Atlantic: The Humanities Have Sown the Seeds of Their Own Destruction (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/humanities-university-conservative-critics/676890/)
Lower Deck:
QuoteIf the humanities have become more political over the past decade, it is the result of pressure to prove that they are "useful."
QuoteIf we have any hope of resuscitating fields like English and history, we must rescue the humanities from the utilitarian appraisals that both their champions and their critics subject them to. We need to recognize that the conservatives are right, albeit not in the way they think: The humanities are useless in many senses of the term. But that doesn't mean they're without value.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 19, 2023, 04:43:09 PMAtlantic: The Humanities Have Sown the Seeds of Their Own Destruction (https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/humanities-university-conservative-critics/676890/)
Lower Deck:
QuoteIf the humanities have become more political over the past decade, it is the result of pressure to prove that they are "useful."
QuoteIf we have any hope of resuscitating fields like English and history, we must rescue the humanities from the utilitarian appraisals that both their champions and their critics subject them to. We need to recognize that the conservatives are right, albeit not in the way they think: The humanities are useless in many senses of the term. But that doesn't mean they're without value.
Interesting quote from the article:
QuoteAdministrators, not professors, usually approve hiring decisions, and these administrators are under intense external and internal pressure to diversify the faculty and curricula. Diversifying the faculty is a noble goal—I'm a beneficiary of these initiatives—but universities have looked for clumsy shortcuts. The reigning assumption is that scholars of color are disproportionately represented in activism-oriented fields such as "decolonial theory," which means that deans—always seeking more brown faces to put on university websites—are more likely to approve new tenure lines in ideologically supercharged, diversity-rich disciplines. It is often faculty who are trying to safeguard their fields from the progressive machinations of their bureaucratic overlords. But faced with a choice between watching their departments shrink or agreeing to hire in areas that help realize the personnel-engineering schemes of their bosses, departments tend to choose the latter.
Outside observers mock job ads looking for scholars working on "anti-racist Shakespeare," and these listings are frequently tortured and ridiculous. However, such ads do not always reflect the scholarly priorities of the professors on the hiring committees. Rather, they're often a product of the plotting of superiors who care more about their university's public-facing diversity data than they do the intellectual needs of the English department, the interests of its students, or the health of the discipline more broadly. A humanities faculty member at an elite research university—who did not want to be identified, because he does not have tenure—is only one of several professors who told me that his department struggles to balance its curricular needs with the more political subfields being pushed by administrators.
Anyone involved with humanities hiring, is this true?
The Atlantic does what most outlets and people do, which is conflating hiring at elite institutions or outliers like Oberlin with what happens at NW State or Generic College (SLAC).
Every statement in this article is highly dependent on the institution.
There are some very broad generalizations that hold, such as increased efforts to hire people of color. But assuming that's more an admin than faculty thing is presumptuous (and probably untrue at my school). Also, assuming its more of a humanities thing might be true nationally (I don't see data presented in the article), but is not really true at my school where it definitely has been across the board, including even the physical sciences.
And conservatives can push certain fields too, and do. But most fields seem to be pushed either due to practicality as emphasized by large number of majors, or by student interest in lots of lower level courses in the subject because its cool, but not really interested in a major. if a subject has little interest in it a either as a major OR as a cool elective thing, then its probably going to die, and will only live so long as its subsidized by college-wide curricular requirements.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 20, 2023, 07:44:59 AMAnyone involved with humanities hiring, is this true?
Kind'a, from my limited experience. Although, the drive to diversify, in part for optics, also takes place at the faculty level. Harper does the typical political thing and blames administrators for politicizing the humanities, and from what I have seen that is not entirely inaccurate. But the faculty are willing accomplices----usually because of earnest idealism. Harper has simplified the grassroots DEI movement in the humanities to politics, but that is a typical rhetorical move for the popular press which likes an editorial slant.
When I was the grad student rep on a tenure track job search, the dean made it known that we should have some minority candidates, and in fact, we were supposed to hire a minority candidate if we could, according to the chair. For whatever reason, we did not have good minority candidates on paper. We invited a person of color to the campus visit anyway, and hu did not do very well. We hired a majority person in the end.
After my wife had been at her first professor job for several years, someone let slip that the SC thought her name on paper sounded African-American (why we don't know) and since a lot of her scholarship revolved around minority authors, they thought she was a person of color. They were surprised to find that they'd brought a Caucasian to the campus visit, and apparently went back to the applicant pool looking for people of color; they'd already expended the money to bring their three final candidates to campus, however, so had to hire another majority person.
There's other stories as well.
I think Harper's last paragraph is far more insightful.
