King's College London

We tend to think of professional success in technical terms: the right qualifications, the right tools, the right data. But the conversations reshaping every industry right now–about AI, organisational purpose, ethical leadership and human connection– are not technical problems. They are human ones. And as a recent piece in Wonkhe argues, even the most complex challenges we face, from climate change to economic disruption, are rooted in cultural, political and philosophical questions that no algorithm can resolve. The capabilities needed to navigate them, critical thinking, sound judgement, the ability to understand people and communicate with intention, are precisely what arts and humanities disciplines have always developed. 

This is not a niche argument. The British Academy's Measuring SHAPE Graduate Outcomes report (2025) makes clear that SHAPE (Social Sciences, Humanities and the Arts for People and the Economy) graduates perform strongly by conventional employment measures: 87% were in employment in 2023, compared to 88% of STEM graduates. But the report's more important contribution is to argue that standard measures of graduate outcomes, focused narrowly on short-term earnings and progression, systematically undercount what SHAPE graduates actually contribute. SHAPE skills, including analysis, critical thinking, communication and adaptability, are in high demand in the modern workplace, and SHAPE graduates are well-prepared to engage with the challenges facing the world, from climate change to the rise of AI. The value of SHAPE degrees shows up over careers, across sectors and in the social and cultural infrastructure that underpins public life. The idea that the humanities occupy a different world from commercial or professional life does not survive examination. 

The premium on being human

The rise of AI sharpens this considerably. As Times Higher Education has noted, arts and humanities are too often dismissed as a luxury when in fact they cultivate precisely the capacities AI cannot replicate: critical judgement, creativity, ethical reasoning and meaningful communication. The President of the British Academy, Professor Susan J. Smith, made the point directly, arguing that ‘in an age increasingly driven by AI, there is an ever-greater premium on the critical and creative thinking these subjects nurture’. This is not simply a defence of the humanities. It is an assessment of where human value increasingly lies.

It is also, importantly, not a case against technical expertise. As HEPI has argued, pitting arts and humanities against STEM is counterproductive and misses the point entirely. The most complex problems in healthcare, technology, business strategy or public policy are not solved by any single discipline. They need people who can hold technical understanding alongside ethical reasoning, and quantitative analysis alongside cultural insight. A grounding in the humanities does not replace technical expertise. It makes it more effective. As philosopher Martha Nussbaum contends, societies focused narrowly on technical and economic training risk producing people who are technically proficient but unable to think critically, imagine the experiences of others, or understand the human consequences of their decisions.

What we offer

The State of the Arts report (2024) documented a sharp decline in arts education at school and university level. As the pipeline narrows, the case for professional and executive education in the humanities becomes more urgent, not less.

King's Faculty of Arts & Humanities is expanding what that can look like. Career Accelerators in Project Management and UX/UI Design, housed within Digital Humanities, offer practitioner programmes built on the understanding that how systems interact with people is not a footnote to these fields, but rather the whole point. For organisations with specific needs, we also design bespoke custom programmes, whether around ethical leadership, organisational culture or building critical thinking at senior level.

The question is not whether your field has room for the humanities. It is whether you can afford to lead without them.