Ben, thanks for your post. I found your area of research really fascinating. However, I disagree with your final statement “I’d recommend programming over the humanities if the goal is to create innovators.”

I was wondering if you went through the Dan Edelstein’s article on “How Is Innovation Taught? On the Humanities and the Knowledge Economy”? He gives several great points on why we should value the humanities, some of the key points he mentions are:

1. “People often underscore the central role of the humanities in cultivating a sense of civic duty and citizenship, in enabling students to assess standards of human excellence, or in developing a sense of compassion for others. In a more practical vein, the skills that the humanities foster—such as a clear writing style, or rational analysis—bear only indirectly on professional success.”

2. This second point here is especially in regards to your point regarding innovation: “government funding agencies ought to support “whole-brain” research agendas, as opposed to the usual “left-brain” grant proposals. “Perhaps art, literature or music portfolios [should] become part of the science and engineering application processes,” they propose. Their reason? “Innovation […] requires the attributes of the humanities found in right-brain thinking: creativity, artistry, intuition, symbology, fantasy, emotions.”

3. This rather large excerpt from the article really drives home the point on the importance of humanities in innovation:

“Students studying the American Revolution, for instance, are not only expected to know the names and dates of all the important players or events. They are also obliged to demonstrate that they can make sense on their own of the material; that they can develop original arguments about reasons, motivations, and outcomes for the past.

This point may seem overly subtle, but it becomes clearly evident in the case of final papers. If you provide the same answers as fifty other students on a calculus exam, you may very well get an A—assuming, of course, that those were the correct answers. But if you hand in a final essay for your American history course, in which you develop the same thesis as fifty other students, you would most likely not get an A, since original thinking is one of the criteria used to evaluate a student’s understanding and assimilation of material.

Furthermore, while science and math classes may on occasion demand that the students find innovative methods for solving problems, the humanities demand originality from day one. As I recounted in an earlier version of this piece (Edelstein 2009), I first became aware of this expectation when teaching an Introduction to the Humanities course to freshmen at Stanford. Speaking with me after class, two Chinese students expressed their confusion at having to write papers that defended an original thesis. Their high schools had focused only on memorization, whereas we were asking them to explain what they thought about literary texts.

What took our international students by surprise is precisely one of the central ingredients of American liberal education. As part of our ambition to create independently minded individuals, we encourage students to think for themselves. They might not come up with ideas that are “original” in the grand scheme of things, but they are expected to reach conclusions on their own. The entire reward system of the humanities, moreover, favors those students who either make a convincing case for an unusual argument, or an unusual case for a convincing argument. In both scenarios, high grades and prizes go to students who demonstrate the most originality.

Classes in the humanities not only offer students the best opportunities to practice innovative thinking, but also provide them with models for how to do so. Professors, after all, are not simply there to transmit discrete data packages about books, compositions, theories, or events, but rather to show the students how one goes about piecing together an argument and narrative around a subject. Professors “perform innovation” when they offer, say, a political reading of Hamlet, an economic interpretation of the American Revolution, or a Hegelian analysis of Marx. The best pedagogical practices in the humanities draw attention to the fact that the knowledge being conveyed is questionable. This is not an invitation to rampant revisionism or postmodernism, but a simple recognition that historical, literary, political, and anthropological knowledge is not made up of equations or organic structures, but of perceptions, arguments, aesthetic effects, philosophical concepts, and other representations whose signification is subject to change. The words of Hamlet or of the Declaration of Independence may not vary, but their meaning can.”

Ben, thanks for your post. I found your area of research really fascinating. However, I disagree with your final statement “I’d recommend programming over the humanities if the goal is to create innovators.”

I was wondering if you went through the Dan Edelstein’s article on “How Is Innovation Taught? On the Humanities and the Knowledge Economy”? He gives several great points on why we should value the humanities, some of the key points he mentions are:

1. “People often underscore the central role of the humanities in cultivating a sense of civic duty and citizenship, in enabling students to assess standards of human excellence, or in developing a sense of compassion for others. In a more practical vein, the skills that the humanities foster—such as a clear writing style, or rational analysis—bear only indirectly on professional success.”

2. This second point here is especially in regards to your point regarding innovation: “government funding agencies ought to support “whole-brain” research agendas, as opposed to the usual “left-brain” grant proposals. “Perhaps art, literature or music portfolios [should] become part of the science and engineering application processes,” they propose. Their reason? “Innovation […] requires the attributes of the humanities found in right-brain thinking: creativity, artistry, intuition, symbology, fantasy, emotions.”

3. This rather large excerpt from the article really drives home the point on the importance of humanities in innovation:

“Students studying the American Revolution, for instance, are not only expected to know the names and dates of all the important players or events. They are also obliged to demonstrate that they can make sense on their own of the material; that they can develop original arguments about reasons, motivations, and outcomes for the past.

This point may seem overly subtle, but it becomes clearly evident in the case of final papers. If you provide the same answers as fifty other students on a calculus exam, you may very well get an A—assuming, of course, that those were the correct answers. But if you hand in a final essay for your American history course, in which you develop the same thesis as fifty other students, you would most likely not get an A, since original thinking is one of the criteria used to evaluate a student’s understanding and assimilation of material.

Furthermore, while science and math classes may on occasion demand that the students find innovative methods for solving problems, the humanities demand originality from day one. As I recounted in an earlier version of this piece (Edelstein 2009), I first became aware of this expectation when teaching an Introduction to the Humanities course to freshmen at Stanford. Speaking with me after class, two Chinese students expressed their confusion at having to write papers that defended an original thesis. Their high schools had focused only on memorization, whereas we were asking them to explain what they thought about literary texts.

What took our international students by surprise is precisely one of the central ingredients of American liberal education. As part of our ambition to create independently minded individuals, we encourage students to think for themselves. They might not come up with ideas that are “original” in the grand scheme of things, but they are expected to reach conclusions on their own. The entire reward system of the humanities, moreover, favors those students who either make a convincing case for an unusual argument, or an unusual case for a convincing argument. In both scenarios, high grades and prizes go to students who demonstrate the most originality.

Classes in the humanities not only offer students the best opportunities to practice innovative thinking, but also provide them with models for how to do so. Professors, after all, are not simply there to transmit discrete data packages about books, compositions, theories, or events, but rather to show the students how one goes about piecing together an argument and narrative around a subject. Professors “perform innovation” when they offer, say, a political reading of Hamlet, an economic interpretation of the American Revolution, or a Hegelian analysis of Marx. The best pedagogical practices in the humanities draw attention to the fact that the knowledge being conveyed is questionable. This is not an invitation to rampant revisionism or postmodernism, but a simple recognition that historical, literary, political, and anthropological knowledge is not made up of equations or organic structures, but of perceptions, arguments, aesthetic effects, philosophical concepts, and other representations whose signification is subject to change. The words of Hamlet or of the Declaration of Independence may not vary, but their meaning can.”

Hi , thanks for you post. I believe that in certain fields memorization is important – especially in the biology-related fields. In fact, for certain instances rote memorization is key and there is no way around it – how would for instance memorize the names of the bones in the body – there really is no logic there. The more important question is do doctors or medical professionals really need to know the names? Although such information is readily available on the internet, this is technical jargon that doctors need to be aware of to effectively and efficiently communicate with their patients and colleagues. Of course, this is a specific example; there are plenty of instances where (as you mentioned) we should be tested on and taught how to critically think rather than memorization. I think there is a paradigm shift in the education model and we are slowly moving away from the traditional model of education, so there is hope!

Hi, Cortney. Thanks for your post. I can see why emotional intelligence takes precedence over high IQ – in fact, I have seen this phenomenon amongst colleagues and even some of my professors. So many of them are such amazing individuals with great passion for their work, but are unable to relate emotionally to other individuals and/or don’t know how to reflect on their own feelings. People with High EQ are not only more likely to be successful but also enjoy greater mental health, job performance, and leadership skills.

Hi, thanks for you post. I really like the question you pose: Is there a place though for directness, memorization, and recitation?
I feel like this maybe major dependent. I can definitely see the appeal in fields like medicine where having an inherent database of knowledge to work off of would be important in beginning a diagnosis. Engineering is probably not as critical as it typically deals with design – which often takes many iterations (lots of trials and errors). There are tools that I use in my research that I have memorized – not on purpose, but because I use the same concept/terminology/formula on a daily basis. I think that ultimately some amount of memorization will still be needed, however we should take care in understanding the underlying assumptions/logic. Critical thinking skills can only be honed if we understand and not just memorize. Rote memorization seems to be the norm with many students and is extremely dangerous.

I had a similar post on creating a project-based learning environment in first/second year undergraduate courses. I agree with you in that not all courses will lend themselves to a critical pedagogy format. However, with the way current classes are structured freshman and sophomore level courses are often a drag where students are learning concepts/tools that they are told will be useful in junior/senior level classes. Usually there is very little motivation provided for the student to learn and understand the “basics”, mostly because they won’t be using these tools for another year or two. Additionally, very little insight is provided behind the working of these tools and why they are needed (eg. real world applications). The current format of undergrad courses especially in universities where the student-to-teacher ratio is high does not allow students to have one-on-one interactions with the professors; often students mug up concepts instead of understanding them, which defeats the purpose of the course. We will need to get creative in how we teach “basics” in the future, so that students understand and are motivated to learn rather than see it as a class they have to pass to get a degree.

Why not change the format of the class and have some sort of a Project-based learning environment i.e. have a final project/report instead of just assignments and exams? This way the students will learn to apply their knowledge to a practical problem.

Ah, I also came across the “What is the largest number you can represent with 3-digits?” post on linkedin as well. Irrespective of whether this story is true or not and whether the answer provided is correct or not, it hurts to see that students who think outside the box are discouraged to do so by their own teachers. This is obviously not an isolated example and I think standardized testing is to blame here.

I agree the Martian was a great movie. Absolutely, loved it! I remember when I was in school and they showed us Back to the Future, I was so inspired I wanted to make my own airplane that went faster than the speed of light! Even though I was fairly young at that time and with limited resources – I tinkered around with household materials to make a prototype and even got my brother excited about the project. All because of one very good movie! This movie may have single handedly inspired me to pursue science, much more than any of my actual science classes. Movies play a big role in helping us see the application of engineering/science in action, and are great sources for inspiration/motivation. However, inspiration/motivation needs to be coupled with effective learning strategies in classrooms that can help students explore their curisoity. Had even one teacher encouraged me to pursue my “faster than light plane” I may have had more than a prototype.

Wow, this post was pretty resourceful. I wish I had an experience similar to visiting the Challenger Learning Center while I was growing up. I can see so much benefit in learning this way i.e. through simulation and role-playing.

Back when I was in school involving students in labs/science fairs/robotics workshops etc. were seen as effective learning strategies (for the same reasons you mentioned), in addition, class trips to the planetariums/monuments/museums/science centers etc. were helpful in inspiring and motivating students to learn.

Implementing sound learning strategies are equally as important as motivating and inspiring students. Schooling years would be so much more fun if all courses could lend themselves to a similar format.