Are the Humanities Doomed?

[Ruralguy]

Maybe we should start from a point at which we agree and go fro. There?

How about:

1. The humanities have intrinsic value.
2.  Colleges are places where you can study humanities in more detail than just high school or your own appreciation.

Then it gets tricky....

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

This can be easily derived from 2 observations:
1) Income of post-secondary graduates is strongly affected by parental income
Canadian data, but I suspect this effect  is even stronger in the US
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2019012-eng.htm

Perhaps I've misunderstood what you're trying to say, but I'm not sure that data supports what you're saying...

I was referring to the absolute numbers (Chart 1 and associated data), not premiums.
I.e. student from upper quintile (i.e. rich) family on average makes more than student from lower quintile (i.e. poor) for the same educational level.

We were just talking about statistics and research methods... That doesn't work. You can't assume that humanities students have less income mobility in an attempt to prove that humanities studies is a bad choice for people from lower income backgrounds. And I can think of quite a few reasons this is a questionable assumption-not least all the questions about career options.

I was not assuming that humanities are special here.
I was assuming that students from low status backgrounds are more likely to end on the lower side of income range regardless of the major. Just in case of engineering that lower side actually pays enough to warrant taking loans and  forfeiting several years of full-time income.

[jimbogumbo]

spork wrote "You don't even have to look at post-college annual income quartiles. The lower the family SES, the lower the probability of completing a bachelor's degree."

This doesn't follow. It assumes the likelihood of completing is the same across degrees. The probability of anyone completing an Engineering degree is lower than the probability of say General Studies, but a BS in General Studies will have more value than an an Engineering dropout with no degree. And, for low SES students I believe it's true that students are more likely to choose a degree which they are unprepared for.

I know three definitions of presentist, none of which are statistical.

[jimbogumbo]

But "presentist bias" is, as it turns out: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X17306334

[polly_mer]

spork wrote "You don't even have to look at post-college annual income quartiles. The lower the family SES, the lower the probability of completing a bachelor's degree."

This doesn't follow.

This is not a logic argument.  That's what data states from our best measurements of actual students in the various SES.

Generally, the explanation is having more fragile arrangements that fall apart, not choice of major or even academic preparation.https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-most-students-drop-out-of-college-and-how-we-can_b_5a5d9f77e4b01ccdd48b5f46

[polly_mer]

Maybe we should start from a point at which we agree and go fro. There?

How about:

1. The humanities have intrinsic value.
2.  Colleges are places where you can study humanities in more detail than just high school or your own appreciation.

Then it gets tricky....

I disagree with point 2.

Some higher ed institutions are places where people can study the humanities.

Other higher ed institutions require humanities courses unrelated to any of the offered majors.  Those humanities courses are of varying quality and may be even worse quality than an excellent public HS, let alone an excellent private HS.

[polly_mer]

You are the most interesting person I have ever talked to online.

Well bless your heart.

You are still not living in reality, though.

The problem isn't leading adjuncts further astray.  It's refusing to accept deep in your heart the demographic and other factors that mean jobs like yours are going away as students continue to make other choices that are objectively better for their life goals.

The humanities as human knowledge aren't doomed.  However, many things associated with jobs related to the humanities at all levels are not favorable for increased undergrad study of the humanities especially when focused on majors.  Minors are just worthless as job credentials unless they are tied to direct job experience.

[Wahoo Redux]

You are still not living in reality, though.

The problem isn't leading adjuncts further astray.  It's refusing to accept deep in your heart the demographic and other factors that mean jobs like yours are going away as students continue to make other choices that are objectively better for their life goals.

Actually, Polly, I do accept that.  I have accepted it for a long time.  I am not as evangelically motivated as you are about the idea, and maybe that is why I am frustrating to you. 

I think it is a very sad scenario.  Education changes to meet demands.  What is too bad is when we lose viable majors because of cherry-picked misinformation and turn our universities into an arm of corporate America.

At the same time, I teach business writing, which is a strong new service course; composition, which, despite some noise, is going nowhere; and creative writing, which will always appeal to would-be writers and real writers. 

What is interesting is that all of us see the practical applications of our disciplines which outsiders may not.  I can virtually always tell when I am grading a paper written by someone who does not read, particularly when I have to advise someone to "write in a more formal register" or a similar language-level issue.  One of the habits I constantly urge on my bad writers is to read every day.  While I am sure statistics and algebra could be extremely useful in all sorts of life and professional scenarios, written communication is a prime skillset, particularly post-Bill Gates.

One does not need a major or even a college class to read, of course, but it helps.  And it helps to have someone directing aesthetic observations and forcing students to think about how language works.  We are in the process of dismantling majors----including languages, philosophy, and history, among others----which teaches just these sorts of advanced skills.

[mahagonny]

You are the most interesting person I have ever talked to online.

Well bless your heart.

You are still not living in reality, though.

The problem isn't leading adjuncts further astray.  It's refusing to accept deep in your heart the demographic and other factors that mean jobs like yours are going away as students continue to make other choices that are objectively better for their life goals.

The humanities as human knowledge aren't doomed.  However, many things associated with jobs related to the humanities at all levels are not favorable for increased undergrad study of the humanities especially when focused on majors.  Minors are just worthless as job credentials unless they are tied to direct job experience.

