> 1) I bet a far fewer percentage of people use Shakespeare, Steinbeck, or any other literature in their jobs. Is this an argument for eliminating literature fr

> 1) I bet a far fewer percentage of people use Shakespeare, Steinbeck, or any other literature in their jobs. Is this an argument for eliminating literature from the curriculum? Why or why not? I'm sure everyone knows that Shakespeare is used in no more than a tiny sliver of jobs. To me the question is, does reading Shakespeare's plays and writing essays on them make for better humans? Or, as Caplan would probably say, is it just yet another "good worker" signal implying some combination of social class, intelligence, compliance, and conscientiousness/industriousness?