Intelligent young people want to go to university, and it is logical for a country to provide university places for them to ensure that there Will be well-trained men and women to run the Government and industry in the future. So in the 1960s the Government set up a number of new universities in Britain to give everyone with sufficient ability the opportunity to study. But now something has gone wrong. There is still fierce competition to go to university to study arts subjects, but many places for scientists are not taken up.

The new universities concentrated on science because it seemed practical. They developed new courses so as not to imitate traditional university education. Why have their calculations proved wrong? One reason is that a lot of young people can get enough qualifications to work in industry by going to a Polytechnic. They think university courses are too long and too theoretical. But this does not explain why the majority of students still prefer arts subjects to science subjects.

A few months ago this magazine sent a team of interviewers to schools to find out why children are prejudiced against science. Their answers provided this surprising picture of a typical scientist: He is rather dull. He spends all day in a laboratory wearing a white coat and making bad smells but he isn't very interested in his work. He doesn't talk about anything but science. He doesn't play games well, and he isn't attractive to girls! On the other hand, the arts graduate is seen as a much more lively person. He has a good sense of humour and he is interested in sport and pop music. He has a lot of girl friends and always has a good time! Logically, the children wanted to study arts to avoid becoming dull, unattractive scientists.

Of course, the children were not describing all scientists; they were really giving us their opinion of their science teachers and comparing them with the English teacher or the history teacher. But why do science teachers seem less attractive to them than arts teachers? The answer to this question probably explains why so many science places at the new universities are empty.

Our conclusion is that society offers good scientists well-paid jobs and the opportunity to use their studies in research laboratories or in industry and so to lead rewarding and interesting lives. In general, only the less adventurous ones return to school to teach. But a bright graduate in literature or history must either teach his subject to earn a living, or forget about it and become a salesman or an advertising agent. So arts teachers are likely to be more interesting, attractive people than science teachers and to care more about their subject, and their pupils try to be like them and follow in their footsteps.