Are the Humanities Doomed?

[Hibush]

No literary theory to offer today.
Just another datum that may be related to doom.

Marymount University cancelled nine humanities majors, including English, history, math, economics, and the arts.  (CHE link)

The article misleadingly tells only that these are one sixth of the majors without saying what proportion of students major in those subjects. If students have already voted with their feet (or major-declaration forms), then the administration is merely recognizing that rather than making a value judgement about the scholarly value of the subjects.

The administration's statement points to the last, citing these as "majors with consistently low enrollment, low graduation rates, and lack of potential for growth." Is that true, or just the standard claim?

I have to agree with Prof. Economos on this point: "If they want to change the mission, then say that and say what that change is. But getting rid of theology and religious studies at a Catholic university, that doesn't fit with the mission."

Economos appears to have done a more thorough evaluation, with a strategic view of the whole institution, than the president. She may even have better numbers on the quantitative factors cited in the presser. Alas, we don't get a copy of that evaluation.

[Mobius]

There was a professor a few months ago who was blatantly lying about the number of majors in their program when the major was cut. They got plenty of "How dare the school do this?!" replies, but if only one student graduates per year in the major, it's going to get cut.

[dismalist]

The article misleadingly tells only that these are one sixth of the majors without saying what proportion of students major in those subjects.

That's 91 majors of about 4000+ students, stock. And, sources differ, math, econ, and sociology, are being cut and these subjects are not part of the humanities. Voting by the feet has already taken place and it's not a humanities problem. The cost per student of those nine majors with an average of 10 students each must be enormous. Speaking with Bismarck: The trick is knowing when to stop! :-)

[Parasaurolophus]

The article misleadingly tells only that these are one sixth of the majors without saying what proportion of students major in those subjects.

That's 91 majors of about 4000+ students, stock. And, sources differ, math, econ, and sociology, are being cut and these subjects are not part of the humanities. Voting by the feet has already taken place and it's not a humanities problem. The cost per student of those nine majors with an average of 10 students each must be enormous.Speaking with Bismarck: The trick is knowing when to stop! :-)

I don't quite understand the bolded bit. Surely what matters is enrollment in the upper-level courses majors need, not the brute number of majors. If a department with little in terms of equipment costs had just one major, but could enroll 30+ students in all of its courses, it would presumably be just fine, financially. As I see it, what matters is the break-even point for courses. Majors and minors help you ensure bum will be in seats, but if the bums are there on their own, then the number of majors and minors doesn't much matter.

Incidentally, mathematics is sometimes classed with the humanities.

[marshwiggle]

(I was a music major in college but haven't studied music further.)

One of the features of music theory as a profession is that is has always stayed fairly close to practice.  (Classical) performers learn music theory to better structure their performances.  Composers learn music theory to help them write music.

If you go through university course schedules and look at who teaches the music theory courses, you'll find most of them taught by composers, not theorists.  Even among the theorists, most of them are also composers and or performers, though perhaps at a less professional level.

The music history courses are mostly taught by people who are music historians, though they are again frequently aimed at performers and composers.  Also, musical philology (is that really an A or an A# in the Hammerklavier Sonata?) is alive and well, though it is a small part of music historical scholarship.

I wonder what literary theory courses would look like if they were mostly taught by writers.

I don't know about other places, but here you have to have achieved a specific *level of instrumental proficiency to get admitted to any music program, even composition or other "non-performance" options.

(* with audition)

Imagine if people had to have a specific level of adjudicated creative writing to get admitted to an English program. That would probably thin the herd of those who want to be "critics".

[dismalist]

The article misleadingly tells only that these are one sixth of the majors without saying what proportion of students major in those subjects.

That's 91 majors of about 4000+ students, stock. And, sources differ, math, econ, and sociology, are being cut and these subjects are not part of the humanities. Voting by the feet has already taken place and it's not a humanities problem. The cost per student of those nine majors with an average of 10 students each must be enormous.Speaking with Bismarck: The trick is knowing when to stop! :-)

I don't quite understand the bolded bit. Surely what matters is enrollment in the upper-level courses majors need, not the brute number of majors. If a department with little in terms of equipment costs had just one major, but could enroll 30+ students in all of its courses, it would presumably be just fine, financially. As I see it, what matters is the break-even point for courses. Majors and minors help you ensure bum will be in seats, but if the bums are there on their own, then the number of majors and minors doesn't much matter.

Incidentally, mathematics is sometimes classed with the humanities.

Enrollment in upper-level courses and the number of majors is surely highly, highly correlated, even without prerequisites and all. With prerequisites, the correlation must be near one.

I'm glad to hear about the sometime location of math, but the notion of STEM pushes all before it.

[Wahoo Redux]

Imagine if people had to have a specific level of adjudicated creative writing to get admitted to an English program. That would probably thin the herd of those who want to be "critics".

