Grant artistic licence for success

lain McCalman dons the gloves on behalf of arts graduates

ANDREW Norton must have expected to provoke a response when he wrote his wrinkly – nosed assessment of the value of an arts degree (HES, January 21). Not wishing to disappoint a fellow arts graduate, I started putting together a few thoughts.

It turned out that I was far from the only one. A brief survey of colleagues, starting with my co-accused, Stephen Garton, revealed numbers of responses – in – progress, all of them making use of those familiar skills that Norton claims are missing from our arts faculties – scrutiny of evidence, analysis of methodology, critique of argument, and valuation of conclusions. So with their permission I have polling some of these responses to make the larger case on their behalf and that of many others in the humanities and social sciences who are producing the work force of the future.

Norton gleefully quotes arts – graduates’ employment statistics that are less favorable than those of their peers who have completed vocation – specific degrees. Garton, arts dean at the University of Sydney, says Norton fails to mention that these statistics were gathered just four months after the completion of degree requirements. They therefore tell us only what Basil Fawlty would call “the bleeding obvious” – namely that graduates with specific technical skills in current demand could be expected to pick up work relatively quickly. However, every employer and student counsellor knows that over the longer term such demand is neither stable nor predictable. We live in fluid and fickle times, Andrew Norton.

Conversely, graduates with the more adaptable skills of an arts degree can be expected to handle the vagaries of the market more readily over the long term. I conducted a small informal survey over two years of a history honors cohort I taught in 1990 and the results were confirming. After a period of chopping and changing, all my students had acquired satisfying jobs that reflected the diversity that a good arts degree diversity that a good arts degree can offer: an executive with Japan Airlines, a museum curator, a buyer for Sothebys in Geneva (after in – house training),  a middle – level administrator in the commonwealth public service, a teacher in a major English private school and so on

Stuart Macintyre, Garton’s opposite number at the University of Melbourne, agrees the employment data indicates that the relationship between study and work in clearer and more direct in the case of professional degrees than general degrees. Rather than constituting a disaster for generalist graduates, however, Macintyre reasons this might mean that arts or science students undertake concurrent or subsequent vocational study, and that they are more likely to move from one job to another in developing a career.

“It is that very process of experiment and adaptation that fits such a graduate so well for the new labour market,” he observes. “We know that narrow specialist are at a discount and that whatever the particular training it will be rapidly superseded. The capacity for flexibility and change is vital.”

Norton also fails to mention that arts students are more likely than their peers to be studying while already in the work force and that arts graduates are significantly more likely to be engaged in further study after competing their degrees.

These factors influence the rate of engagement in full-time employment of graduates and complicate the designated fields of study of people who have an arts degree combined with a more specialized qualification. Yet Norton takes no account of these acknowledged variables. His glossing over of such complicating factors seriously compromises his argument.

Linda Rosenman agrees. As the president of the Deans of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, she is well placed to evaluate arts degrees across Australia. Rosenman awards Norton a fail for this effort, focusing on the selective misuse of data. “Norton acknowledges that the Graduate Skills Assessment ‘wasn’t designed to test comparative skill improvement,” she says.

“Despite this, he goes on to draw precisely this conclusion from the assessment outcomes, as though acknowledging he test’s limitation somehow makes it Ok to ignore it.”

Furthermore, she says, to the extent that the Australian Council for Educational Research is willing to infer indicative trends from the trial’s outcomes, arts and humanities students rank third out of the nine aggregated fields of study, behind only law and medicine –a much better showing than the result implied by Norton.

Rosenman observes that the term “arts” covers a wide range of disciplines and course a wide range of disciplines and course structures.

“To try to lump everything together in an attempt to discredit the humanities shows a poor understanding of the subject matter and an inability to come to grips with the currect organisational and academic diversity in Australian higher education, “she says.

John Byron, executive director of the Academy of the Humanities, notes that Norton’s uncritical use of questionnaire data for graduates’ course experiences disregards caveats urged by the survey. “Moreover, his willingness to employ self-assessment of a skill as a simple proxy for the skill itself is just outright foolishness,” Byron says.

“This is like drawing conclusions about actual driving skills from a survey that asks people whether they think they are good drivers. In the case of critical thinking and analytical skills, as with good driving, it is quite plausible that an inverse relation may exist between actual skill levels and the subjects’ impressions of their abilities.”

Byron has a sense of deja vu about it move on from the ideologically slanted approach of his 2000paper Degrees of Difficulty,” be says. “His frustration back then was palpable, provoked by so many seemingly bright people exercising what he considered to be a poor choice. The latest figures have only incensed him more. He cannot seem to accept that there is a healthy and increasing supply of arts students and a distinct demand for the skills and attributes of arts graduates.”

While Norton grudgingly concedes that arts attracts people with good critical thinking skills, he gives them no credit for thinking critically about their choice of degree. Byron finds this ironic in view of Norton’s otherwise strenuous advocacy of unrestrained educational markets.