QuoteIronically, activist faculty and their conservative critics share the same nihilistic vision of the future of higher education: Both believe that the only valuable forms of research and teaching are those that accomplish something obviously useful. Such views are born of austerity, and they are utterly foreign to me. When I fell in love with English on a college campus many years ago, it was precisely because studying John Milton and James Joyce and Octavia Butler was so intoxicatingly useless in market terms. It rejected the assumption that value and utility are synonyms. The humanities captivated me—and foiled the best-laid plans of mice and pre-med—because literature and philosophy seemed to begin from a quietly revolutionary premise: There is thinking that does not exist merely to become work, and knowledge that does not exist merely to become capital. As a blue-collar undergraduate, that was a radical proposition. And it's the only kind of politics we should expect—or require—from the humanities.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 20, 2023, 04:54:16 PMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 20, 2023, 07:44:59 AMAnyone involved with humanities hiring, is this true?
Kind'a, from my limited experience. Although, the drive to diversify, in part for optics, also takes place at the faculty level. Harper does the typical political thing and blames administrators for politicizing the humanities, and from what I have seen that is not entirely inaccurate. But the faculty are willing accomplices----usually because of earnest idealism.
That sounds about right. My feeling was that if faculty felt they were being held hostage by administrators, there is a lot of Stockholm Syndrome going on.
QuoteHarper has simplified the grassroots DEI movement in the humanities to politics, but that is a typical rhetorical move for the popular press which likes an editorial slant.
When I was the grad student rep on a tenure track job search, the dean made it known that we should have some minority candidates, and in fact, we were supposed to hire a minority candidate if we could, according to the chair. For whatever reason, we did not have good minority candidates on paper. We invited a person of color to the campus visit anyway, and hu did not do very well. We hired a majority person in the end.
After my wife had been at her first professor job for several years, someone let slip that the SC thought her name on paper sounded African-American (why we don't know) and since a lot of her scholarship revolved around minority authors, they thought she was a person of color. They were surprised to find that they'd brought a Caucasian to the campus visit, and apparently went back to the applicant pool looking for people of color; they'd already expended the money to bring their three final candidates to campus, however, so had to hire another majority person.
There's other stories as well.
I think Harper's last paragraph is far more insightful.
QuoteIronically, activist faculty and their conservative critics share the same nihilistic vision of the future of higher education: Both believe that the only valuable forms of research and teaching are those that accomplish something obviously useful. Such views are born of austerity, and they are utterly foreign to me. When I fell in love with English on a college campus many years ago, it was precisely because studying John Milton and James Joyce and Octavia Butler was so intoxicatingly useless in market terms. It rejected the assumption that value and utility are synonyms. The humanities captivated me—and foiled the best-laid plans of mice and pre-med—because literature and philosophy seemed to begin from a quietly revolutionary premise: There is thinking that does not exist merely to become work, and knowledge that does not exist merely to become capital. As a blue-collar undergraduate, that was a radical proposition. And it's the only kind of politics we should expect—or require—from the humanities.
I don't know if this is related or not, but my thought was that the value of
academia, in
all fields, was that it was the place where "critical thinking" meant that analysis was supposed to be
more detailed and nuanced than what was popular in society, and so intentionally
*avoided "taking sides" on issues of the day. I feel like that's the
ideological analog of what he's saying.
(*Not because the issues don't matter; in fact, because they matter
so much, it's vital that we not let our
own conscious or unconscious preconceptions rule our actions. It's based on intellectual humility, not on apathy.)
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 20, 2023, 04:54:16 PMQuoteIronically, activist faculty and their conservative critics share the same nihilistic vision of the future of higher education: Both believe that the only valuable forms of research and teaching are those that accomplish something obviously useful. Such views are born of austerity, and they are utterly foreign to me. When I fell in love with English on a college campus many years ago, it was precisely because studying John Milton and James Joyce and Octavia Butler was so intoxicatingly useless in market terms. It rejected the assumption that value and utility are synonyms. The humanities captivated me—and foiled the best-laid plans of mice and pre-med—because literature and philosophy seemed to begin from a quietly revolutionary premise: There is thinking that does not exist merely to become work, and knowledge that does not exist merely to become capital. As a blue-collar undergraduate, that was a radical proposition. And it's the only kind of politics we should expect—or require—from the humanities.
I can't say as I was quite that idealistic when I majored in history and sought a career in academia. I was an example of what Emily "Ms. Mentor" Toth called The Person Who Is Very Good in School. I was the sort of youth who thrived in a school environment. My academic performance was the source of most of my praise and achievements growing up. Going to grad school and becoming a college professor appealed because it was a chance to stay in school for the rest of my life. I
did believe that the study of history was useful, and that teachers were worth looking up to, and that becoming a teacher would be a way to serve God in my profession. I believe that many academics and would-be academics went into academia for a similar collection of motives.
