Are the Humanities Doomed?

[polly_mer]

Does that mean we circle back to what does "Are the humanities doomed" mean?

I worry about statements like

too under siege by those who question their fields' very right to existence in today's world. 

because that's not what I see playing out in the media.  What I see playing out in the media is a series of questions like:

How many people do we, as a society, need to support doing research/theory/exploration in each area of knowledge?  For example, when we're short on nurses in the community to provide good care in a timely manner, how many more theoretical physicists do we need discussing loop quantum gravity versus string theory as esoteric, academic problems?  We need some theoretical physicists because many of us remember the lessons of quantum theory--also a very esoteric topic that eventually became hugely important to new technology after decades of people playing with academic puzzles.  But do we need everyone who could be a theoretical physicist to become one or can we encourage people who have other interests and talents to try out those other areas?  A related question is: what are the trade-offs in letting everyone focus on their first discovered choice instead of continuing to explore until perhaps they get to a good-for-them choice where we are short on people?  Substitute "theoretical physicist" with your favorite humanities equivalent and the argument is the same.


What is the most efficient way to get more people farther along a lengthy path of inflexible prerequisites for human knowledge areas where we are short on people?   This gets back to the discussion months ago that some fields think of cohorts going together through a standard process and some fields are much more flexible once basic minima are met so students have a more individualized education.  People who haven't spent significant time with curricula outside their field may not appreciate how inflexible the prerequisites are in some fields and why the idea of exploring many options to declare a major at the end of sophomore year is unworkable if the goal is a four-year BS.

For purposes of concreteness, I point readers to the nifty interactive curriculum map at https://grainger.illinois.edu/academics/undergraduate/majors-and-minors/matse-non-biomaterials-map.  The nifty part is being able to hover over a box and see the prerequisite chain; the courses themselves are pretty typical for materials engineering.

For example, MSE 402: Kinetic Processes in Materials (recommended for Spring Junior Year) has prerequisites:

Fall, First Year: CHEM 102, MATH 221, MSE 182  (note that MATH 221 is Calculus I; anyone who is starting in college at math lower than that has a very high hill to climb.)
Spring, First Year: CHEM 104, MATH 231, PHYS 211
Fall, Second Year: MATH 241, MSE 201
Spring, Second Year: MATH 285
Fall, Third Year: MSE 401

These are not arbitrarily chosen prerequisites; one must have enough math to learn the physics and enough chemistry and physics to learn the thermodynamics before one can learn the kinetics.

This is not one unusual course in the curriculum; even the boxes that appear disconnected like Technical Elective will have a prerequisite chain including math, physics, and very likely chemistry or computer programming.

Thus, when one looks at some of those prerequisite chains and the course load per term while knowing the needs of the broadly educated engineer, the trade-offs are more pressing for issues related to what one can learn in a one-off course in even the most important humanity area versus having more time/energy/attention to devote to courses that pull together content knowledge from multiple STEM fields as well as soft skills related to interacting with other humans like those group projects and practice on how to communicate with various stakeholders.

What is the purpose of college?  The frequently mentioned talking points from some in the humanities ignore some inconvenient evidence that others outside of card-carrying humanities folks experience on a daily basis.

*Assertion: A college education is to prepare knowledgeable citizens for participation in civic life. 
Counter evidence: Only 30% of US residents over the age of 25 have bachelor's degrees.  Thus, a first-generation college student very likely knows people who are solid members of the community who regularly vote and yet don't have that college education.

*Assertion: A college education is to help one live a more interesting life.
Counter evidence: Again, the first-generation college student likely knows adults who have pretty good lives and also likely can read about the student debt crisis as well as the death-marching adjunct situation.

*Assertion: A college education is not for mere job preparation.  The college experience of is more important than the particular major.
Counter evidence: A person without personal networks to middle-class jobs has much more difficulty getting that middle-class job without a college degree.  Yet, not all college degrees are equal because many jobs are not advertised, but are instead filled by personal network.  Majoring in education, social work, engineering, criminal justice, or similar majors that lead to at least one specific job type that is usually advertised will work out better in terms of getting a middle-class job.  Thus, if it's true that the college experience is more important than any particular major, picking a major that has a clear path instead of having to forge a path while starting at a disadvantage is the better choice.

[marshwiggle]

For purposes of concreteness, I point readers to the nifty interactive curriculum map at https://grainger.illinois.edu/academics/undergraduate/majors-and-minors/matse-non-biomaterials-map.  The nifty part is being able to hover over a box and see the prerequisite chain; the courses themselves are pretty typical for materials engineering.

