Report: public perception of the humanities

[apl68]

This is the point I've made several times. Unexceptional students who are not highly motivated aren't good candidates for anything. The problem isn't all the bright students who want to do humanities who are being siphoned off into other things; the problem is all of the indifferent students who are being encouraged to do humanities because it doesn't require math and keeps the enrollment up. Students who don't know what they want to do should be encouraged to get some sort of job and work for a year or two until they decide whether they want to study something, and if so, what. Motivated students will do better in school and have better job prospects on graduation.

I'm just wondering though--is this really our main problem?  You seem to have the idea that most undergrad humanities majors are losers who've been conned into wasting their time and money in "easy" programs (Because any major that's not STEM must be stupidly easy to pass classes in, right?  I mean, if you haven't already done AP Calculus by the time you graduate high school then clearly college is not for you, and you might as well go to beauty college or welding school). 

The impression I've gotten is that the under-prepared, under-motivated undergrads aren't going into humanities majors all that much.  They're mostly going into business and vocational majors of various kinds--including STEM.  Sure, a lazy student isn't going to make it in medicine or engineering.  But I suspect that there are not a few schools ready to take in STEM majors that they know are never going to make it, just so long as they pay a few semesters of tuition before washing out.  I seem to recall polly talking about a pre-med program that almost never had a student do well enough to go to med school. 

Colleges taking advantage of students who don't have what it takes to get through and succeed is a problem.  No arguments about that.  My quarrel is with the assertion that the humanities are especially bad offenders in that respect.

[apl68]

[

Yeah, it's nice to think that one could just play around for a few years, have an entry level position doing something office-like, and then be solidly middle class by age 25 by majoring in whatever one likes in college.  That's a position of privilege that is not available to many of us and  it's much more akin to "well, sometimes you have to break into the capital of the trust fund during a rough couple months" than a real option that is available to most college goers.

Sure, doing something half-assed is less likely to go to success than something one really wants.  However, some of us don't have the luxury of going with dreams and instead have to be a damn grown-up to pick something at which we can make a good go that will result in food on the table, a roof overhead, and fun things like paid sick leave, subsidized health insurance that covers most medical treatment, and matching contributions to a retirement fund.

This is what I mean about the evidence free theorizing. The Mellon foundation issues a whole report on this.

https://mellon.org/news-blog/articles/economic-benefits-and-costs-liberal-arts-education/

One key point they make "Choice of major and/or occupation may have more to do with preferences and abilities than what one is qualified to do upon graduation from any particular college or university as a result of that education."

There's a lot of it, and they don't reach any incredibly clear conclusions, but that's sort of the point. Simplistic argument about income and career outcomes isn't backed up by the actual evidence. Some of it is pretty clearly contradicted by the evidence.

That evidence-free theorizing appears to carry some assumptions about myself, too.  I never said a thing about college being a place for rich kids to goof around in "finding themselves" for a few years.  I am very much of the opinion that college is a place to get a no-nonsense education.  I'm not a first-generation college student and would not call my family background "poor."  But my mother was a schoolteacher (Later college teacher at a small school that didn't pay any more).  My father was a bi-vocational church pastor who laid bricks to support the family.  From the time I was 13 I worked full-time each summer helping Dad lay bricks for a nominal wage and the understanding that I was helping to earn my keep. 

My parents still encouraged me to major in what I wanted to major in.  And though I regret having let the Bowen report convince me to attempt the ill-advised business of going into a humanities PhD program (Fully funded), I don't at all regret my undergrad humanities major. 

I'll let polly and mashwiggle go ahead and have the last word here, because it's impossible not to with both of them.  I just want to sign off by saying that I reject absolutely the notion that the humanities are for dumb kids, or for rich dumb kids.  Smart kids from very modest backgrounds can do okay with undergrad humanities majors.  But very, very few of them are trying any more, because they're being told it's not for them.  And I believe that that's very sad.  The individual students and the humanities themselves are losing out as a result.

[Caracal]

https://mellon.org/news-blog/articles/economic-benefits-and-costs-liberal-arts-education/

I'm just partway through, but one statement I can't recall seeing before caught my eye:

Bachelor's degree recipients in the sciences and math have similar starting salaries to those with humanities, social science, professional, and pre-professional degrees, but over time, their earnings increase at a faster rate.

Another intersting quote:

The evidence of the returns to different majors is not unrelated to the fact that the labor market rewards different occupations differently, for a variety of reasons.  The relative supply and demand for particular types of labor plays a large role.

Not surprising, but hard to get through to a lot of people. Applies to degrees as well as occupations.

Right, of course. But the problem is that it is very hard to isolate the choice of major from all of the other things that go into what sort of occupation a person goes into. There are certain majors, or fields of study that are necessary for some careers. If you want to be a doctor you need to pre-med. If you'd like to work as an engineer you have to get an engineering degree.

But, once you get outside of particular professional degrees, the connection really breaks down. I know several humanities majors who code or manage servers or do other sorts of technical jobs. People with those sorts of skills are in demand, and nobody really cares how you learned how to do the work if you can do it.