The previous generation grew up in a nation so immensely prosperous that it was able to give many such youths the chance to study what they wanted and make a living at it. My generation of students were taught that such a thing was possible, but found that in reality it was rapidly becoming an option available only to a fortunate few. Today's youth appear to have learned that lesson all too well, to the point where they're afraid to even try studying anything that they're told doesn't offer a payoff in terms of employment potential. As unhelpful as the sort of faculty activism the author of the article talks about may be, the economic realities, and the perceptions surrounding them, probably have much more to do with the decline of the humanities.
Quote from: apl68 on December 21, 2023, 07:46:51 AMAs unhelpful as the sort of faculty activism the author of the article talks about may be, the economic realities, and the perceptions surrounding them, probably have much more to do with the decline of the humanities.
Agreed, with the caveat that the "barista" perception of the economic realities is the real culprit.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 08:47:59 AMQuote from: apl68 on December 21, 2023, 07:46:51 AMAs unhelpful as the sort of faculty activism the author of the article talks about may be, the economic realities, and the perceptions surrounding them, probably have much more to do with the decline of the humanities.
Agreed, with the caveat that the "barista" perception of the economic realities is the real culprit.
True enough. That perception is mostly a crock, but such a generally-believed one that it seems impossible to combat.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 08:47:59 AMQuote from: apl68 on December 21, 2023, 07:46:51 AMAs unhelpful as the sort of faculty activism the author of the article talks about may be, the economic realities, and the perceptions surrounding them, probably have much more to do with the decline of the humanities.
Agreed, with the caveat that the "barista" perception of the economic realities is the real culprit.
Are those two things (activism and "barista" perception) possibly related? I don't recall 2 or 3 decades ago as much disparaging of the economic prospects of humanities graduates. Is it that the activist "Change The World!" mindset creates a huge expectation of outcomes that can't be met by reality?
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 21, 2023, 09:00:01 AMAre those two things (activism and "barista" perception) possibly related? [...] Is it that the activist "Change The World!" mindset creates a huge expectation of outcomes that can't be met by reality?
I don't know but I doubt it, Marshy. You are very invested in attacking the humanities and "activists" who you perceive has working off an "ideology," but I don't think this is it.
Remember, conservativism and Christianity are also pretty chauvinistic about "Change the World!" themselves.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 21, 2023, 09:00:01 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 08:47:59 AMQuote from: apl68 on December 21, 2023, 07:46:51 AMAs unhelpful as the sort of faculty activism the author of the article talks about may be, the economic realities, and the perceptions surrounding them, probably have much more to do with the decline of the humanities.
Agreed, with the caveat that the "barista" perception of the economic realities is the real culprit.
Are those two things (activism and "barista" perception) possibly related? I don't recall 2 or 3 decades ago as much disparaging of the economic prospects of humanities graduates. Is it that the activist "Change The World!" mindset creates a huge expectation of outcomes that can't be met by reality?
Oh, we were disparaging them in engineering. Engineering class of 2000, and the oft-repeated joke was "What did the arts grad say to the engineer? 'Would you like fries with that?'" Nowadays I'm sure the engineering students have switched McDonald's employee for barista.
Oh gosh, we were telling that dumb McD's joke in the 80's and it probably originated at least a decade prior. So, there's been some disdain for a while. Yet, it probably is worse now.
There's something else going on, too.
Barrista, or fast food worker, in the 1950's was a job that didn't require a college degree to get. Since then, many of those jobs require fewer cognitive skills than they used to. Instead of adding up a bill with pencil and paper, nowadays a computer does it. It's not doing the jobs that has become harder, rather they're easier. It's getting the jobs that is more difficult.
Why? There are so many college graduates to choose from!
Why is it that STEM folks have always been caught on the "job" business in regards to the humanities?
Is there some sort of competition there?
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 07:03:14 PMWhy is it that STEM folks have always been caught on the "job" business in regards to the humanities?
I don't understand that question.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 07:03:14 PMWhy is it that STEM folks have always been caught on the "job" business in regards to the humanities?
Is there some sort of competition there?
If I understand your question, then the answer is that
disillusionment among graduates seems to be higher in the humanities. Periodically in the news you'll see stories about unemployed engineering graduates who can't get good jobs, etc., but they seem
much more rare. If all of the humanities graduates had chosen their programs for personal enrichment, and were content with their employment after graduation, then the "jobs" question wouldn't be coming up.
It is the
graduates themselves, talking about their high debt and poor job prospects, that bring up the issue. One way or another, their expectations were out of line with their outcomes.
If that was as common among STEM students, it would be just as common in the news.
It's not the outcomes themselves that are the problem; it's the mismatch with expectations, and that seems higher in the humanities.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2023, 05:27:23 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 07:03:14 PMWhy is it that STEM folks have always been caught on the "job" business in regards to the humanities?
Is there some sort of competition there?
If I understand your question, then the answer is that disillusionment among graduates seems to be higher in the humanities. Periodically in the news you'll see stories about unemployed engineering graduates who can't get good jobs, etc., but they seem much more rare. If all of the humanities graduates had chosen their programs for personal enrichment, and were content with their employment after graduation, then the "jobs" question wouldn't be coming up.
It is the graduates themselves, talking about their high debt and poor job prospects, that bring up the issue. One way or another, their expectations were out of line with their outcomes.
If that was as common among STEM students, it would be just as common in the news. It's not the outcomes themselves that are the problem; it's the mismatch with expectations, and that seems higher in the humanities.
I don't recall seeing articles about
any college grads having trouble getting good jobs. Now, within the first year of graduation? Maybe. A tough economy? Or are they trying to get into a very competitive field, like museum curating, journalism, or the like? But... it's not a thing. Maybe they work at Banana Republic or Starbucks right after they graduate, but they can move pretty quickly into management training programs or other professional roles.
STEM grads have the highest rate of transferring out of their fields upon graduation. So, even though they have high rates of employment, they are not likely to be working in their field of study a few years after graduation. Not sure where I saw that statistic but I cited it in a paper I wrote for my EdD and I don't feel like looking for it.
Quote from: ciao_yall on December 22, 2023, 07:51:01 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2023, 05:27:23 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 07:03:14 PMWhy is it that STEM folks have always been caught on the "job" business in regards to the humanities?
Is there some sort of competition there?
If I understand your question, then the answer is that disillusionment among graduates seems to be higher in the humanities. Periodically in the news you'll see stories about unemployed engineering graduates who can't get good jobs, etc., but they seem much more rare. If all of the humanities graduates had chosen their programs for personal enrichment, and were content with their employment after graduation, then the "jobs" question wouldn't be coming up.
It is the graduates themselves, talking about their high debt and poor job prospects, that bring up the issue. One way or another, their expectations were out of line with their outcomes.
If that was as common among STEM students, it would be just as common in the news. It's not the outcomes themselves that are the problem; it's the mismatch with expectations, and that seems higher in the humanities.
I don't recall seeing articles about any college grads having trouble getting good jobs. Now, within the first year of graduation? Maybe. A tough economy? Or are they trying to get into a very competitive field, like museum curating, journalism, or the like? But... it's not a thing. Maybe they work at Banana Republic or Starbucks right after they graduate, but they can move pretty quickly into management training programs or other professional roles.
STEM grads have the highest rate of transferring out of their fields upon graduation. So, even though they have high rates of employment, they are not likely to be working in their field of study a few years after graduation. Not sure where I saw that statistic but I cited it in a paper I wrote for my EdD and I don't feel like looking for it.
I believe I heard somewhere that about 40% of engineering graduates are actually working in "engineering" professions. But lots of the others are working in math-heavy or technical fields where their skills make a big difference. There don't seem to be a lot of those other 60% complaining about their jobs or income.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2023, 05:27:23 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 07:03:14 PMWhy is it that STEM folks have always been caught on the "job" business in regards to the humanities?
Is there some sort of competition there?
If I understand your question, then the answer is that disillusionment among graduates seems to be higher in the humanities. Periodically in the news you'll see stories about unemployed engineering graduates who can't get good jobs, etc., but they seem much more rare. If all of the humanities graduates had chosen their programs for personal enrichment, and were content with their employment after graduation, then the "jobs" question wouldn't be coming up.
It is the graduates themselves, talking about their high debt and poor job prospects, that bring up the issue. One way or another, their expectations were out of line with their outcomes.
If that was as common among STEM students, it would be just as common in the news. It's not the outcomes themselves that are the problem; it's the mismatch with expectations, and that seems higher in the humanities.
Why are you STEMy folks so obsessed with this?
I think its our stakeholders that are obsessed with these issues, hence, over the years, increased interest in STEM and Business at my school, over, say English, which has lost a lot of interest. But I will say that "interest" is very different from completion, which is different from completion with good performance, which is different from staying in the field at all after graduation.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 22, 2023, 08:29:46 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2023, 05:27:23 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 07:03:14 PMWhy is it that STEM folks have always been caught on the "job" business in regards to the humanities?