You've read C.S. Lewis, obviously, but what else have you read, Marshy?  How much do you know about literature and creativity?

[Larimar]

Have most MFAs in creative writing had at least 2 or 3 semesters of literary theory under their belt? 

Yes.

Literary theory is built into most MFA in creative writing degrees.

But again (and maybe there is confusion on this subject), "literary theory" is generally its own area of study within English lit.  A great deal of academic writing about literature itself involves literary theory / philosophy, but if you go into a class on Shakespeare you generally study the plays and sonnets, not so much the "literary theory" surrounding Shakespeare's work (although history and theories like, for instance, the Monomyth, theories of comedy or tragedy, and "the green world" are often incorporated in secondary reading).  "Lit theory" is not used in the study or creation of literature in the same measure that music theory is part of composition or musical performance.  These two humanities fields are not direct counterparts. 

MFA creative writer here. I know I'm late to the party, but yes, I studied literary theory. Loved it, too. I don't think about it, however, when I'm writing a poem or working on my novel.

[Wahoo Redux]

Am wondering if anyone read about the increase in humanities majors at UC Berkeley?

The Axios piece also cites a marked uptick in humanities majors for U of Arizona, Arizona State, and U of Washington.

You know, I was thinking about this.  Was it Polly_mere who floated the theory that, as the small colleges and less-prestigious schools shutter their liberal arts programs, the really inspired lib arts students will flock to the big schools?  Or was that just a general observation?  I know that we have lost at least one English major who became angry that her classes were being eliminated.  She transferred to the bigger state school nearby. 

[Parasaurolophus]

I think you're right, I remember Polly saying something to that effect.

[marshwiggle]

Imagine if people had to have a specific level of adjudicated creative writing to get admitted to an English program. That would probably thin the herd of those who want to be "critics".

You've read C.S. Lewis, obviously, but what else have you read, Marshy?  How much do you know about literature and creativity?

I know that as someone who has never written a book, or created a piece of music, or produced a film, there's no reason anyone should consider me as a serious candidate for a professional critic of any of those. My opinions are no more valid than those of any other person on the street, and should be seen in that light. As noted above, in music people almost always have to be able to perform at a high level to be in a program that allows them to pontificate about other people's music. That makes sense as a standard for all kinds of people who wish to make a living evaluating the work of others.

[lilyb]

Imagine if people had to have a specific level of adjudicated creative writing to get admitted to an English program. That would probably thin the herd of those who want to be "critics".

You've read C.S. Lewis, obviously, but what else have you read, Marshy?  How much do you know about literature and creativity?

I know that as someone who has never written a book, or created a piece of music, or produced a film, there's no reason anyone should consider me as a serious candidate for a professional critic of any of those. My opinions are no more valid than those of any other person on the street, and should be seen in that light. As noted above, in music people almost always have to be able to perform at a high level to be in a program that allows them to pontificate about other people's music. That makes sense as a standard for all kinds of people who wish to make a living evaluating the work of others.

Well no, literary critics are not reading texts the way that a reviewer for _The New York Times_ might. We are thinking about new ways to see them from different theoretic perspectives, in different cultural/historical contexts, in relation to contemporary concerns such as environmentalism or disability studies. I don't need to publish a novel to do these things well.

[Hibush]

[ As noted above, in music people almost always have to be able to perform at a high level to be in a program that allows them to pontificate about other people's music. That makes sense as a standard for all kinds of people who wish to make a living evaluating the work of others.

Quite a few music critics are excellent at listening to music, but not at performing it. They may have more context in which to understand various pieces and how they are performed than an individual performer.

[Wahoo Redux]

I think you're right, I remember Polly saying something to that effect.

Polly was an advocate for concentrating resources into one or two good, big programs in each state rather than fostering poor, mediocre, duplicate programs in lots of different places.  Even though this would probably mean fewer jobs for people like me (what a damn bummer everything new thing is!), it makes some sense.  It makes a lot of sense, actually, and could maybe resolve the conundrum of the adjunct army.

The flipside is that students like ours, who are often anchored to our town for various reasons, may not have access to a major they might be interested in. 

[marshwiggle]

I think you're right, I remember Polly saying something to that effect.

Polly was an advocate for concentrating resources into one or two good, big programs in each state rather than fostering poor, mediocre, duplicate programs in lots of different places.  Even though this would probably mean fewer jobs for people like me (what a damn bummer everything new thing is!), it makes some sense.  It makes a lot of sense, actually, and could maybe resolve the conundrum of the adjunct army.

The flipside is that students like ours, who are often anchored to our town for various reasons, may not have access to a major they might be interested in.

Honest question: If the local choice is a "poor, mediocre, duplicate program", how much benefit are they likely to get from it?