It is so ignorant to dismiss anything that isn't a 'core subject'

It can only be the relative obscurity of ASNaC that has caused it to be viewed with such disdain

I read the article A Very Subjective View (2/11/07), which purported to prove that 'some disciplines are more academically valuable than others', with dismay and concern. This was not only because my own subject, ASNaC, was dismissed, but because of the wider implications of rejecting any discipline that strays outside traditional 'core' subjects.

 

This woefully unprofessional article made sweeping statements claiming to be 'according to Cambridge' or representative of 'the student body' whilst neither citing a single statistic to support them nor giving the number of students surveyed - gleefully admitting the 'far from scientific' methods used, then pronouncing judgement on the relative 'value' of subjects. Far from establishing this, however, what the survey actually highlighted was a worrying trend towards intellectual conformity amongst the student body. It did not surprise me that the f ive subjects ranked as the 'least valuable' were the smallest- those surveyed seem to have responded to the unfamiliar with disinterest- a rather troubling result.

 

Predictably, ASNaC- frequently stereotyped as being the preserve of oddballs and Tolkien-fanatics- suffered most. Any credibility the article might have had was destroyed by the unnecessarily sneering tone, with smirking comments such as 'every subject is of value in its own special way… except ASNaC.' It can only be the relative obscurity of ASNaC that has caused it to be viewed with such disdain; if I studied Old English literature as part of the English tripos, would it be considered more worthy? Is a dissertation on Anglo-Saxon England more 'valuable' if written by a Historian? It is perplexing that while English, History and MML rank highly in the survey results (numbers 1, 4 and 6 respectively), the department combining all of these disciplines into one body plummets to number 23. The results show the suspicion and contempt with which certain students regard minority subjects - a sad state of affairs in an institution which supposedly prizes intellectual pursuit.

 

Far from being 'un-academic', ASNaC requires huge intellectual flexibility, rigour and commitment. Most ASNaCs learn at least one language from scratch as part of their course, some as many as five. Despite being called 'an odd choice with minimal application' by Varsity, how can there be better preparation for a career in History, Archaeology, Literature or Languages than a subject which combines all these disciplines? ASNaCs study subjects taught in English, History, MML, Archaeology, History of Art, Linguistics, Theology and Philosophy departments worldwide. An ASNaC interested in Anglo-Saxon history, for example, can also learn to read the sources in their original languages, and to put them in a cultural and historical context through the study of literature and archaeology. 'Interdisciplinary' is a much overused word, but in ASNaC, it is our raison d'être.

 

Varsity reporters may sneer that 'there are subjects and then there are subjects', but ASNaC is respected by international humanities departments, not least those who act as our external examiners. While Varsity's survey supposedly showed that 'according to Cambridge… a 2.1 in ASNaC is worth less than the same in History', this is not borne out in the wider academic world. The AHRC and Leverhulme trusts have funded no fewer than four major research projects partly based here. Likewise, the last government Research Assessment Exercise gave ASNaC the highest possible rating (5*). The academic standing of the Department is as high as any other in the university.

 

Furthermore, although the article said that subjects like ASNaC are less 'valuable for future employment', statistics simply do not corroborate this. The QAA audit of ASNaC in 2001 revealed that no other tripos has a higher rate of employment. Certain students may undervalue the subject through ignorance of the transferable skills which ASNaC teaches, but employers clearly do not. Making such unfounded and potentially damaging claims is simply irresponsible journalism.

 

It's inevitable, given our size, that few people would know much about students of minority subjects, but should we really make joke of such ignorance or use it as a basis from which to take cheap and predictable pot-shots? Doesn't this survey reflect an embarrassing narrow-mindedness? It is so ignorant to dismiss anything that isn't a 'core subject'. I never thought I would see the scornful anti-intellectual sentiment endemic in the popular media spread to Cambridge. Yet doesn't this survey indicate an unwillingness to be original, to take risks, a lack of curiosity in the unfamiliar? Should we mock those who embrace the difficult and even the unfashionable, seeking intellectual challenge? Such an attitude is unworthy for any student, whether at Cambridge or elsewhere.