Let's say things like fine arts start to vanish from higher education. I wouldn't like it, for several reasons, but it doesn't necessarily mean the end. It will be interesting (perhaps tragically sad, perhaps not) to see how the arts survive.
If you take the brightest lights as examples. Let's say violinist Hilary Hahn. Could she have attained the success and stature she has without accredited programs doing what they do? Would the same quality of teachers be available? Could she still have suitable places to perform? If yes, then classical music survives, because being in the same room with a superstar is the same experience, and it's the reason we have arts.
At the same time, jazz music evolved without any help from academia at all. Rejection even.  But it had a marketplace and a culture that were receptive. How to replicate something like that, who knows.

[Ruralguy]

What I meant by my statement 2 is just that colleges and universities are homes for the humanities. I didn't get to debating about majors or gen Ed requirements.

I guess I was trying to get us away from culture war morass and see if anyone could agree that the sky is blue, but maybe that isn't possible.

[mahagonny]

What I meant by my statement 2 is just that colleges and universities are homes for the humanities. I didn't get to debating about majors or gen Ed requirements.

They are indeed homes and if there isn't some kind of home somewhere, the humanities will be in trouble. But maybe it doesn't have to be the same kind of home. As in, whether accredited or not.

[Wahoo Redux]

What I meant by my statement 2 is just that colleges and universities are homes for the humanities. I didn't get to debating about majors or gen Ed requirements.

I agree with statement 2.

That's fantastic on the Hilary Hahn call out.  She is truly one of the all-time greats.  And a great person too.

[jimbogumbo]

You are the most interesting person I have ever talked to online.

Well bless your heart.

You are still not living in reality, though.

The problem isn't leading adjuncts further astray.  It's refusing to accept deep in your heart the demographic and other factors that mean jobs like yours are going away as students continue to make other choices that are objectively better for their life goals.

The humanities as human knowledge aren't doomed.  However, many things associated with jobs related to the humanities at all levels are not favorable for increased undergrad study of the humanities especially when focused on majors.  Minors are just worthless as job credentials unless they are tied to direct job experience.

Let's say things like fine arts start to vanish from higher education. I wouldn't like it, for several reasons, but it doesn't necessarily mean the end. It will be interesting (perhaps tragically sad, perhaps not) to see how the arts survive.
If you take the brightest lights as examples. Let's say violinist Hilary Hahn. Could she have attained the success and stature she has without accredited programs doing what they do? Would the same quality of teachers be available? Could she still have suitable places to perform? If yes, then classical music survives, because being in the same room with a superstar is the same experience, and it's the reason we have arts.
At the same time, jazz music evolved without any help from academia at all. Rejection even.  But it had a marketplace and a culture that were receptive. How to replicate something like that, who knows.

I think that even jazz owes much to university and conservatory education. I have not done a deep dive, but as an example here is link to short bios of the Marsalis family. every one of them has a music degree and/or studied at a conservatory.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marsalis-family

[mahagonny]

You are the most interesting person I have ever talked to online.

Well bless your heart.

You are still not living in reality, though.

The problem isn't leading adjuncts further astray.  It's refusing to accept deep in your heart the demographic and other factors that mean jobs like yours are going away as students continue to make other choices that are objectively better for their life goals.

The humanities as human knowledge aren't doomed.  However, many things associated with jobs related to the humanities at all levels are not favorable for increased undergrad study of the humanities especially when focused on majors.  Minors are just worthless as job credentials unless they are tied to direct job experience.

Let's say things like fine arts start to vanish from higher education. I wouldn't like it, for several reasons, but it doesn't necessarily mean the end. It will be interesting (perhaps tragically sad, perhaps not) to see how the arts survive.
If you take the brightest lights as examples. Let's say violinist Hilary Hahn. Could she have attained the success and stature she has without accredited programs doing what they do? Would the same quality of teachers be available? Could she still have suitable places to perform? If yes, then classical music survives, because being in the same room with a superstar is the same experience, and it's the reason we have arts.
At the same time, jazz music evolved without any help from academia at all. Rejection even.  But it had a marketplace and a culture that were receptive. How to replicate something like that, who knows.

I think that even jazz owes much to university and conservatory education. I have not done a deep dive, but as an example here is link to short bios of the Marsalis family. every one of them has a music degree and/or studied at a conservatory.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marsalis-family

i agree. But it didn't start out that way, and for years was shut out of higher ed. That's all changed now.  And where classical is concerned if there hadn't been a conservatory there would still have been a church. A home, as one poster put it.
The university is not where art forms are born, but it is where they are perpetuated. As they become more and more dependent on educational setting to survive, they change, sometimes. Not always for the better. Sometimes academics and critics decide how they should evolve as opposed to chronicling how they did evolve.
Of course the Marsalises are accomplished in classical too, especially Wynton. Big fan here.

[marshwiggle]

I think that even jazz owes much to university and conservatory education. I have not done a deep dive, but as an example here is link to short bios of the Marsalis family. every one of them has a music degree and/or studied at a conservatory.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Marsalis-family

i agree. But it didn't start out that way, and for years was shut out of higher ed. That's all changed now.  And where classical is concerned if there hadn't been a conservatory there would still have been a church. A home, as one poster put it.
The university is not where art forms are born, but it is where they are perpetuated.

This is actually kind of like computer science. Lots of good programmers had no formal training but picked it up on their own. In areas where high levels of skill are rare, but easy to identify, people can become experts outside of academia, but over time programs develop to formalize the path students can follow to achieve proficiency.