Advocating the Liberal Arts
#opinion piece
Why I think Modern Companies are Neglecting an Unprecedented Wealth of Cheap, Desperate Talent
We live in a computational world, with ever-increasing importance of mastery of all digital domains. There’s no need to preach the importance of digitization & efficient data use — it’s not 2005. Software Engineers & Data Scientist are in hot demand.
More generally we have a shortage of computational thinking
This is the latest craze, foundationally it will last, emotionally it will pass. Now go beyond the need for great engineering/data talent & consider a wide spectrum of roles available at the finest & most powerful corporate institutions. Myself & my network are currently active participants in the job market — in our early 20’s starting our careers — & I’ve noticed an exceeding amount of non-computational (programming/technical) jobs requiring a backgrounding in the mathematical sciences (stats, math, cs, physics, eng).
Perhaps not the case, as I’m seeing this from the outside, but it appears that many positions in the corporate world require a mathematical basis. I’m a data scientist, I literally love math, algorithms & computational methods. I’m benefitting from this movement — but I think this approach, of screening for types like me, is fundamentally flawed.
If we simplify a job description as: Solving Problems in Teams. The flaws in this approach are readily apparent.
I think this is a sufficient job description, the rest of my argument relies on this premise. So what makes a person capable of solving problems? Generally, it’s some loose notion of domain intelligence. A combination of sufficient experience related to the problem to address the challenges. The most impactful solutions are, by definition, novel — for something to have a maximum impact it ought not currently exist. Novel solutions are seldom drawn from experience alone, but rather some optimal combinations of experience & thinking outside of the current doctrine associated with the problem. The best solutions arrive from combining experience with alterative information in new ways.
Just as this applies to an individual, we can extrapolate this argument to groups or teams. Diverse teams win. Teams should complement one another, a healthy dose of internal disagreement is a prerequisite for innovation. So just as an astute individual that is able to bring together concepts in a solution-driven way, eclectic teams are better able to find optimal solutions. I’d argue this is even more important within teams, as the production of good teams is far greater than that which its constituents could produce in isolation— progress compounds, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
How can we expect to produce groundbreaking work when many institutions screen for group-think? Apart from the pragmatism, purely homogenous cultures are dull, uninteresting & unstimulating. Those who fight for gender & racial representations are not merely inclusionists — they’re activists for better work. Diversity is our greatest strength, I posit the same is true of intellectual diversity.
The teachings of the liberal arts are so different from the hard sciences, years of exposure really mold an individual’s perspective. I’ve had a successful academic career (in commerce & science) but have seldom been asked to think for myself. We’re afforded intellectual freedom on Master's level but little before that. I love the things I’ve studied & have seen their value but I’d consider it foolish to disregard the liberal arts as inferior by any measure. They really do expose one to the art of rhetoric (pun intended).
I find arts degrees to be of immense value, but not market value. It baffles me that the ability to construct concise thorough arguments; accepting nuance & understanding the world as more complex than black & white; whilst dealing with advanced intellectual ideas (as in the case of philosophy) or inherently pragmatic information (as in the case of politics or history) or even deeply connected with culture (as in the case of fine art). If you’re missing my point just look at how poorly this essay is constructed ;).
Homogeneity is anti-innovation
We supposedly live in a knowledge economy, where great ideas meritocratically rise. Diversity is essential for new solutions, as they come about by combining old things in new ways. whist some specialized teams will thrive regardless, any institutions that lack sufficient racial, gender, or intellectual diversity will produce inferior results. Modern work is dynamic. What you know means nothing, how you think means everything. I certainly feel the hard sciences (which have my heart) have plenty to learn from the arts.
No place in society should be morally inferior to another & perhaps others have more to offer us than we willfully ignore.
I come from a very eclectic family — many doctors, lawyers & accountants, but equally many artists, thinkers & poets. I find this self-thought conducive environment to be a tremendous advantage.
Every time I enter a new domain my insight, intelligence & abilities broaden as an exponential mapping from the experience in the domain coupled with interaction with my existing knowledge base. It’s an emergent consequence of diversity (internally or externally).
I suppose when a new hype or new trend emerges we’ll focus on that.
In fact, I concede the idea that in the not-so-distance future we’ll buck this trend as a society & focus on intellectual inclusion, not for the sake of morality, but for that of competency. For that of progress.
Maybe healthy debate — fueled by different schools of thought — will create greatness & in a world as ferociously competitive as ours, achievements are noted & mimicked hastily.
Ironically the liberal arts were literally what the ancient Greeks considered essential for a free person to study. Technology & science can certainly then be considered a part of the modern liberal arts, however, let’s not so readily disregard the others.
I write as a naive outsider, but sometimes the most insightful observations can only be made from a distance. I suppose you could say, from a different perspective ;).
