Intelligent young people want to go to university, and it is logical for a country to provide university places for them to ensure that there will be well-trained men and women to run the government and industry in the future. So in the 1960’s the government set up a number of new  universities in Britain in order to give everyone with sufficient ability the opportunity to study. But now something has gone wrong.

A lot of young people want to go to university to study arts subjects but many places for scientists are not taken up. The new universities concentrated on science because it seemed  practical. They developed new courses because they didn’t want to imitate traditional universities.

In other words, they didn’t want to be like traditional universities. Why have their calculations proved wrong? One reason is that a lot of young people can get enough qualifications to work in industry by going to a Polytechnic. They think university  courses are too long and too theoretical. But this does not explain why the majority of students still prefer arts subjects to science subjects.

A few months ago a magazine sent a team of interviewers to schools to find out why children didn’t want to study science. Their answers provided this surprising picture of a typical scientist: He is rather dull.

He spends all day in a laboratory wearing a white coat. He doesn’t talk about anything but science. He doesn’t play games well, and he isn’t attractive to girls! In contrast, the arts graduate is seen as a much more lively person. He has a good sense of humour and he is interested in sports and pop music. He has a lot of girlfriends and always has a good  time! Logically, the children wanted to study arts to avoid becoming dull, unattractive scientists.

Of course, the children were not describing all scientists; they were really giving us their opinion of their science teachers and comparing them with their arts teachers, such as the English teacher and the history  teacher. But why do science teachers seem less attractive to them than arts teachers?

The answer to this question probably explains why so many science places at the new universities are empty. Our conclusion is that society offers good scientists well-paid jobs and the opportunity to use their studies in research laboratories or in  industry and so they can lead rewarding and interesting lives.

In general, only the less adventurous ones return to school to teach. But a bright graduate in literature or history must either teach his subject to earn a living, or work in a completely different field. So arts teachers are likely to be more interesting, attractive people than science teachers  and to care more about their subject, and their students try to be like them and follow in their footsteps.



1. Line 11, to ‘imitate’ means to .
2. Line 30, ‘them’ refers to .
3. Line 36, ‘ones’ refers to .
B. Mark the statements as True (T) or False (F).

1. The only way for young people to find jobs in industry is to go to university to study science subjects.

2. Children do not want to become scientists because they think that scientists are dull and unattractive.

3. When children were describing a typical scientist, their opinions were based on their science teachers.

4. It is difficult even for a good scientist to lead an interesting life and find a job which pays well.
1. Why did the British Government set up new universities in the 1960’s?
2. According to the results of the interview, what are the characteristics of an arts graduate? (Write 2 things.) a) b) 3. What are the two things that a bright arts graduate can do after he graduates?
a) .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *