Intelligent young people want to go to university, and it is logical for
a country to provide university places for them to ensure that there will
be well-trained men and women to run the government and industry in
the future. So in the 1960's the government set up a number of new
universities in Britain in order to give everyone with sufficient ability
the opportunity to study. But now something has gone wrong. A lot of
young people want to go to university to study arts subjects but many
places for scientists are not taken up.
The new universities concentrated on science because it seemed
practical. They developed new courses because they didn't want to
imitate traditional universities. In other words, they didn't want to be
like traditional universities. Why have their calculations proved wrong?
One reason is that a lot of young people can get enough qualifications to
work in industry by going to a Polytechnic. They think university
courses are too long and too theoretical. But this does not explain why
the majority of students still prefer arts subjects to science subjects.
A few months ago a magazine sent a team of interviewers to schools
to find out why children didn't want to study science. Their answers
provided this surprising picture of a typical scientist: He is rather dull.
He spends all day in a laboratory wearing a white coat. He doesn't talk
about anything but science. He doesn't play games well, and he isn't
attractive to girls! In contrast, the arts graduate is seen as a much more
lively person. He has a good sense of humour and he is interested in
sports and pop music. He has a lot of girlfriends and always has a good
time! Logically, the children wanted to study arts to avoid becoming
dull, unattractive scientists.
Of course, the children were not describing all scientists; they were
really giving us their opinion of their science teachers and comparing
them with their arts teachers, such as the English teacher and the history
teacher. But why do science teachers seem less attractive to them than
arts teachers? The answer to this question probably explains why so
many science places at the new universities are empty.
Our conclusion is that society offers good scientists well-paid jobs
and the opportunity to use their studies in research laboratories or in
industry and so they can lead rewarding and interesting lives. In
general, only the less adventurous ones return to school to teach. But a
bright graduate in literature or history must either teach his subject to
earn a living, or work in a completely different field. So arts teachers
are likely to be more interesting, attractive people than science teachers
and to care more about their subject, and their students try to be like
them and follow in their footsteps.
