The Humanities Trap | මානව ශාස්ත්‍ර විෂයයන්ගේ උගුල

 The Humanities Trap | මානව ශාස්ත්‍ර විෂයයන්ගේ උගුල

===========================

By Nimesha Thiwankara Senevipala 

It has often occurred to me that, in order to achieve successful outcomes through studying, applying, and adding value to subjects within the humanities and certain social sciences, those subjects should ideally be studied by individuals with economic stability. Historically, people who have demonstrated excellence in these fields have generally maintained stable personal economic conditions. The opportunities for those studying humanities and social sciences to achieve high levels of economic prosperity through these subjects are very limited. Therefore, the most common and accessible employment opportunity for such graduates has been the teaching profession.

Apart from that, few other professional pathways are visible for these graduates. Compared to Sri Lanka, these groups also tend to have lower English language proficiency. It is difficult for them to invest the necessary time and money to overcome these limitations, as their daily life struggles are often more pressing. These factors may be relative; however, when we examine both locally and internationally unemployed graduates in these fields, this reality becomes even more evident.

There is little practical benefit in learning the foundations of social sciences and humanities under such conditions. Many students lack the freedom, resources, or opportunity to generate new knowledge in these areas. This situation can be compared to the damage done to Buddhism when individuals from the most disadvantaged social backgrounds become ordained and eventually rise to leadership positions without adequate preparation.

The most serious aspect of this social issue is that many individuals from poor and disadvantaged groups see obtaining a degree primarily as a means of securing government protection. Many of them have not developed significant practical skills, particularly in terms of personality development and risk-taking ability.

These groups, who are not professionally equipped and who often barely complete their degrees with minimum semester grades, have little demand in the job market. As a result, they become a burden on the government. To address this burden, the government ends up providing employment opportunities. In doing so, it assumes responsibility for absorbing a group that has little competitiveness in the open job market. Due to various forms of social extremism, strong internal organization can develop among them, which may lead to destabilizing outcomes.

As someone who has completed a first degree in social sciences, several postgraduate qualifications, a master’s degree, and a professional qualification, and who has taught at two universities with both local and international experience, I believe that a serious review of humanities and social science education is necessary. If these subjects are to remain valuable, the supply of graduates should be reduced while maintaining or increasing the quality and relevance of demand.

If it is difficult for graduates in fields such as Buddhist Civilization, Social Sciences, History, Buddhism, Philosophy, Archaeology, Sanskrit, and Sinhala to achieve economic prosperity, if professional pathways are limited, and if job market demand is low, why should the public service be filled predominantly with such graduates?

These subjects should become value-adding fields.

They are respectable disciplines and should not be belittled. Moreover, this situation is not the fault of the students, but rather the result of policy failures. It would be highly beneficial if this issue were addressed through meaningful educational reforms.