Are the Humanities Doomed?

[Hibush]

This list looks like the kind of curriculum that the book criticizes as being all about the professors and not about the students. Changing the focus to something students can relate to, and then using history to explore those ideas is what he recommends. What if those periods were covered, but presented in the context of the tension between romanticism and enlightenment. We see both motivations in our academic world and society today, so they are pretty relatable. That engagement with ideas really beats the prospect of memorizing the dates of battles and who was king.

What might your curriculum look like if built around concepts like that?

It might cause enrollments in some history courses to increase, and it might even peel away a student or two from the six different flavors of the "business" major. But (1) the history department won't create a curriculum like that, because the majority of faculty in the department insist on presenting an undergraduate version of what they themselves do as professional historians, (2) the change, even if implemented, is not going to persuade 18-year old high school graduates that they need to attend this college so that they can major in history.

I'm always amazed that people outside of the humanities feel qualified to look at a few course lists and make these sorts of suggestions. To be clear, I don't think that only people in history can have opinions about history curriculums, but I don't think its asking too much that if you want to weigh in you might want to learn something first about the discipline. Pretty clearly, this attitude comes out of a belief that humanities disciplines aren't really serious disciplines.

How would you react if I looked at a bunch of random course listings in geology and said, "hey, guys, I've got an idea, why don't we just do away with all of this boring stuff where you learn a lot of basic principals and just do a bunch of courses centered around stuff that seems more interesting, like how about rocks on Mars?"

The problem with centering the study of various periods around the tension between romanticism and englightment is that it would an ahistorical construct which wouldn't really make any sense. I don't mean that you couldn't have a course on romanticism and enlightenment, but it would be a really bizarre way to cover the Civil War. It also betrays the basic ignorance at work here. I teach Civil War courses almost every semester and they are always full. Students are really interested in the Civil War, it remains very relevant.

Now, I don't think the idea of having more courses based around big themes that students might find interesting is a bad one. I've designed a couple of courses like that where we examine some big theme like violence or drinking over a long period of time. I don't think it makes sense to think these courses are a replacement for survey courses which serve an important purpose, but it could make sense to have more of them.

If someone gave me total power over a curriculum and unlimited resources, I'd probably design something rather different than what usually exists now, so it isn't that I think the status quo is perfect. I just think most of these suggestions really fail to understand the dynamics at work.
[/quote]

There is some good thinking here worth reflecting on, and seeing how far Hayat's perspective can go.

First, the geology analogy.
For when you take which courses, the argument would be to have a freshman field geology course where they go hiking and collect rocks. Presumably, something about that activity underlies the interest in geology. The field trips and lectures gets them familiar with some of the bigger questions in geology that are answered in later courses. If instead you make them take physical chemistry and crystallography before doing geomorphology as seniors there will be very few who make it through.

In the history curriculum, the idea is to move the curriculum to societal concepts and ideas rather than time periods. It is indeed a big shift, and it is good to see the process of trying to adapt a Civil War course to that, especially to a framework that is poorly represented during the civil war. In reflecting on that, I'd say the first step would be to stop thinking about the course as being based in the Civil War, and instead having the Civil War be a case study in a course about concepts that are well illustrated with that case.

One of those concepts could be the social acceptance of slavery. In the period where most of the population was involved in food production, which ended roughly at that time, there were to main modes of agriculture. Subsistence agriculture and commercial agriculture. The latter often depended on slave or indentured labor from other regions. Indeed Passover this week commemorates the end of the Egyptians "Hebrew Bracero" program (ht Tom Lehrer). So the US system was more the historic norm than an aberration. How did that norm change, and how has the concept of humanity been associated with different people? That would be a timely class!

[spork]

[. . . ]

very few students who don't come from wealthy and privileged backgrounds will have the confidence to try to major in anything that doesn't seem to promise a very clear vocational pathway. 

[. . . ]

• Humanities faculty make claims about vocational outcomes without presenting any evidence in support of those claims. Such evidence might exist, but if it's not presented the claims ring hollow.
• Faculty ignore students' vocational concerns entirely with pronouncements about how humanities are essential to "life of the mind" and "what it means to be human."
• Curricular content and delivery often reflect a slightly more advanced form of what students have been subjected to in K-12, or they are structured to replicate at the undergraduate level the work of humanities professionals (historians, philosophers, etc.) when effectively zero of the students will go on to become humanities professionals (in other words, academics.
• The proliferation of nursing ethics, business ethics, bioethics, ethics in psychology, etc. courses is an example of how humanities programs have lost control over their own curricular turf.

