About a year ago, I published the article "Liberal Arts is for the Rich". After this article was published, it caused some controversy.

Some people think that I despise the difficulty of science and think that science is as simple as doing high school exercises. This "thinking" is obviously a misunderstanding. I am a Ph.D. student in mathematics at Peking University, and I have a certain understanding of the difficulty of mathematics. Others questioned a sentence in my article. What can poor parents know about literature, history, philosophy, economics, sociology and political science? They said that it is still effective to replace "literature ……" with "quantum mechanics, quantum field theory".

My point is that anyone with higher education should study literature, history, philosophy, economics and social sciences. In fact, many universities at home and abroad have set up relevant elective courses, and the way of thinking of these subjects has an impact on students' future work and life. However, "quantum mechanics, quantum field theory" is too high. I haven't heard of any university offering similar elective courses for non-related majors. Learning this kind of course or not should have little influence on the development of life. Therefore, it is inappropriate for people who question me to put "literature …" and "quantum mechanics and quantum field theory" in the same position.

I think I should reiterate and discuss my point of view. First of all, I set the opposition between "poor" and "rich" as the opposition between "weak families" and "strong families". "Vulnerable families" usually have difficult or average economic conditions and low education level, and their household registration is usually in rural areas or small and medium-sized cities; "Strong families" usually have rich or good economic conditions, a high degree of education, and their household registration is usually a big city.

My opinion is that, for all subjects, children from "weak families" are at a disadvantage compared with children from "strong families" in order to gain a certain academic status (such as becoming university professors); But for science and engineering, this disadvantage is not so obvious; For literature and history, this disadvantage is extremely obvious.

My view is this: We put children from "weak families" with higher intelligence than the general group and interested in academics together with children from "strong families". I think the possibility that they will become scholars (such as university professors) in the future depends on the conditions of "things" and "people". Science and engineering are less affected by the conditions of "things" and "people".

First of all, we admit that learning all subjects requires reading, and it is impossible to learn without reading. The collection of "weak families" is obviously lower than that of "strong families". For liberal arts, two children aged 18 may have great differences in reading, so their cognitive ability to society is also great.

But science and engineering, I'll take my professional mathematics as an example. Mathematics is a subject that must be studied in order, which is different from liberal arts. If you don't learn high school mathematics well, it is impossible to understand college mathematics, or it is superficial to barely understand it. Except for a few mathematical geniuses who have already had a certain understanding of modern mathematics in middle school, most mathematics students have little understanding of modern mathematics when they enter the university, no matter whether they come from a "weak family" or a "strong family".

Therefore, even if a student comes from a "disadvantaged family" and knows nothing about modern mathematics before going to college, it is very difficult to study hard after going to college, pursue a doctorate in the future and become a famous scholar step by step, but it is still possible to be a professor in an ordinary university.

Learning must be led by someone and discussed with you. This kind of people are mainly teachers and parents. Tell me about the teacher. As for teachers, I believe there are many good science teachers in middle schools and even small and medium-sized cities. Or even if the teacher is not a famous teacher, if he is competent, it is enough to explain the mathematics and physics in middle school clearly. If students are interested, they should devote more energy, do more problems and think more, which is enough for future academic development!

But this is not the case with liberal arts. First of all, we have to say that the development of liberal arts in China is lagging behind, and there are far fewer good teachers in liberal arts than in science. Moreover, liberal arts need a lot of reading, and most of the liberal arts teachers in middle schools are not so interested, busy taking care of their children, and their academic level is not high. Many middle school liberal arts teachers in backward areas basically sort out the things in the books, sort out the structure, string them together and then repeat them in class. Students may not even ask a little basic knowledge, let alone communicate in depth.

To sum up the above paragraph, it is the internal differences among teachers, and liberal arts are stronger than science. Who likes a good liberal arts teacher? A: Children in big cities. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that "strong families" are more likely to meet good liberal arts teachers than "weak families".

Besides teachers, there are also parents. I think the parents of most "disadvantaged families" have poor cognitive ability to society. First, most of them live in small and medium-sized cities and engage in very ordinary jobs. They know nothing about high-end jobs, such as academic research or more complicated economic and political activities. They themselves are "frogs at the bottom of a well, and they can only see a day as big as the palm of their hand." In this case, how can they lead their children to have a macro and overall understanding of this society?

Second, they are eager to let their children improve their social status, so they take a utilitarian attitude towards "learning". They educate their children to study for the college entrance examination before they go to college, and to find jobs after they go to college. As for learning, it is to better understand the world. Learning is an innate need of people, and it can't be achieved now.

Third, their own cultural level is low, so their level of understanding is limited to intuitive things, and they simply can't understand abstract metaphysical problems, and naturally they won't talk about them.

Based on the above reasons, I still hold the original view: if children from "disadvantaged families" are interested in climbing academic peaks, they still have plays in science and engineering and liberal arts, I dare not say no, but they are at a greater disadvantage.