That map is freaking awesome! Every program should have one.

*Assertion: A college education is not for mere job preparation.  The college experience of is more important than the particular major.
Counter evidence: A person without personal networks to middle-class jobs has much more difficulty getting that middle-class job without a college degree.  Yet, not all college degrees are equal because many jobs are not advertised, but are instead filled by personal network.  Majoring in education, social work, engineering, criminal justice, or similar majors that lead to at least one specific job type that is usually advertised will work out better in terms of getting a middle-class job.  Thus, if it's true that the college experience is more important than any particular major, picking a major that has a clear path instead of having to forge a path while starting at a disadvantage is the better choice.

My illustration of that is this: Suppose you have three job options.

• A: 100 positions, 1000 applicants for each position
• B: 10 positions, 100 applicants for each position
• C: 1position, 100 applicants

Even though all three have a theoretical chance of getting a job of 10%, it's virtually impossible to stand out among 1000 resumes, whereas every one of the 10 applicants for C will be able to point out individual strengths of theirs.

"Hard skills" are useful because they identify jobs where everyone and his/her dog aren't potential competition.

[Hibush]

In a new (paywalled) CHE Article, a professor of philosophy argues that the humanities are doomed because social media inhibit scholarship. The tweet of death!

I am hopeful that the humanities are robust enough that abundant social interaction, including recognition and mindless chatter, don't wipe out the scholarly activity. Some humanists might even find social media fertile ground for scholarly activity.

What seems to have gotten his goat is that one of these aggregation sites created a profile of him based on miscellany found around the web. It was different from what he would have created himself.

The supposed past that he mourns is one where "discernment, hard-won expertise, and glacial, scrupulous scholarship read by only a small cabal of peers carried real weight."  I don't know where an ivory tower that isolated exists. Perhaps in some medieval network of monasteries? Does anyone have more recent examples?  Now, we have seen pathological isolation, such as in the NYU German department, but that doesn't count.

The danger is the temptation to express your findings in language those outside your small cabal might read, and to get positive feedback. Or as he writes, "What is to fear is that the good people who produce these facts will be increasingly exploited and exhausted, their dopamine mechanisms will be played upon by technologies that function like drugs, they will be rewarded for their unhealthy labors according to irrelevant machine-based quantitative measures that are an impediment rather than a motor of real discovery, and all of this will occur in an increasingly precarious institutional setting."

One sign of the end is if scholars eschew scholarly publication in favor of becoming wikipedians.

Real scholars must immediately erase their profiles from academia.edu and stop sending PDFs of their works to who-knows-who.

The finale is "My discipline, philosophy, can exist only where there are free human subjects saying what they actually think....Other disciplines might mesh more easily with the new algorithmic technologies that now shape our social life, but I doubt they can do so without extinguishing the humanistic spirit that has long animated them. But humanistic inquiry cannot survive within a university swallowed up and denatured by the Gargantua of social media. "


It is perhaps unfair of me to criticize this argument here on social media, but I'll do it anyway.

How widespread is the attitude of this author? Is it being kept alive in particular corners of academe, or of the world (the author is in France)? Does it represent the crochety old guys who can safely be ignored, or is the attitude, which leads to irrelevance, the real cause of doom?

[Hibush]

What is the most efficient way to get more people farther along a lengthy path of inflexible prerequisites for human knowledge areas where we are short on people?   This gets back to the discussion months ago that some fields think of cohorts going together through a standard process and some fields are much more flexible once basic minima are met so students have a more individualized education.  People who haven't spent significant time with curricula outside their field may not appreciate how inflexible the prerequisites are in some fields and why the idea of exploring many options to declare a major at the end of sophomore year is unworkable if the goal is a four-year BS.

For purposes of concreteness, I point readers to the nifty interactive curriculum map at https://grainger.illinois.edu/academics/undergraduate/majors-and-minors/matse-non-biomaterials-map.  The nifty part is being able to hover over a box and see the prerequisite chain; the courses themselves are pretty typical for materials engineering.

Thus, when one looks at some of those prerequisite chains and the course load per term while knowing the needs of the broadly educated engineer, the trade-offs are more pressing for issues related to what one can learn in a one-off course in even the most important humanity area versus [engineering practice]

This isolation of humanites, even when the course are required is a good point.

When looking at the flow of courses and interaction among them (which is great by the way) the LEE (liberal education elective) stands out exactly as a one-off. That part of the education has no structure (engineer tend not to like that) and has no evident connection to what they are learning elsewhere.

Would it be possible to show a sample series of LEE course that constitute a similar matrix of developing an understanding of humanity? Perhaps a group of courses that has been effective with previous engineering majors?

[marshwiggle]

The supposed past that he mourns is one where "discernment, hard-won expertise, and glacial, scrupulous scholarship read by only a small cabal of peers carried real weight." 

Translation: "Why people who think governments spend too much money on education have reasons to feel that way".

Would it be possible to show a sample series of LEE course that constitute a similar matrix of developing an understanding of humanity? Perhaps a group of courses that has been effective with previous engineering majors?

Unless lots of courses are required prerequisites of others, no such matrix exists. The fact that all kinds of knowledge are interrelated is not specific to any area of knowledge. The point about the "matrix" of knowledge is that certain things must be understood before other things can be studied. For instance, if American history can be studied without a previous knowledge of European and specifically British history, then any discussion of the political system will be lack context. (Same for political science, for the same reason.) Is that order required in many/most places?

[Parasaurolophus]

In a new (paywalled) CHE Article, a professor of philosophy argues that the humanities are doomed because social media inhibit scholarship. The tweet of death!

I have to say, that was a pretty dull read. Looks to me like the griping of an ageing historian of philosophy, and one who's already very well-established to boot--especially since it was precipitated by the launch of PhilPeople as part of the hugely important PhilPapers platform (a totally free searchable article database and repository by and for philosophers, which has been combined with the academic job listings for the discipline and was instrumental in undoing the APA's stranglehold on the job market and on conference interviews).

PhilPeople isn't just any old aggregation site. It's a powerful tool that aims to combine with the existing PhilPapers infrastructure to give philosophers access to a powerful new search engine (allowing you to seek people out based on interests, demographics, etc.), a directory of departments and relevant statistics, a social networking system, the means to find people travelling to locations/conferences near you, the ability to start discussions, etc. Some of these features exist elsewhere--e.g. Facebook and Twitter--but they're not open to everyone in the discipline. PhilPeople (and the PhilPapers foundation in general) is, and it's free, has no ads, doesn't monetize your data, etc. The PhilPapers foundation has been the driving force behind some huge (and hugely important) changes in the discipline, and is clearly a force for good. It seems to me that the reasons people are uncomfortable with other social media platforms are exactly the reasons why they should be excited about the launch of PhilPeople.

The supposed past that he mourns is one where "discernment, hard-won expertise, and glacial, scrupulous scholarship read by only a small cabal of peers carried real weight."  I don't know where an ivory tower that isolated exists. Perhaps in some medieval network of monasteries? Does anyone have more recent examples?  Now, we have seen pathological isolation, such as in the NYU German department, but that doesn't count.

I think it's fair to say that the history of philosophy can be like this, and some areas within that history are especially prone to it. There's a fair bit of top-down gatekeeping in a lot of the different areas of the history of philosophy (although to be fair, there's a fair bit of gatekeeping in the discipline more generally). Continental philosophy, too, and since he now works in France, that's what most of his colleagues work on.

[polly_mer]

In this post, I address the specific questions being asked regarding engineering curriculum.  I'm telling you now that I will double post to circle back to helping more people select humanities majors as better personal fits with minimal or no time in the poor fit of an engineering major.

Would it be possible to show a sample series of LEE course that constitute a similar matrix of developing an understanding of humanity? Perhaps a group of courses that has been effective with previous engineering majors?

Unless lots of courses are required prerequisites of others, no such matrix exists. The fact that all kinds of knowledge are interrelated is not specific to any area of knowledge. The point about the "matrix" of knowledge is that certain things must be understood before other things can be studied. For instance, if American history can be studied without a previous knowledge of European and specifically British history, then any discussion of the political system will be lack context. (Same for political science, for the same reason.) Is that order required in many/most places?

Can one create sample series of LEE courses with a similar matrix that would appeal to various groups of engineering students?  Absolutely.  I'll give a couple examples (again, I have no connection with UIUC, but I can click on lists and count) and then let's continue the discussion.

The note from below the table is "Students must take 18 hours total of Liberal Education Electives (Lib Ed Elect), of which 6 hours should be from campus General Education Social and Behavioral Sciences list, 6 hours from campus General Education Humanities and the Arts list, and 6 hours from a list approved by the college or from the campus General Education lists for Social and Behavioral Sciences or Humanities and the Arts."

Sample series A:

AAS 100: Intro Asian American Studies (SS)
AAS 297: Asian American Families in America (SS)
AAS 283: Asian American History (HP)
AAS 286: Asian American Literature (LA)
ASST 286: Southeast Asian Civilizations (HP)
CWL 307: Classic Chineses Lit (LA)

Sample series B:
AFRO 132: African American Music (LA)
AFRO 340: Dancing Black Popular Culture (HP)
ARTH 260: Graffiti and Murals (LA)
DANC 340: Dancing Black Popular Culture (HP)
AFST 243: Pan Africanism (SS)
AFST 254: Economic Systems in Africa (SS)

Sample series C:
AGED 230: Leadership Communications (SS)
AGED 260: Introduction to Leadership Studies (SS)
ECE 316: Ethics and Engineering (HP)
EDUC 202: Social Justice, School, and Society (HP)
ENGL 220: Literature and Science (LA)
ESE 202: American Environmental History (HP)

Based upon many, many, many hours of discussion regarding general education electives, their purposes, and why engineers need a good dollop of the humanities, my bet is none of these series are really what humanities folks have in mind. 

A problem is we're talking only 6 courses and only 2 of them have to be in arts and humanities.  Yet, with 132 credits already required, adding more credits is a non-starter.  Getting the humanities folks to agree to even 4 specific courses that all engineers will take and that the engineering faculty agree are the correct four is a big lift.  The next problem then becomes how to teach all those sections of those specific courses using humanities faculty with all excellent teachers who ensure either students demonstrate the knowledge we're hoping they get by this experience or fail those students to require a second try because we're serious about quality.

[mamselle]

A larger question, perhaps also not yet addressed, is 'Are institutional structures the best or only places for learning some/much/all of what the humanities teach?

Much of my learning, in dance, music, theater and the visual arts, was in one-on-one lessons, in private dance classes, in participating in theatre groups, and visiting museums. At age nine, I fell in love with Feininger's "Bird Cloud" after seeing it once on the way to the coat check room after a children's program at the Columbus GFA. Ushering for the symphony to earn high school band "concert credits," I 'got' Beethoven's sixth symphony without knowing any of the background beside what the program notes said (pre- "Immortal, Beloved").

Transmission of certain elements made more sense and could be made more rigorously within classes (Italian 6th, for example, never came up in my private lessons..) but one wants to be careful not to associate a too-dire view of human life as succumbing to base animal instincts with no enlightenment to uplift us, just because our primary teaching structures don't necessarily convey content or context for some fields as completely as they might others.

I'm partly playing devil's advocate here, since I do a lot of thinking and teaching in just such structured ways...but not entirely.

Maybe just trying to look at the question by turning it on one of its dodecahedral ends and looking at it sideways (like Feininger...?)

M.

[polly_mer]

One of my original points in posting about engineering curriculum was to help bring attention to the very different way that engineering majors experience university compared to a liberal arts education or general education requirements in a liberal arts tradition. 

To summarize, engineering majors are usually taking one or fewer humanities courses per term during their entire college career (the requirement may be only 2 humanities classes + 1 freshman comp course total), even during the first two years when curriculum plans for other majors tend to have a much more even split between major courses, general education requirements, and free electives.  High-achieving entering engineering majors tend to work hard to either transfer in credit for humanities courses taken elsewhere as summer/dual enrollment or use AP/IB/CLEP credit to reduce even further their number of humanities courses being taken during their undergrad years.

Thus, the opportunities to use fabulous electives to pick up folks who find themselves in the wrong major is much lower than one might think, even though the statistics on transferring out of engineering majors indicate a very healthy stream of people needing new majors even in their first term.  Someone upthread mentioned purposely having tables to help recruit soon after folks start that first semester and realize they aren't not engineers in their hearts.

A second point was to help provide some perspective on possible useful differentiating points on why study the humanities in college.  At the risk of being accused again of pointing out the obvious, the value of the humanities is in their uniqueness in learning about the human condition.  Studying history has a different purpose from studying literature or studying philosophy.  Overlap exists, but clumping everything under a motto of "the humanities teach critical thinking, communication, and other very useful transferrable skills" is much like trying to sell cars by pointing out that the ones on our lot have four wheels, a radio, and anti-lock brakes.  That's a useful distinction between selling bus passes that are very limited in where one can go (e.g., obtaining a one-year certificate in welding; taking an apprenticeship as an electrician) and owning a car that can go many places (e.g., getting a bachelor's degree where one obtains an education that will help cope with a rapidly changing world as a professional who can see a bigger picture).

I don't know all the answers in helping everyone see the value in the humanities.  I can, though, say that as someone on the outside seeing the messages that the contrast between something like https://www.engineergirl.org/8463/Why-Be-an-Engineer and https://history.case.edu/undergraduate/what-do-history-degree/ or http://www.bu.edu/history/undergraduate-program/why-study-history/ or https://www.roosevelt.edu/academics/programs/bachelors-in-english-ba/career-guide are very stark.