Is there some sort of competition there?
If I understand your question, then the answer is that disillusionment among graduates seems to be higher in the humanities. Periodically in the news you'll see stories about unemployed engineering graduates who can't get good jobs, etc., but they seem much more rare. If all of the humanities graduates had chosen their programs for personal enrichment, and were content with their employment after graduation, then the "jobs" question wouldn't be coming up.
It is the graduates themselves, talking about their high debt and poor job prospects, that bring up the issue. One way or another, their expectations were out of line with their outcomes.
If that was as common among STEM students, it would be just as common in the news. It's not the outcomes themselves that are the problem; it's the mismatch with expectations, and that seems higher in the humanities.
Why are you STEMy folks so obsessed with this?
Maybe I misunderstood your original question. What did you mean by this:
'Why is it that STEM folks have always been caught on the "job" business in regards to the humanities?'
Any Greek philosophers complaining about the state of the field in the fourth century B.C.? I imagine there were plenty.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2023, 10:09:13 AMMaybe I misunderstood your original question. What did you mean by this:
'Why is it that STEM folks have always been caught on the "job" business in regards to the humanities?'
Yes. The job market in the humanities is very bad and getting worse. You comment frequently upon this.
Why do you care?
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2023, 08:11:21 AMI believe I heard somewhere that about 40% of engineering graduates are actually working in "engineering" professions. But lots of the others are working in math-heavy or technical fields where their skills make a big difference. There don't seem to be a lot of those other 60% complaining about their jobs or income.
My neighbor is in the 60% of that group. She works as a "wealth advisor" for a national brokerage firm. Seems happy about the move from engineering jobs.
Quote from: Wahoo Redux on December 22, 2023, 08:29:46 AMQuote from: marshwiggle on December 22, 2023, 05:27:23 AMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 21, 2023, 07:03:14 PMWhy is it that STEM folks have always been caught on the "job" business in regards to the humanities?
Is there some sort of competition there?
If I understand your question, then the answer is that disillusionment among graduates seems to be higher in the humanities. Periodically in the news you'll see stories about unemployed engineering graduates who can't get good jobs, etc., but they seem much more rare. If all of the humanities graduates had chosen their programs for personal enrichment, and were content with their employment after graduation, then the "jobs" question wouldn't be coming up.
It is the graduates themselves, talking about their high debt and poor job prospects, that bring up the issue. One way or another, their expectations were out of line with their outcomes.
If that was as common among STEM students, it would be just as common in the news. It's not the outcomes themselves that are the problem; it's the mismatch with expectations, and that seems higher in the humanities.
Why are you STEMy folks so obsessed with this?
It seems to conflate news stories about PhDs with undergraduates. (And yes, even then we should be worried about the availability heuristic. But that conflation sure does a lot of work.)
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on December 22, 2023, 10:59:48 PMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 22, 2023, 08:29:46 AMWhy are you STEMy folks so obsessed with this?
It seems to conflate news stories about PhDs with undergraduates. (And yes, even then we should be worried about the availability heuristic. But that conflation sure does a lot of work.)
If that conflation is responsible for declining enrollment in humanities, it's sadly ironic. Institutions that tried to
enhance their reputation by producing PhDs who wound up not having good job prospects actually
compromised their reputation for prospective undergraduates who think the job picture is bleak for them.
But if that's the case, then in the long term it should be self-correcting; fewer undergrads means fewer PhD candidates down the road, which means fewer
excess PhDs, which mean fewer stories of un- or under-employed PhDs, which means it doesn't deter potential undergrads.
Quote from: marshwiggle on December 23, 2023, 08:26:32 AMQuote from: Parasaurolophus on December 22, 2023, 10:59:48 PMQuote from: Wahoo Redux on December 22, 2023, 08:29:46 AMWhy are you STEMy folks so obsessed with this?
It seems to conflate news stories about PhDs with undergraduates. (And yes, even then we should be worried about the availability heuristic. But that conflation sure does a lot of work.)
If that conflation is responsible for declining enrollment in humanities, it's sadly ironic. Institutions that tried to enhance their reputation by producing PhDs who wound up not having good job prospects actually compromised their reputation for prospective undergraduates who think the job picture is bleak for them.
But if that's the case, then in the long term it should be self-correcting; fewer undergrads means fewer PhD candidates down the road, which means fewer excess PhDs, which mean fewer stories of un- or under-employed PhDs, which means it doesn't deter potential undergrads.
Why are you so concerned about all this?