Are the Humanities Doomed?

[dismalist]

As so often, the NY Times gets its history wrong.

America's higher education system was founded on the liberal arts and the widespread understanding that mass access to art, culture, language and science was essential if America was to thrive.

America's education system was founded on religious schools turning out ministers. Over time, it became social clubs for the well off. This last until well into the 1950's.

There were two shocks, one English and one German. The English shock was the advent of the school in which you learned technical stuff. That's what the land grant colleges were for. The German shock, early 19th century, was the research university. Holy shit! Gotta compete. And we got some, and we got land grants becoming research universities.

The competition of the Cold War turned some of the country clubs into almost meritocracies and kept the research universities and the land grants in the green.

In many ways, there's nothing really new going on, with colleges preaching religion again, a State-God secular religion this time around, except that the unbridled expansion of higher ed has ended.

And here the NY times is decidedly wrong. It's a demand side phenomenon, not a supply side phenomenon. Students don't want the humanities anymore. If they did, the money would be there, for the money follows the student in US higher ed.

Party's over.

[Wahoo Redux]

As so often, the NY Times gets its history wrong.

America's higher education system was founded on the liberal arts and the widespread understanding that mass access to art, culture, language and science was essential if America was to thrive.

And here the NY times is decidedly wrong. It's a demand side phenomenon, not a supply side phenomenon. Students don't want the humanities anymore. If they did, the money would be there, for the money follows the student in US higher ed.

Party's over.

That's a good little summation of history.  I like it.

But you missed the point, Big-D.

Yes, we all understand that students are flocking away from the humanities.  What Devereaux is saying is that it is the false narrative RE "employability" and the lib arts that is driving students away and that politicians are exploiting.  That is the point of this opinion piece.  Some people just seem impervious to facts surrounding liberal arts degrees and employment opportunities.

And NYT uses facts, so it is not "wrong."  Devereaux simply has another perspective than you do.

If I take issue with the piece it is the cliched animosity towards politicians (although, sure, the Repubs have been aiming at people who think differently than they do for years) and fails to address the attitudes expressed around the dinner table and in shallow media portrayals.

However, the party may be over, at least for now.

[dismalist]

Devereaux simply has another perspective than you do.

S/he has another theory. His/hers is wrong and mine is right. The claim is one of false consciousness, or people are stupid. I guess they mustn't vote.

As I described upthread, the wages of humanities graduates are not lower than for some other fields. So one more humanities graduate will indeed find a decent job.

But thousands more won't! That would further push down their wages, causing them to leave. What has happened in the past is that the humanities have shrunk, keeping up the wage there! 

[Wahoo Redux]

Devereaux simply has another perspective than you do.

S/he has another theory. His/hers is wrong and mine is right. The claim is one of false consciousness, or people are stupid. I guess they mustn't vote.

Does history have one certain theory?  Or can multiple theories / perspectives / interpretations be correct?

As I described upthread, the wages of humanities graduates are not lower than for some other fields. So one more humanities graduate will indeed find a decent job.

But thousands more won't!

"Thousands?"  Hmmmm, the stats don't really back that up.  Deveroux addresses that a couple of times with links.

https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/why-study-history/careers-for-history-majors/what-can-you-do-with-that-history-degree

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/philosophers-dont-get-much-respect-but-their-earnings-dont-suck/

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Bachelor_of_Arts_(BA)%2C_Philosophy/Salary

And I swore to myself that I wouldn't do anyone else's homework, but I frequently find myself doing a quick Google search for facts regarding English majors and the working world for very smart people who should be doing this for themselves.

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/field-of-degree/english/english-field-of-degree.htm

https://employedhistorian.com/english-major/statistics-facts/

And figures regarding "part-time" work do not necessarily tell us that people are not finding work----these figures will include people like me who have taken a little time off to work on projects, stay-at-home parents, people just out of college, lazybutts and all the rest.

[dismalist]

Devereaux simply has another perspective than you do.

S/he has another theory. His/hers is wrong and mine is right. The claim is one of false consciousness, or people are stupid. I guess they mustn't vote.

Does history have one certain theory?  Or can multiple theories / perspectives / interpretations be correct?