Compare the rhetorical messages of:

Engineers do interesting things that help make the world a better place while making great money and working with people.

to

It's not as bad as you think.  People don't live on grates or just teach in history/English/philosophy.  You can do lots of things like go to law school or maybe work in publishing as a writer or other careers.  Those publishing jobs are hard to get, but you'll be really competitive with an English degree.

[polly_mer]

A larger question, perhaps also not yet addressed, is 'Are institutional structures the best or only places for learning some/much/all of what the humanities teach?

I have to go to work now, but I agree that's a very important question related to the topic of "Are the Humanities Doomed?"

The short answer I'll give now is: No, mandatory, formal institutional structures targeted at only 4 years very early in a human's life are often counterproductive in achieving the stated outcomes of study in the humanities.

[marshwiggle]

I don't know all the answers in helping everyone see the value in the humanities.  I can, though, say that as someone on the outside seeing the messages that the contrast between something like https://www.engineergirl.org/8463/Why-Be-an-Engineer and https://history.case.edu/undergraduate/what-do-history-degree/ or http://www.bu.edu/history/undergraduate-program/why-study-history/ or https://www.roosevelt.edu/academics/programs/bachelors-in-english-ba/career-guide are very stark.

Compare the rhetorical messages of:

Engineers do interesting things that help make the world a better place while making great money and working with people.

to

It's not as bad as you think.  People don't live on grates or just teach in history/English/philosophy.  You can do lots of things like go to law school or maybe work in publishing as a writer or other careers.  Those publishing jobs are hard to get, but you'll be really competitive with an English degree.

One quote which illustrates a certain attitude:

You have to ask yourself what will serve you best in the rapidly changing world and economy in which you're going to work for 40 years after graduation: A fixed body of facts, or the ability to think for yourself critically, to write about what you think clearly, to read with a critical eye, and to express yourself orally very well. If you tend toward the latter answer, History, and Case, is the subject and place for you!

Oh, now I get it! Anyone who doesn't take history only gets a "fixed body of facts" that will have to do them for 50 years with no ability to think for themselves! So glad that got cleared up.

[spork]

In reference to the above, I've found the written, oral, and visual communication abilities of academic scientists and engineers to usually be superior to those of academic humanists (probably not the correct word, but you know what I mean). The latter are not walking the walk. And just like one semester of technical writing in engineering does not make one a good writer, the same is true of one semester of history or philosophy or English -- which is how humanities requirements are structured at the vast majority of post-secondary institutions.

[Hibush]

Would it be possible to show a sample series of LEE course that constitute a similar matrix of developing an understanding of humanity? Perhaps a group of courses that has been effective with previous engineering majors?

Can one create sample series of LEE courses with a similar matrix that would appeal to various groups of engineering students?  Absolutely.  I'll give a couple examples (again, I have no connection with UIUC, but I can click on lists and count) and then let's continue the discussion.

That's tremendous! Even I want to take those sequences.

This is exactly the kind of promotion that ought to be effective in getting strong enrollment and engagement by non-humanities majors in vigorous humanities courses.

[Hibush]

In reference to the above, I've found the written, oral, and visual communication abilities of academic scientists and engineers to usually be superior to those of academic humanists (probably not the correct word, but you know what I mean). The latter are not walking the walk. And just like one semester of technical writing in engineering does not make one a good writer, the same is true of one semester of history or philosophy or English -- which is how humanities requirements are structured at the vast majority of post-secondary institutions.

As a case in point, Prof. Smith's communication ability got a failing grade from Parasaurolophus above. I didn't want to pile on in the initial post on his article, but that was a lot of words to say not very much.

However, I have met philosophers who are really engaging. It is not a requirement to use turgid prose,  probably just a cultural norm.

[mythbuster]

The other issue that will confound with Polly's fabulous humanities sequences is the push for AP/IB/dual enrollment in HS. We are seeing more and more students arriving on campus with most of the Gen Ed courses already completed. If you are some sort of STEM major, those Gen Eds ARE your opportunity to explore the humanities. So these students lose out on that opportunity because they "completed" the Gen Eds before arriving. And of course today's financial aid won't let you take an extra class "for fun".
   As an FYI, this also causes downstream problems as well. These STEM students can't space out humanities courses among their science courses. Which is how we end up with first year students enrolled simultaneously in Intro Chem, Intro Bio, Intro Physics, and Calculus all in the same semester. I've seen it happen.