Consider this

Rushabh Sadiwala displays a few serious misunderstandings in his Jan. 21 column "Major considerations." First, he suggests that majors without immediate applications for career preparations are not useful in this economy. Although it is certainly true that it is harder to get funding for obscure projects or less "essential" services these days, that does not mean that arts or humanities majors will not be useful. The primary mission of a liberal arts education is to teach students how to think, not to offer vocational skills. Arts and humanities majors allow students to follow their passions, practical or otherwise, while at the same time teaching students to think critically, write well, speak eloquently about their opinions and understand the way that society, culture or politics work. These skills will be applicable in whatever a student chooses to do and will help students get those jobs in the first place by teaching them to be compelling interviewees, application-writers and innovative thinkers. Even in a bad economy, skills such as these are of paramount importance and most employers are looking for them more than a "practical" major.

Further, the implication that because the economy is faltering the arts don't matter is also untrue. Yes, there is less funding for the arts today, but that doesn't mean that the arts are less relevant or less necessary. Artistic pursuits are essential to society, especially in a time of crisis: They allow for pointed social criticism as well as opportunities for audience members and artists alike to escape into other worlds and other experiences. Yes, students who choose to major in arts-related fields are facing the possibility of having a more difficult time getting a job, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't continue to follow those passions.

Caroline Griswold

Trinity '10