English literature degrees enrich lives and societies – scrapping them is madness

For all the talk of culture wars, we seem to have missed a war on culture going on right under our noses. 

Far more important than the bickering between Gen-Z and Boomers, I’m talking about the commercialisation of universities and the subsequent devaluation of the arts and humanities because a wealth of knowledge is apparently no match for economic wealth.

This week, Sheffield Hallam University suspended its English literature course, following in the footsteps of the University of Cumbria last year. Meanwhile, Roehampton and Wolverhampton universities have announced planned closures of their arts and humanities programmes and the lecturers’ union UCU has warned that jobs in those subjects may be at risk at De Montfort and Huddersfield universities, too.

Sheffield Hallam has yet to explain its extraordinary decision. However, Dr Mary Peace, an English literature lecturer at the university, told The Telegraph she believes the decision was “largely economic”, due to poor job return for graduates and lower threshold incomes for the careers English literature graduates go on to.

The skills learnt in an English literature degree, such as interpretation of texts and reading in context, “seem vital to me for navigating and being successful in our society,” Dr Peace said, and yet humanities are “obviously not part of [the university’s] vision of the future.”

I graduated with an English literature degree back in 2018, and would happily do it all over again. Not only did the course provide a valuable balance of creativity and analytical skills but it incorporated history, ethics, philosophy and critical thinking. Studying English literature is about a lot more than just books and it unlocked so many different ways of thinking about the world for me.

In every job I’ve worked since graduating — from an internship at an advertising agency to my current job in journalism — I have used the skills I learned through my degree every day. (Not to mention the benefits of being able to effectively communicate in my personal life). 

Yet English literature has fallen victim to the unimaginative “Mickey Mouse” or “soft” subject complex that universities, and the government, increasingly posit. It might be true that very few investment bankers studied English literature, but the world would come to a dull and uninspirational halt if the great thinkers and writers of the world all disappeared at once and no new creative minds were allowed to prosper. 

Joan Rivers, Stephen King, Martin Scorsese, Renee Zellweger and Jodie Foster, to name but a few, all studied English at higher education level in the last few decades; I think it is fair to say they are all hugely successful, intelligent and have contributed tremendous value to society.

Beyond the walls of university campuses, the cuts to arts and humanities also reflect a wider problem with society’s increasing devaluation of creativity. Creative careers are notoriously underpaid, but rather than making them even more difficult to find success in, we should be evaluating why we no longer reward creative skills or careers in the same way we used to.

The government wants to “crack down” on “low value” courses, with proposed new rules suggesting universities could face penalties if fewer than 75 per cent of undergraduates complete their courses and fewer than 60 per cent are in professional jobs or studying for a further degree within 15 months of graduating. Perhaps they should first look at providing support and funding to the creative industries instead; the study of literature has been essential to the quality of life for centuries — to discredit it seems like a huge societal regression. 

Many have noted that the universities that have, thus far, announced cuts to their arts and humanities programmes are not Russell Group universities, which tend to be attended by wealthier and more privileged students. 

By backhandedly forcing non-Russell Group universities to reduce their humanities courses because graduates don’t pay back their student loans fast enough for their liking, the government is encouraging these subjects to be increasingly available to only those with wealthy parents or private school educations, undoing much of the work the creative industries have done to make themselves more accessible. 

The author Philip Pullman summarised this well, telling the Guardian: “The study of literature should not be a luxury for a wealthy minority of spoilt and privileged aesthetes, but a spring of precious truth and life that every one of us is entitled to.”