Are Social Sciences Courses Valuable or Just a Fad?

The costs of university education have risen at an alarming rate. This has created a burden of debt that has been placed on students and society. As the cost has risen, so has the packaging of what these universities teach. For instance, hundreds of new university subjects have been created over the past years. According to the U.S. Department of Education, there are about 50 new academic programs with new names each year in the United States. How can a student be sure these programs and courses are valuable and worth their money?

Unfortunately, there are many instances where new courses and programs are designed to attract students with promises and titles that sound important and appealing. However, in reality, these programs are often not of high quality and just take the student’s money. It is important to develop a way for researchers, teachers, and students to test which classes are valuable and worth their time and money. This work aims to protect students and help them make informed choices. Just because a program is new does not mean that it is good. Until this research, there was no easy way to test the quality of these new programs. Now there is. 

This study specifically aimed to develop an indicator that could test the quality of programs in the social sciences. These social sciences programs include courses and subjects that study and predict how humans behave in groups or individually. For instance, history, sociology, and anthropology are examples of social science programs. The indicator created can be used to measure whether a school subject meets the standards of a high-quality university discipline. My goal was to eliminate the false appearances of quality and make it possible for students and the public to know what subjects are of value to them. Something is considered valuable if it is based on research questions and includes the development and use of skills that the student can take beyond the classroom.  

I began by testing my indicator on a specific field of study called Law and Development. This field is a 60-year-old field that has been used to develop many different courses and programs. It is a broad category of intellectual activity, including teaching and research, on law and social change. The goal of the indicator is to ensure that a program like Law and Development starts with important research questions that can be applied to measurable human problems. It is to make sure that it aims to answer those research questions and that it teaches and uses skills that provide real benefit to the students. 

The indicator has two main parts:

1. 13 questions about the academic work of the program

2. 5 questions about the way the program is run

The first part of the indicator is meant to assess whether the research basis of the program follows strict, academic standards. To do this, I split the 13 questions into three areas.

1. Questions 1-3: Does the research basis of the program work to solve problems that can help humans? A core component of the research basis of Law and Development is asking about human behavior. I wanted to make sure it was working to clearly measure how people act as individuals and groups. The program needs to be clear and measurable in a scientific way.

2. Questions 4-11: Does the research follow the scientific method? The research needs to start with an idea that is being tested. It needs to show that something measurable is actually causing something to happen. The results need to be able to prove and then predict something. From here, other researchers should be able to use the same tools and strategy to find the same answer. Finally, the research needs to contribute something new to the field. 

3. Questions 12-13: Is the research ethical? The research needs to be legal on all accounts. The work within the social science field should benefit as many people as possible and care for everyone involved. The work should be open to many viewpoints. Anyone participating in the work should report all findings, even if they disagree with what they thought would happen. 

The second part of the indicator is meant to assess the way the program is run and if it is run in an appropriate way. This is done with 5 specific questions and includes a few important things to look out for. 

1. Is the research influenced by money or politics? Are there other factors influencing the program besides pure scientific pursuit? 

2. All teachers and instructors within the program should be selected based on their past experiences and scientific discoveries. They must prove they are qualified to instruct students in the program. 

3. Researchers must focus on answering research questions as well as their applications for society. They must pursue the discovery of new knowledge, not the pursuit of personal gain or reputation. 

4. All work of the program must be done under ethical codes. 

5. All ethical codes must be able to be enforced in some way to ensure the ethical standards are followed. This is important for building trust within the program. 

When I applied this indicator to Law and Development programs, it was easy to see how many of them have gone wrong in different ways. In some programs, there is a strong push by corporations to promote their business interests within the program. In other programs, the government has had influence on the interactions with people within and outside the program. Finally, there are courses that work to criticize what has gone wrong, which helps to shed light on this situation. However, these courses are not based on research questions and do not teach skills, so can we value them as courses students should pay for?

This indicator helps Law and Development programs to focus on the most important questions of this field. These include questions about how society works, creates laws, and responds to laws. There are questions about measuring “development” and how societies and law “develop”. Ultimately, these questions link to concepts about how communities survive, about what “progress” is, and about human survival and peace.  

Through this indicator, I show how we can use tools to improve educational programs and courses by focusing them on research and real-world applications. Education should open up people’s minds and offer three things: knowledge, skills, and perspectives. Assuring this happens requires analysis of the full educational experience. This indicator is a part of that analysis. Next time you or someone you know is ready to pay for a university course, make sure to ask if it will teach you valuable skills that will help you and others in this life. 

Written By: David Lempert, Ph.D., J.D., M.B.A., E.D. (Hon.)

Academic Editor: Neuroscientist

Non-Academic Editor: Local High Schooler

Original Paper

• Title: Law and Development as a Model Sub-Discipline

• Journal: The Journal of Law, Social Justice & Global Development

• Date Published: 2021

Contact: superlemp@alumni.stanford.org

Please remember that research is done by humans and is always changing. A discovery one day could be proven incorrect the next day. It is important to continue to stay informed and keep up with the latest research. We do our best to present current work in an objective and accurate way, but we know that we might make mistakes. If you feel something has been presented incorrectly or inappropriately, please contact us through our website.