Balancing science with arts at JHU - Observations

In a conversation with one of the deans of the School of Arts and Sciences, the dean expressed his frustration with combating Hopkins image as a purely science school. He explained that, although there is strength in the hard sciences, the great social sciences and humanities departments get overlooked, even by Hopkins own undergraduates. As he explained and illustrated his pro-science arguments, I was curious as to why, if these other departments are so wonderful, they are not nationally known like our science departments. The reason why Hopkins has the scientific reputation it does is because it has built it over the past 125 years. Hopkins is what it is - a highly regarded school specializing in science. The dean is correct to compliment the other departments, but wrong in trying to take them as counterpart.

Take, for example, the newly named Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences. Even the name of this department flaunts the nature of the school. At most schools, psychology is considered as much a social science as it is a biological science. This department nominally pushes aside the societal implications of psychology - clinical and psychoanalytical subjects are sacrificed for a more thorough understanding of the brain functions that affect human behavior.

This is not to criticize the change in the Psychology Department's name - it is a better representation of its focus. However, this is just a case-in-point of how there is no denying Hopkins has an onerous focus on science. The administration should not withstand this because it would be a false-representation. Focusing on the greater points of the school will allow the other areas of the college to take their proper place, even if that is a step below. The dean may combat the reputation of the school on countless days, but it is futile to combat something that is genuinely true.

So what about the other 'non-science' departments? They really shouldn't be second-tier, but they are consistently considered as such. Many of them are amazing and deserve recognition - the best way to improve them is to build them up until they are equal in size and statute to other programs. If the school wants more humanities students, then they need to work with the admissions office and increase the student body population of humanities students. The programs will build from there - a grass roots operation. When the departments grow, they become more attractive to potential students. The process is self-fulfilling. In contrast, all the efforts to 'combat' the science reputation of Hopkins is futile because it is not changing the make-up of the school whatsoever.

As a student of the social sciences, I see the world as an interaction of peoples and cultures, not an interaction of chemicals and hormones. I have struggled to find my proper place in the Hopkins community academically. I have had to, or order to find success, accept that there will never be an overwhelming amount of students that have the same interests as me. There are enough, but one-third of the people I know will continue to be on the pre-medical track and another third will be in the School of Engineering. They all ended up here because the school has a lot to offer them. When Hopkins has more to offer in terms of social sciences and humanities, there will be no struggle to find students to take up the offers.

I won't say that being on a science-oriented campus is the greatest environment for learning about the social sciences, but I can name one thing that is worse: being on a science-oriented campus that is trying to be a liberal arts school. Until there is a reason to 'combat' the scientific nature of Hopkins, let it be. If you want to change the nature of the school, using words alone only increases a facade with holes so large even undiscerning eyes can see straight through.