[fourhats]

If you want to be a doctor you need to pre-med.

This is not true. I have put several English majors into medical schools. They were, in fact, actively sought. They took some pure science courses to prepare themselves as undergraduates, but they were definitely humanities majors (and not  double majors). Our pre-med advisors spend a lot of time explaining to students and their parents that pre-med majoring, or even STEM majoring, is not necessary to go to medical school. They are always surprised.

I once had a (young and very good) doctor who had been an English major as an undergraduate.

[Caracal]

If you want to be a doctor you need to pre-med.

This is not true. I have put several English majors into medical schools. They were, in fact, actively sought. They took some pure science courses to prepare themselves as undergraduates, but they were definitely humanities majors (and not  double majors). Our pre-med advisors spend a lot of time explaining to students and their parents that pre-med majoring, or even STEM majoring, is not necessary to go to medical school. They are always surprised.

I once had a (young and very good) doctor who had been an English major as an undergraduate.

Huh, I knew you could be pre-med and have a non science major but I didn't realize that you didn't actually need to even do a pre-med program. Good to know.

[apl68]

If you want to be a doctor you need to pre-med.

This is not true. I have put several English majors into medical schools. They were, in fact, actively sought. They took some pure science courses to prepare themselves as undergraduates, but they were definitely humanities majors (and not  double majors). Our pre-med advisors spend a lot of time explaining to students and their parents that pre-med majoring, or even STEM majoring, is not necessary to go to medical school. They are always surprised.

I once had a (young and very good) doctor who had been an English major as an undergraduate.

Thank you!  Again, humanities majors aren't just people who couldn't hack the math or didn't want to work hard.

[marshwiggle]

I'll let polly and marshwiggle go ahead and have the last word here, because it's impossible not to with both of them. 

As long as somebody else follows up, I won't be the last.

I just want to sign off by saying that I reject absolutely the notion that the humanities are for dumb kids, or for rich dumb kids.  Smart kids from very modest backgrounds can do okay with undergrad humanities majors.  But very, very few of them are trying any more, because they're being told it's not for them.  And I believe that that's very sad.  The individual students and the humanities themselves are losing out as a result.

I haven't seen much of that; in my experience bright students are more likely to take whatever interests them. It's the very average students that seem to be influenced by others.

I'm just wondering though--is this really our main problem?  You seem to have the idea that most undergrad humanities majors are losers who've been conned into wasting their time and money in "easy" programs (Because any major that's not STEM must be stupidly easy to pass classes in, right?  I mean, if you haven't already done AP Calculus by the time you graduate high school then clearly college is not for you, and you might as well go to beauty college or welding school). 

If that's the impression I've given, then that wasn't my intent. To do well in any program is going to require brains and work.

The impression I've gotten is that the under-prepared, under-motivated undergrads aren't going into humanities majors all that much.  They're mostly going into business and vocational majors of various kinds--including STEM.  Sure, a lazy student isn't going to make it in medicine or engineering.  But I suspect that there are not a few schools ready to take in STEM majors that they know are never going to make it, just so long as they pay a few semesters of tuition before washing out.  I seem to recall polly talking about a pre-med program that almost never had a student do well enough to go to med school. 

In my experience, non-selective business and computer science are the choices of lots who think that's where the money is. (Highly selective programs won't take the mediocre students.) An engineering program would have to be pretty non-selective for those students to get in. I don't think a lot of students with weak math skills are going to try physics, since they won't make it through first year.

Colleges taking advantage of students who don't have what it takes to get through and succeed is a problem.  No arguments about that.  My quarrel is with the assertion that the humanities are especially bad offenders in that respect.

To take this in what might be a more productive direction, I think what concerns people less than salary 10 years after graduation is how soon people get hired after graduation. Has anyone seen statistics on that?

(It's one of the reasons a lot of schools publish employment rate of graduates "after 1 year" or something like that, so it obscures the amount of time it takes for graduates to find a job.)

[Caracal]

I haven't seen much of that; in my experience bright students are more likely to take whatever interests them. It's the very average students that seem to be influenced by others.


In my experience, non-selective business and computer science are the choices of lots who think that's where the money is. (Highly selective programs won't take the mediocre students.) An engineering program would have to be pretty non-selective for those students to get in. I don't think a lot of students with weak math skills are going to try physics, since they won't make it through first year.

Yes, I think that's correct. Humanities majors are rarely default options. People I know who teach Comp Sci complain that they have lots of students who just think it is going to be a path to a lucrative career and don't have any particular passion for the material. Most of the majors I teach are majors because they do have an interest in the material-that's usually true even of the mediocre students.

[wareagle]

When I was advising during the Dark Ages, "pre-med" was a specific group of courses, including a year of general biology, two years of chemistry (including organic), a year of physics (algebra-based, which may have changed now), college algebra, and Intro to Psych.  Back then you did not even need to have a bachelor's degree to apply for medical school, though few went that route (90 semester credits minimum to include the pre-med core, and your MCAT scores).  I think the math requirement has probably migrated to Calculus now, and physics may have moved to calc-based.  Some colleges will add the anatomy and physiology classes or biochem or microbiology.