As I described upthread, the wages of humanities graduates are not lower than for some other fields. So one more humanities graduate will indeed find a decent job.

But thousands more won't!

"Thousands?"  Hmmmm, the stats don't really back that up.  Deveroux addresses that a couple of times with links.

https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/why-study-history/careers-for-history-majors/what-can-you-do-with-that-history-degree

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/philosophers-dont-get-much-respect-but-their-earnings-dont-suck/

https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Degree=Bachelor_of_Arts_(BA)%2C_Philosophy/Salary

And I swore to myself that I wouldn't do anyone else's homework, but I frequently find myself doing a quick Google search for facts regarding English majors and the working world for very smart people who should be doing this for themselves.

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/field-of-degree/english/english-field-of-degree.htm

https://employedhistorian.com/english-major/statistics-facts/

And figures regarding "part-time" work do not necessarily tell us that people are not finding work----these figures will include people like me who have taken a little time off to work on projects, stay-at-home parents, people just out of college, lazybutts and all the rest.

There can be an infinite number of theories. Only one can be correct. :-)

My theory says that one more English major can find a job at the going wage. Thousands can't.  They would push the wage down. So arguments using the fact that English majors have a decent income compared to other majors cannot be extrapolated to more students in that major. Those who have not majored in English have kept up the wage for English majors.

Small is beautiful.

[Wahoo Redux]

Not sure I see what you are saying there.

But can you substantiate your "theory" with facts?

[dismalist]

Not sure I see what you are saying there.

But can you substantiate your "theory" with facts?

Industry X is shrinking. [Fact, to be explained] Is this due to demand [theory] or supply [theory], including things that affect both [income, change in laws, change in access to fiance, whatever -- all theory working through demand and supply].

--Fact -- students get to borrow equally for any major, so no institutional changes.

--Fact -- inputs into Industry X have not got more expensive relative to all other industries, so cost of production is not higher.

--Deduction -- this must be a demand side phenomenon.

People want  less of it. Why? False consciousness [only here apparently. Doesn't generalize. Whereas the theory I use does.]. So, no.

People not entering Industry X keep up the wages in Industry X [theory] -- which we do observe [fact].

Listen, I gotta charge tuition! :-)

[kaysixteen]

Random observations:

1) You do know what the education at colonial American and early Republic colleges was like, right?  They were primarily interested in the training of future ministers, of course, but modern-style 'theological seminaries' they simply were not.

2) I saw an interview on CSPAN this weekend with former St. John's Albuquerque president John Agresto, who, amongst other things, explicitly argues that humanities students should just not be asked to pay the same tuition rates as STEM students-- thoughts?

[dismalist]

Random observations:

1) You do know what the education at colonial American and early Republic colleges was like, right?  They were primarily interested in the training of future ministers, of course, but modern-style 'theological seminaries' they simply were not.

2) I saw an interview on CSPAN this weekend with former St. John's Albuquerque president John Agresto, who, amongst other things, explicitly argues that humanities students should just not be asked to pay the same tuition rates as STEM students-- thoughts?

It is actually true that the cost of producing a humanities graduate is lower than the cost of producing a STEM graduate. None of those pesky particle accelerators required. What universities are doing is called price discrimination. Humanities students seem to be willing to pay because of -- whatever.

If this price discrimination stopped, perhaps President Agresto could explain where the now missing funds would come from.

[Wahoo Redux]

Random observations:
2) I saw an interview on CSPAN this weekend with former St. John's Albuquerque president John Agresto, who, amongst other things, explicitly argues that humanities students should just not be asked to pay the same tuition rates as STEM students-- thoughts?

Hey!!!  I already posted this article!!!!  It has been discussed.  You at the back of the auditorium, pay attention!!!

The author (I forget who) argued that charging less for a humanities degree would encourage poor people whose purpose is to rise in the socioeconomic ranks to consider a lib arts degree over business or STEM.  The justification for this change is that STEM degrees in particular are much more expensive to the university than your lib arts degrees.

Personally, I think it sounds like more bureaucracy, and it might actually discourage poor students who want to be engineers from pursuing that degree because of the constant discourse on "student debt."

[Wahoo Redux]

Not sure I see what you are saying there.

But can you substantiate your "theory" with facts?

Industry X is shrinking. [Fact, to be explained] Is this due to demand [theory] or supply [theory], including things that affect both [income, change in laws, change in access to fiance, whatever -- all theory working through demand and supply].

--Fact -- students get to borrow equally for any major, so no institutional changes.

--Fact -- inputs into Industry X have not got more expensive relative to all other industries, so cost of production is not higher.

--Deduction -- this must be a demand side phenomenon.

People want  less of it. Why? False consciousness [only here apparently. Doesn't generalize. Whereas the theory I use does.]. So, no.

People not entering Industry X keep up the wages in Industry X [theory] -- which we do observe [fact].

Listen, I gotta charge tuition! :-)

Generalized hypotheticals all.

[dismalist]

Not sure I see what you are saying there.

But can you substantiate your "theory" with facts?

Industry X is shrinking. [Fact, to be explained] Is this due to demand [theory] or supply [theory], including things that affect both [income, change in laws, change in access to fiance, whatever -- all theory working through demand and supply].

--Fact -- students get to borrow equally for any major, so no institutional changes.

--Fact -- inputs into Industry X have not got more expensive relative to all other industries, so cost of production is not higher.

--Deduction -- this must be a demand side phenomenon.

People want  less of it. Why? False consciousness [only here apparently. Doesn't generalize. Whereas the theory I use does.]. So, no.

People not entering Industry X keep up the wages in Industry X [theory] -- which we do observe [fact].

Listen, I gotta charge tuition! :-)

Generalized hypotheticals all.

Just like gravity. :-)

[Wahoo Redux]

Not sure I see what you are saying there.

But can you substantiate your "theory" with facts?

Industry X is shrinking. [Fact, to be explained] Is this due to demand [theory] or supply [theory], including things that affect both [income, change in laws, change in access to fiance, whatever -- all theory working through demand and supply].

--Fact -- students get to borrow equally for any major, so no institutional changes.

--Fact -- inputs into Industry X have not got more expensive relative to all other industries, so cost of production is not higher.

--Deduction -- this must be a demand side phenomenon.

People want  less of it. Why? False consciousness [only here apparently. Doesn't generalize. Whereas the theory I use does.]. So, no.

People not entering Industry X keep up the wages in Industry X [theory] -- which we do observe [fact].

Listen, I gotta charge tuition! :-)

Generalized hypotheticals all.

Just like gravity. :-)

We can actually see the effects of gravity.

Sorry, Big-D.  You flunked the bluff.

[dismalist]

Not sure I see what you are saying there.

But can you substantiate your "theory" with facts?

Industry X is shrinking. [Fact, to be explained] Is this due to demand [theory] or supply [theory], including things that affect both [income, change in laws, change in access to fiance, whatever -- all theory working through demand and supply].

--Fact -- students get to borrow equally for any major, so no institutional changes.

--Fact -- inputs into Industry X have not got more expensive relative to all other industries, so cost of production is not higher.

--Deduction -- this must be a demand side phenomenon.

People want  less of it. Why? False consciousness [only here apparently. Doesn't generalize. Whereas the theory I use does.]. So, no.

People not entering Industry X keep up the wages in Industry X [theory] -- which we do observe [fact].

Listen, I gotta charge tuition! :-)

Generalized hypotheticals all.

Just like gravity. :-)

We can actually see the effects of gravity.

Sorry, Big-D.  You flunked the bluff.

You can feel gravity, and you can see what happens when a single  extra person buys eggs. Essentially nothing. When 1000 people want to buy more eggs and the price rises, one thinks of evil spirits that want to rip  one off rather  than a mechanism that calls forth more eggs! When one more person studies the humanities nothing happens. When a thousand fewer study the humanities, the wage is not as low as otherwise. You can't see the people not studying the humanities. But they have an effect.

Eggs are like the humanities, only run  in reverse.

I'm gonna stop now, on account I will require a lot more tuition, which is not forthcoming, to continue.

[Wahoo Redux]

I will not be enrolling in your course on random and oddly twisted hypotheticals.