A debate sparked by Andy Burnham's love of poetry has thrown a spotlight on the UK's long-held assumption that only certain academic subjects can lead to high office. As politicians' background and qualifications are scrutinized with increasing intensity, it's worth examining whether our current obsession with degrees in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) or STEM fields is justified.
Professor Muffy Calder from the University of Glasgow has pointed out that only one UK Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, held a science degree – chemistry. Furthermore, there have been no Prime Ministers with mathematics or mathematics and classics degrees since the 1800s, when figures like Robert Peel and William Gladstone held such qualifications. This suggests a significant historical absence of leaders with strong scientific or mathematical academic backgrounds in the past 170 years.
The conversation also brought forward examples challenging the idea that politicians with humanities degrees are uncommon. For instance, Chris Smith, a former Labour MP and Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, achieved a first-class English degree from Cambridge and pursued a PhD in the subject. His career demonstrates a path to significant political and academic success rooted in the humanities.
Some readers have also suggested that a politician's intellectual pursuits can influence their decision-making. Hilary Cashman pointed out that Andy Burnham's exposure to poets like Tony Harrison might inform his approach to complex global events, such as voting on military interventions or responding to international crises.
The exchange of views highlights a growing public interest in what truly prepares an individual for leadership. It prompts a re-evaluation of whether traditional academic pathways are the best indicators of a politician's capability, and whether diverse intellectual backgrounds could bring valuable perspectives to the political landscape.