments, etc. /4
The fact that, collectively, we've been unable to communicate this well is damning and now we have to watch in despair as people discuss the relative merits of media studies /5
There's another thread to be written about how the ability to read and write well is treated as a given - "I already know English, why would I need to do an A-level/degree in it" - rather than a skill that has to be maintained and developed over time, but I can't be arsed rn.
Final addendum: very much against any argument defending the humanities/social sciences that rests only on doing it "for the sake of it/love of it". It's crap, persuades no-one but the converted, and avoids having to do any thinking.