Medical schools themselves now offer classes in medical humanities.  Too many doctors-to-be forget that they're dealing with people, not lab specimens, and are clearly lacking in social skills, cultural competence, or empathy.  Many have never contemplated what it means to be human, or what it means to be mortal.  I would love to see more English, history, and psychology majors going into medicine.  The profession would certainly benefit.   

[phi-rabbit]

The impression I've gotten is that the under-prepared, under-motivated undergrads aren't going into humanities majors all that much.  They're mostly going into business and vocational majors of various kinds--including STEM. 

This is also my impression.  At least at my university, these students mostly take business majors, and they are by and large (though of course not in every case) a group of very underperforming students with very poor reading comprehension, logical skills, and personal responsibility.  I teach a lot of (humanities) classes that are either gen eds or fulfill a requirement for the business major so I see a lot of them and it's not pretty.

[FishProf]

When I was advising during the Dark Ages, "pre-med" was a specific group of courses, including a year of general biology, two years of chemistry (including organic), a year of physics (algebra-based, which may have changed now), college algebra, and Intro to Psych.  Back then you did not even need to have a bachelor's degree to apply for medical school, though few went that route (90 semester credits minimum to include the pre-med core, and your MCAT scores).  I think the math requirement has probably migrated to Calculus now, and physics may have moved to calc-based.  Some colleges will add the anatomy and physiology classes or biochem or microbiology.

It's not all that different now (but you are right about the Calculus and Physics).  Biochem is now required.

You don't technically need a degree either but the competition is so stiff that isn't a winning strategy.  Pre-med isn't technically a major (we have a minor, many have a concentration).  Can you imagine what a Pre-Med major graduate who didn't get into med school would be constantly having to explain?

[marshwiggle]

When I was advising during the Dark Ages, "pre-med" was a specific group of courses, including a year of general biology, two years of chemistry (including organic), a year of physics (algebra-based, which may have changed now), college algebra, and Intro to Psych.  Back then you did not even need to have a bachelor's degree to apply for medical school, though few went that route (90 semester credits minimum to include the pre-med core, and your MCAT scores).  I think the math requirement has probably migrated to Calculus now, and physics may have moved to calc-based.  Some colleges will add the anatomy and physiology classes or biochem or microbiology.

It's not all that different now (but you are right about the Calculus and Physics).  Biochem is now required.

You don't technically need a degree either but the competition is so stiff that isn't a winning strategy.  Pre-med isn't technically a major (we have a minor, many have a concentration).  Can you imagine what a Pre-Med major graduate who didn't get into med school would be constantly having to explain?

There used to be a kind of joke about the keen (and optimistic) students in first year engineering buying the jackets with their (supposed) graduation year on the sleeve..........

[spork]

I could have posted this in any one of a number of threads, but I'll put it here:

More info is available about which college majors pay off, but students aren't using it.

There are some terrible statements by higher ed administrators who don't seem to know what they should, given their positions, but what caught my attention was:

"An analysis by the Georgetown center using College Scorecard data found that nurses with associate degrees from a community college in California make more than graduates of a dozen master's degree programs at Harvard. Electrical and power transmission installers with associate degrees from a community college in West Virginia earn $80,400 in their first year, or more than twice the median income of bachelor's degree recipients generally. In all, 27 percent of workers with associate degrees make more than the median salary for their counterparts with bachelor's degrees.

Earnings vary widely not only by what kind of a degree a student gets, but where. Workers with undergraduate degrees in business administration make as little as $20,000 a year to as much as $100,000 in the first year after college, depending on which institution their degrees are from."

[polly_mer]

For the record, I have never said that mentally-below-average people go into the humanities.  I have pointed out many, many times that people who pick the humanities without having the the social capital and/or the newly acquired professional network by attending an elite enough institution are making bad decisions.  One "fun" thing about the research is how few people declare a humanities major without a pretty good dollop of social capital.  Again, I point out that I have been unable to find any research that helps answer the question of "how many poor people go to college, major in the humanities, and then fail in life" because so few truly poor people do so.

Having both parents be college educated and holding college-degree-required jobs is indeed a place of privilege compared to where many US citizens start. 

Being able to spend the summers doing internships instead of working the frontline in a small family business is a place of privilege.  Working during the year to support oneself instead of sending money back to the family/neighborhood is a place of privilege.

If someone made a case that addressed the actual situation of being poor in college, then I'd be happy to change my mind. However, since I'm very well versed in the new research related to food insecurity, shelter insecurity, and how little of the financial aid calculation serves the students who are poor instead of merely not yet self-supporting, that bar is much higher than one can meet without having a similar background in the actual research instead of googling for the one-off report.

[Hibush]

During the pandemic, oil consumption has dropped quite a bit, and financial enthusiasm about alternative energy sources has increased substantially. That has led to a familiar question "What happened to that high-paying job that was supposed to be waiting for me?" from a new group of graduates: petroleum engineers. NYTimes:" A Slap in the Face': The Pandemic Disrupts Young Oil Careers

They didn't see that coming. Do they deserve the same derision normally aimed at the humanists?