Last January, President Obama ruffled the bowties of art historians across the country when he disparaged the discipline, telling a room of General Electric workers that “folks can make a lot more, potentially, with skilled manufacturing or the trades than they might with an art history degree.” He meant that learning a skilled trade is both commendable and economically beneficial. But he’s since apologized for dissing art history. With Malia Obama heading to college next fall, we wanted to toss a query of national importance out into the election ether: Should Malia Obama major in art history? Put more broadly: What’s the value of an art history degree in society today?

Perhaps sensing the presence of a foot in his mouth, the president quickly backtracked during his speech. “Nothing wrong with an art history degree,” he added. “I love art history. So I don’t want to get a bunch of emails from everybody.” But get a bunch of emails from everybody he did. The president had unwittingly set off an important debate over the value of the humanities, and, more crucially, how one actually determines “value” in relation to the critical thinking skills instilled by often-pricey liberal arts colleges and universities.

After Obama’s comments, Professor Ann C. Johns, an art historian at the University of Texas (UT), Austin, growing bored of all the discussions about how those in her field should respond to the perceived slight, decided to sit down at her computer and send Obama a positive correction about what art history offers. Like most of the humanities, the subject can be a dull memorization of canonical facts or a humanizing discipline that encourages exploration. Over time, it has moved from the former towards the latter. “We’re no longer just teaching the great masters,” Johns says. “We’re teaching material culture about the entire world, from the entire span of history.”