Are the Humanities Doomed?

[apl68]

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?

The small, local programs weren't always poor and mediocre.  Henderson State University, for example, gave a perfectly respectable liberal arts education to students in its region for many years.  Alma Mater is a private school that did much the same.  Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons having to do with changing demographics, changing student interests, and the tendency of pretty much everything to consolidate in a few bit places with little left over for everywhere else, most of the small, local programs have been pushed into decline.

[lightning]

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?

And another honest question (one part of a two-part question) that never gets answered, how do we *know* for sure that eliminating duplicate programs in a state will truly result in the re-direction of funds from the redundant program to the remaining program? And part two of the previous question, how do we *know* that that the remaining program will be strengthened, who gets to decide if the elimination of the redundant program did result in a more successful remaining program, and who gets smacked around & sacked if the idea of closing the duplicate program doesn't actually work to strengthen the remaining program?

[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?

And another honest question (one part of a two-part question) that never gets answered, how do we *know* for sure that eliminating duplicate programs in a state will truly result in the re-direction of funds from the redundant program to the remaining program? And part two of the previous question, how do we *know* that that the remaining program will be strengthened, who gets to decide if the elimination of the redundant program did result in a more successful remaining program, and who gets smacked around & sacked if the idea of closing the duplicate program doesn't actually work to strengthen the remaining program?

It's basic economics. If multiple programs are struggling financially because of low enrollment, consolidating the students into a single program should make it viable. The funds won't necessarily be explicitly transferred to the remaining program, but the implicit funding increases due to increased enrollment will help. There's also the benefit of not being threatened with imminent closure each year.

[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.

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

A lot depends on the student, of course.  But that is the point, Marshy.  Maybe we should have better, bigger, better equipped programs than spreading resources thin to a lot of little programs.

[dismalist]

...

It's basic economics. If multiple programs are struggling financially because of low enrollment, consolidating the students into a single program should make it viable. The funds won't necessarily be explicitly transferred to the remaining program, but the implicit funding increases due to increased enrollment will help. There's also the benefit of not being threatened with imminent closure each year.

If the money follows the student, there is no problem: Programs that students don't want die; programs that students do want thrive.

[kaysixteen]

Isn't it possible that students, in their immaturity and ignorance, should be guided towards what is in their best educational interests, irrespective of their 'wants'?

[marshwiggle]

Isn't it possible that students, in their immaturity and ignorance, should be guided towards what is in their best educational interests, irrespective of their 'wants'?

The dangerous part of this is that often the people who most think they know what is in others' best interests are the most clueless. It's better to give people information which is as objective as possible to help them make informed choices.

[Hibush]

Isn't it possible that students, in their immaturity and ignorance, should be guided towards what is in their best educational interests, irrespective of their 'wants'?

The dangerous part of this is that often the people who most think they know what is in others' best interests are the most clueless. It's better to give people information which is as objective as possible to help them make informed choices.

If a student's stated goal is to be an electrical engineer, then it is appropriate for them to leave the decision on most of their courses to those who know what constitutes an electrical-engineering major. Just sending them to the course catalog to make choices will not serve them well.

On the other hand, if a student's stated goal is to be an electrical engineer, then advising them to major in something else to be  a more well-rounded citizen is the danger zone.

But what if their stated goal is to be an astronaut or a professional basketball player, ignorant of how very unlikely that goal is?

[marshwiggle]

Isn't it possible that students, in their immaturity and ignorance, should be guided towards what is in their best educational interests, irrespective of their 'wants'?

The dangerous part of this is that often the people who most think they know what is in others' best interests are the most clueless. It's better to give people information which is as objective as possible to help them make informed choices.

If a student's stated goal is to be an electrical engineer, then it is appropriate for them to leave the decision on most of their courses to those who know what constitutes an electrical-engineering major. Just sending them to the course catalog to make choices will not serve them well.

On the other hand, if a student's stated goal is to be an electrical engineer, then advising them to major in something else to be  a more well-rounded citizen is the danger zone.

This is why programs have required courses and electives.  If the student's goal is to be an electrical engineer, there is no choice about the former, but some choice in the latter. Also, the distinction between required and elective courses has been arrived at over time by a lot of discussion among experts in the field. Required courses reflect a strong consensus about what is vital; electives reflect a breadth of opinion among experts about what is important.

A student whose "wants" make them unwilling to take the required courses shouldn't be looking at becoming an electrical engineer.

But what if their stated goal is to be an astronaut or a professional basketball player, ignorant of how very unlikely that goal is?

This is precisely where objective data are useful. Information about how unlikely those outcomes are is what students need; what the students choose with that knowledge is up to them as independent adults.

[Wahoo Redux]

Isn't it possible that students, in their immaturity and ignorance, should be guided towards what is in their best educational interests, irrespective of their 'wants'?

To a degree.  We are talking young adults, however, who are vested with responsibilities and paying for our services.  Not all "kids" are naïve. 

[dismalist]

Isn't it possible that students, in their immaturity and ignorance, should be guided towards what is in their best educational interests, irrespective of their 'wants'?

Eighteen year olds, in their immaturity and ignorance, are allowed to vote. Let's guide them to their best political interests, irrespective of their wants. :-)

[spork]

Isn't it possible that students, in their immaturity and ignorance, should be guided towards what is in their best educational interests, irrespective of their 'wants'?

Pol Pot had this philosophy.

[Wahoo Redux]

Isn't it possible that students, in their immaturity and ignorance, should be guided towards what is in their best educational interests, irrespective of their 'wants'?

Eighteen year olds, in their immaturity and ignorance, are allowed to vote. Let's guide them to their best political interests, irrespective of their wants. :-)

Hmmmmmmm.  Flippancy noted, but seems to me there were a great many grizzled oldsters storming the Capitol on Jan. 6th. 

And...not that this is any indication of anything...but how old are you, Big-D?

[dismalist]

Isn't it possible that students, in their immaturity and ignorance, should be guided towards what is in their best educational interests, irrespective of their 'wants'?

Eighteen year olds, in their immaturity and ignorance, are allowed to vote. Let's guide them to their best political interests, irrespective of their wants. :-)

Hmmmmmmm.  Flippancy noted, but seems to me there were a great many grizzled oldsters storming the Capitol on Jan. 6th. 

And...not that this is any indication of anything...but how old are you, Big-D?

72.

If it were up to me, the voting age would be raised to 40 years. :-)

[MarathonRunner]

Isn't it possible that students, in their immaturity and ignorance, should be guided towards what is in their best educational interests, irrespective of their 'wants'?

So mature students, who can also be undergraduate university students, are all immature and ignorant, even if they have years of work experience? Not all undergrads are straight out of high school. Some have plenty of real life, real world, and job experience, and are far from immature and ignorant.