“His ingenious explanation that a few arts academics have the student population hoodwinked and are perpetrating a fraud – is pretty far-fetched stuff, Byron says. It also flies in the face of the facts. In peak body and government surveys, employers continue to cite independent and critical thinking, analytical skills, adaptability and the capacity to communicate ideas as the key capabilities they are looking for in the labour market. It seems employers also continue to believe that those with arts qualifications are well equipped with such skills.

Garton outlines the reasons. “In an economy where 25 per cent of jobs that exist now did not exist five years ago. And when most employees will face a number of shifts not just in jobs but even in industry over a working life, hose graduates with broader generic skills on which to build and rebuild specific expertise have the best chance of survival in the long term, not those who opt for overly narrow vocational degrees.”

Norton may have trouble discerning this trend, but it is clear from student application figures that droves of talented and keen individuals do not. These students will benefit all their lives from the advantages a liberal arts education provides: they learn skills not only for succeeding in a shifting employment marketplace, but also skills for living, thinking and communicating with integrity.

Professor Iain McCalman is president of the Academy of the Humanities, and a federation fellow at the Australian National University.

Talking point is the place where you can have your say about issues and ideas that move you in about 700 word.

[email protected]

Mccalman, Iain 2003, ‘Grant artistic licence for success’, The Australian, Wednesday 4 February, p.36.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

How saleable are arts skills?

Last November the University of Sydney ’s dean of arts, Stephen Garton, said arts degrees equip students with critical foundation skill. Today’s employers, he argued, are more concerned about skills in communication, analysis and lateral thinking than specific subjects.

“It could be gender studies or ancient Greek,” he was quoted as saying.

Even more optimistically, the president of the Australian Academy of the Humanities, Iain McCalman, told The Australian last week that “what’s becoming quite clear is that vocational degrees only have limited benefit”.

The article continued to say that employers favoured people with flexible skills, such as communication and writing, provided by generalist degrees like arts. Employer surveys confirm that they want their graduate employees to possess communication, analysis and thinking skills. One late – 1990s study put a “capacity of independent and critical thinking” as most important among skills that the employers want and universities could reasonably be expected to teach. So if arts degrees enhance this capacity – employers will be impressed.

The limited empirical evidence on arts versus other degrees for generic skill development suggests that Garton and McCalman are overconfident. The Graduate Skills Assessment test assesses report writing, argument writing, problem solving, critical thinking and interpersonal understanding. It hasn’t been used to clearly show how much the various degrees add to students’ generic skills. However, two GSA samples, one made up mainly of first – year students, and the other mostly of third and fourth – year students, let us do a rough before – and – after test.

This comparison showed that later – year arts students did better than first – year students on all five skills. So far, so good. Arts students did not, however, improve that most. On four of the five skills, commerce and science students improved by larger margins. As this study wasn’t designed to test comparative skill improvement, we should not jump to the conclusion that commerce and science are better for generic skills. But it should inspire some scepticism about the claims made on arts behalf. We can also look at students’ evaluation of their own progress with generic skills, as collected in 2001 Course Experience Questionnaire. For problem solving, 66% of humanities and social science graduates agreed that the “course development my problem – solving skills” fewer that in seven of the other nine fields of study in the survey. Arts graduates rated themselves better on other generic skills, but ended up with an average of just 0.6 % above the mean for all fields of study. Arts graduates themselves are considerably more modest about their increased abilities, relative to other disciplines, than are the people who speak on their behalf. Some employers are happy with the critical thinking skills of their arts graduates. The GSA suggests why this might be the case. While arts students do not improve their critical thinking by as much as students in some other fields of study, they started from a high base.

Only medical students had a significantly higher average score among first – year students. People who are already good at critical thinking are attached to arts degrees. So while arts courses are not exceptionally good at enhancing critical thinking skills, art degrees may nevertheless help employers identify prospective employees with critical thinking ability. While some employers recognize arts graduates’ skills, overall they are not rushing to employ them. The Graduate Destination Survey reveals that fields of study typically taught by arts faculties have full – time employment rates well below the average for all fields of study.

In 2002 humanities and languages graduated were hit disproportionately hard by the general downturn in graduate employment, though they recovered slightly in 2003. In the longer term, graduate unemployment is very low, but arts graduates have a much tougher transition to work then people with more vocationally oriented degrees. To point all this out is not criticies arts degrees. For many students, that they believe gender studies or ancient Greek to be intellectually stimulating may be enough. But if they think that these subjects will improve their generic skills, or job prospects, it is quite probable that they are making a mistake.

Since most students want to work after graduation, they should be given realistic information about the skills they’ll acquire and the jobs they might get before they choose a degree. At least then they can make a decision with open eyes. Prospective students should be misled by statements from senior arts academics that are at best without solid evidence in their favour, and at worst contrary to facts.

Andrew Norton is a research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies.

Norton, Andrew 2003, “How saleable are arts skills?”, The Australian, Wednesday 21 January, P.25.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

如果有人看得明白的話可以解釋一次給我知道嗎? =.=