The University of Otago humanities division pro-vice-chancellor may have been taking mental notes during last night's public debate about cuts to the university's humanities division.
Prof Tony Ballantyne was among about 30 people at the Otago University Debating Society public debate in the Castle lecture theatre.
The motion for the debate was: ''We should regret the trend of prioritising science, technology, engineering and mathematics (stem subjects) over humanities subjects.''
The affirmative team, consisting of Alex Gregory, Alice Sowry and Savanna Gaskell, argued there were specific skills students gained from taking humanities courses that could not be gained from studying stem subjects - skills such as writing, critical thinking, argumentation and creativity.
''You get a knowledge of what it is to be human, and we don't think you necessarily get that on the other side of the house [the negative team] when they are hellbent on learning technical knowledge,'' Mr Gregory said.
''We believe that a lot of the jobs that people are taking up today aren't necessarily related to their degree. So all those interpersonal skills, the critical thinking skills, the writing and presentation skills - those carry across into any job that you do, and not all of those skills are gained in a technical stem field.''
The team also believed if students were forced to study stem subjects rather than humanities subjects that they were passionate about, they would not achieve as highly.
If someone who loved history was pushed into doing a stem degree, it would not turn them into a bio-chemical innovator overnight, because they were ''not that way inclined'', the team argued.
The negative team, consisting of Patrick Devane, Paul Hunt and Connor Seddon, argued science was the key to progress.
Mr Devane said most of the human achievements over time, that had increased the quality of life and society, had come from graduates of stem subjects or one of their subsidiaries.
This was because stem subjects gave unequivocal answers, unlike humanities, which taught students to be advocates.
The team also argued stem graduates were more likely to get jobs.
The team reminded the small audience the university's policy did not target humanities research subjects such as anthropology or philosophybut subjects such as classics, art history, poetry and Scottish crime fiction.
The affirmative team was voted the winner of the debate by the audience.