The Importance of Soft Skills and the Ignorance of Legislators#

There is a fairly significant body of research that shows that people who have strong “soft skills” are more likely to be successful in the workplace. Despite this evidence, too many lawmakers think that by doing away with the courses that actually teach soft skills (or create the conditions in which they can be developed) better prepares the student for success. That’s just plain hogwash and shows, in my mind, how poorly educated and simple minded these people are. Perhaps if they had paid attention in those courses they’d have a better understanding of the value of those courses.

What are soft skills?#

Essentially, they are what some people might call “people skills”. People with strong people skills are able to:

• communicate clearly and effectively; and
• work together with others to accomplish an assigned task.
• understand and manage their emotions and to recognize the emotional state of others (which allows them to manage more effectively)
• use their skills to guide and motivate others

But soft skills are more than just people skills. They also include:

• strong time management skills so that they are able to organize and prioritize tasks properly.
• the ability to adapt to changing circumstances and challenges.
• the ability to identify and address problems by finding creative and effective solutions.

Many, if not all, of these skills come from exposure to a variety of materials, most of which fall outside of the student’s primary career focus. Years ago a governor in some southern state questioned why an art major needed math. Setting aside the obvious need to understand math for personal finance issues (which is a topic itself), artists often rely on what is known as the Golden Ratio, a mathematical formula that helps guide sound composition in drawing, photography, etc. A photographer needs to understand focal lengths and how lenses work which also require math. There’s also science and physics in these topics in order to understand colors, lighting, focal lengths (again), and so on.

Similar to that governor many supposedly well educated legislators think that classes in literature and philosophy are simply there to waste time and take more money from the student. But, it is through reading the literature, especially the classics, that we are able to expand our understanding of others and gain insight into the human condition. By reading literature, we’re provided understandings of a wide range of subjects, emotions, experiences, and even geographies and cultures all of which become fodder for our creative minds.

Philosophy, too, provides insight into how others think but more importantly teach us to question statements and assumptions – our own and others. To critically exam our own thinking and that of others. Literature and philosophy give us different lenses through which to view the world and to allow us to consider points of view and alternative solutions of which we might otherwise have been unaware. These studies allow us to break free of our limited experiences to begin to see that there are other experiences, values, beliefs, and so on beyond our own.

It is this ability to look beyond ourselves and our own experiences, to look beyond our boundaries, to question our assumptions that allow us to be creative in our thinking and to find new solutions to vexing problems. Creative problem solving is an oft cited need in almost all industries. Yet we are reticent to encourage students to study those courses that foster that creativity.

So, why do I think legislators are so against courses of study such as sociology, psychology, philosophy, and so on. Why are they set against students studying literature?

It’s easy to suggest that they’re simply ignorant. But they are, after all, university educated and, as such, have themselves been exposed to these courses. I would suggest to them (and to their horror) that their ability to question the value of these courses is the direct result of having learned how to think – how to question – through exposure to these very courses. So, are they ignorant? No. Unless you consider willful ignorance.

I think a greater reason is that these courses challenge students to think independently and independent thought is anathema to those in power. They don’t want people to think, to question, to look for greater meaning. They want to be the purveyors of all knowledge and to control the narrative. When someone thinks independently they are more apt to challenge the status quo or, worse, to challenge the politician and that is frightening to the politician. Doing so could expose the politician’s lack of knowledge or understanding of a subject or, worse, the paucity of evidence to support their position.¹

One of the arguments that many of these politicians use is to suggest that college professors “tell students what to think”. Well, if that was true, then how is it that these same college educated politicians think for themselves? I think that they are confusing the professor who challenges a student’s perspective by asking questions in order to stimulate deeper thought with telling the student they are wrong or with ’telling them what to think'.

Let me give you an example. Suppose a professor puts forth an argument in favor of, for example, socialism. Their purpose, rather than trying to convince the student that socialism is “better”, is to force the student to think more deeply about the topic. Rather than simply presenting the content, they are forcing the student to think and develop a counter argument. In order to do that the student must first take time to actually dig into the topic and learn all they can, then they need to take the time to dig into the alternatives and build a strong counter argument. In the end, the student has added significantly to their understanding of not only socialism but of the alternatives and has developed a good understanding of how the various approaches relate.

This is how you learn. You do not learn simply by reading alone or by having someone lecture you. You learn by using the material, but digging in and thinking it over deeply, by considering the facts and the alternatives.

Deep thinking requires effort. It requires time. Effort and time that some students are loathe to invest.

Might I suggest that some of these politicians found such deep thought difficult² and, as a consequence, have come to believe that the courses are ‘worthless’. Well, for those who choose not to think, who choose not to invest the effort to think, that is most likely true!

Now, let’s get back to the original notion that students should spend their time focusing only on their chosen subject area and not have to spend time studying these other “soft” topics. Again, to me that thinking is deeply flawed. Today we must be well versed in wide range of topics in order to be success and to adapt to a society that is changing at an increasing pace. It is not surprising that almost all of the people who have been the biggest movers (Richard Feynman, Einstein, Asimov, and a host of others) in the past century have had diverse interests and were well-versed in a variety of subject areas.

In an earlier post about Story Musgrave I noted how Story earned a BS in math and statistics, MBA in operations analysis and computer programming, BA in chemistry, MD, and MS in physiology and biophysics within an 8 year period. That’s quite a diverse set of skills, yet it was exactly that set of diverse skills that allowed him to excel in his efforts as an astronaut and made him far more valuable to the program than if he had put all of his eggs in one subject domain, so to speak.

When we expand our studies beyond what will “get us a job” we develop skills and knowledge that is transferable to a wider range of opportunities and allows us, in many cases, to create those opportunities. The more we know, the more creative and adaptable we become and the more valuable to our organization. And that, at the end of the day, is our goal.