Liberal arts and critical thinking | Letters

Jianyang Geng seems to assume that the liberal arts claim a monopoly on critical thinking (Letters, 25 November). Well, we don’t – and never have. What those of us in liberal arts do try to encourage are ways of thinking that cross boundaries: bringing together ideas and methods from wherever they’re useful, whether that’s the sciences, the social sciences or the humanities. And this isn’t some modern reinvention. From the start, a liberal education paired logic, grammar, rhetoric and music with geometry, maths and astronomy.

The subjects may look different today, but the underlying attitude hasn’t really changed. The problems we face now, as well as the ones coming down the tracks tomorrow, simply don’t fit neatly into single disciplines. Good critical thinking depends on drawing from as many perspectives as possible. Criticising the liberal arts by taking its name too literally misses what it’s actually trying to do.
Dr William Rupp
Head of liberal arts, University of Warwick

The suggestion that liberal arts educators should acknowledge that they don’t have a “monopoly on cultivating critical thinking” contains a misconception at its heart – ironically one that was immediately obvious to someone with a liberal arts degree.

Critical thinking isn’t about logic or problem-solving, it’s about the ability to critically interrogate information, including looking for hidden meanings, thinking as much about what you’re not being told as what you are, and always considering context, motive and other factors that might affect the veracity and intent of what you’re being told. Globally, that seems more important now than ever.
Kat Harrison-Dibbits
Horwich, Greater Manchester

Jianyang Geng’s letter demonstrates why the liberal arts are vital and deserve support. When Stem (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) is replaced by Steam – integrating arts into Stem disciplines – evidence shows that the benefits include enhanced creativity, design skills and creative planning. Other benefits include an entry point to Stem for underrepresented groups, and the development of the holistic viewpoint, emotional intelligence and communication skills vital to leadership in a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (Vuca) world, which Stem subjects alone do not. They also touch the human spirit and provide hope. Jianyang Geng presents a theology in which the market is God. The liberal arts teach us to set our sights higher, to the benefit of the planet, and the human race.
Sara Lodge
Conwy

May I, as one who has studied, researched and worked professionally in both science and the arts, assure Jianyang Geng that the most assured way to broaden one’s horizons of thought, wisdom, insight, empathy, and the need to quantify the values or otherwise of scientific and technical changes, is a grounding in the arts, philosophy and humanities, these being the means to see every person’s need for respect, self-awareness and status of the best sort. Science is an invaluable materialistic discipline that I value and cherish. But literature, painting, music, philosophy, logic, drama, religions and performance have taught me, I hope, immeasurably more than strict science ever could. I owe everything to my teachers and fellow listeners.
Dr Ian Flintoff PhD, BSc, BA
Former member of the Royal Shakespeare Company, the National Theatre and the cast of Coronation Street

Your letters pages on 25 November contained two submissions that merit from reading in tandem. One laments the “worship” of the liberal arts, suggesting, instead, a more applied and transactional approach to teaching non-Stem subjects. The other laments the use of generative AI tools in preparing teaching materials – a heartfelt lament from a young academic who imagines their future role being replaced by software tools.

The underlying ethos behind both is, I fear, a reflection of the more transactional approach that higher education has been forced to adopt in recent years – stemming from a viewpoint that sees value only in terms of economic return, and has little respect to learning for its own sake.

Most universities question this approach (the value of promoting critical thinking in all disciplines) and recognise that the engagement of enquiring minds in the entire spectrum of human knowledge, based on individual engagement and enlivening discourse, is where higher education comes alive.
Phil Cardew
Deputy vice-chancellor (academic), Leeds Beckett University