But there are reams of math and many fields of science (astronomy, paleontology) that have no practical utility. It's quite easy to find this sort of material in any university, in books, etc.
While I won't directly take on your social signaling claim, there are some humanities which have clear utility (while also functioning as social signals), for example knowing the precise meaning and usage of a large set of words. People in the academy are not disdained for having this practical facility.
An adjusted version of your claim: I think that in some countries (including the U.S.) math & hard science are tarnished through their association with poorly-protected and therefore indifferently remunerated professions, such as accounting, pharmacology, and engineering. Most educated people I encounter would, all things being equal, like to be good at math, but some let themselves off a little easy. Trying and being bad at history would make you dumber than a lawyer, which feels okay; trying and being bad at algebra makes you dumber than an accountant, which is humiliating--so better not to try.
>But there are reams of math and many fields of science (astronomy, paleontology) that have no practical utility.
Really? Just how do you think ships (and airplanes while over water) navigated before GPS? How do you think the radius (and from that and the density, the mass) of the earth was determined? Would you be able to drive your car to work if not for the effort of paleontologists (many of whom work for the oil industry)?
> Just how do you think ships (and airplanes while over water) navigated before GPS?
All the astronomy needed for navigation was completed in prehistoric times, as far as I know. Modern astronomy, I think, has nothing to contribute.
> How do you think the radius (and from that and the density, the mass) of the earth was determined?
Eratosthenes modeled Earth as a sphere and the sun as an infinitely distant light source; what is the astronomy there, other than the common sense idea that the sun is very far away?
I think you could also have mentioned how astronomy inspired Newton's work, which has utility. But the point here is really about modern astronomy as a field of study: dark matter, black holes, etc. -- these are not "immediately useful" topics. Studying them does not get "one's hands dirty" because it's preparation for day labor.
> Would you be able to drive your car to work if not for the effort of paleontologists (many of whom work for the oil industry)?
Yes, I think so; a few paleontological techniques are useful for exploration, but it is not a major (or essential) tool, though many geological techniques are; exploration began far before paleontologists were involved.
The standard I was applying was really that certain fields of science are as superficially impractical as humanities like history or literature. A few paleontologists employed in industry wouldn't undermine that; a few historians get picked up by industry too (arts, law, etc.).
While I won't directly take on your social signaling claim, there are some humanities which have clear utility (while also functioning as social signals), for example knowing the precise meaning and usage of a large set of words. People in the academy are not disdained for having this practical facility.
An adjusted version of your claim: I think that in some countries (including the U.S.) math & hard science are tarnished through their association with poorly-protected and therefore indifferently remunerated professions, such as accounting, pharmacology, and engineering. Most educated people I encounter would, all things being equal, like to be good at math, but some let themselves off a little easy. Trying and being bad at history would make you dumber than a lawyer, which feels okay; trying and being bad at algebra makes you dumber than an accountant, which is humiliating--so better not to try.