[Wahoo Redux]

• Humanities faculty make claims about vocational outcomes without presenting any evidence in support of those claims. Such evidence might exist, but if it's not presented the claims ring hollow.

https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/workforce/employment-status-humanities-majors

[spork]

• Humanities faculty make claims about vocational outcomes without presenting any evidence in support of those claims. Such evidence might exist, but if it's not presented the claims ring hollow.

https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/workforce/employment-status-humanities-majors

A quick skim of that webpage: not seeing any information at all about salaries. I can get a bachelor's degree in any field and work at McDonald's.

[ciao_yall]

• Humanities faculty make claims about vocational outcomes without presenting any evidence in support of those claims. Such evidence might exist, but if it's not presented the claims ring hollow.

https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/workforce/employment-status-humanities-majors

A quick skim of that webpage: not seeing any information at all about salaries. I can get a bachelor's degree in any field and work at McDonald's.

What an utterly idiotic graph. At least set the top scale to 10% so we can actually see the unemployment rates instead of itty bitty dots.

[marshwiggle]

I don't think anyone "deplores" humanities; the question is why humanities should have an unquestioned superior status to everything else.

Is anyone aware of any study showing some area of character development or life success where humanities graduates exceed graduates of other disciplines? In principle, if humanities education does a better job of preparing people for "life" in some way, it should be demonstrable.

Marshy, you have several burrs.  You should talk to someone.

It's often pointed out that high salaries aren't the only thing (or even the most important thing) that matters in life. But if there really is something uniquely valuable about studying humanities then there should be some way that it shows up. With all of the census data, actuarial data, and similar sources, it should be possible to find something if it exists.

Students have a pretty good idea of what interests them. Do professors know what that is?

Some students know what interests them.  Often what really, truly interests them is nothing they will find in college.

Many honestly have no idea----or at least they have no idea why they are in college except that their parents are making them or they have no other idea what to do with themselves.   In part this is why we give them many options.

You're welcome to them. I won't fight you for a single one. These drifting students are kind of like vending machine coffee - the quality may occasionally surprise you, but it will be rare.

[Wahoo Redux]

You are a card, Marshy.

Are YOU quite so good that you can be quite so arrogant?

[Wahoo Redux]

• Humanities faculty make claims about vocational outcomes without presenting any evidence in support of those claims. Such evidence might exist, but if it's not presented the claims ring hollow.

https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/workforce/employment-status-humanities-majors

A quick skim of that webpage: not seeing any information at all about salaries. I can get a bachelor's degree in any field and work at McDonald's.

Why don't y'all just do a Google search yourselves?

https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/workforce/earnings-humanities-majors-terminal-bachelors-degree#:~:text=1%20Median%20earnings%20for%20humanities,social%20sciences%20or%20life%20sciences.

https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/common-jobs-for-majors/humanities

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/05/new-data-what-humanities-majors-earn

I sometimes remember why I quit coming here.  Gee whiz.

[Hibush]

Students have a pretty good idea of what interests them. Do professors know what that is?

Some students know what interests them.  Often what really, truly interests them is nothing they will find in college.

Many honestly have no idea----or at least they have no idea why they are in college except that their parents are making them or they have no other idea what to do with themselves.   In part this is why we give them many options.

You're welcome to them. I won't fight you for a single one. These drifting students are kind of like vending machine coffee - the quality may occasionally surprise you, but it will be rare.

I'm sorry you have to deal with that sort of student. It would be dispiriting.

Faculty may be writing discouraging curricula in an effort at self-preservation;-)

[Mobius]

A fundamental problem for some humanities folks is some believe they deserve to be paid to think. A broke forever humanities grad student or permanent member of the adjunct army who thinks that will always believe their genius in unappreciated.

Yes, let's just go back to our tired stereotypes. I actually think that GE requirements as they operate are pretty pointless, not just for the humanities, but for other subjects as well. Mostly, that's because they are usually done on the cheap without the sort of infrastructure and investment that would make them meaningful and useful.

Sure, it's a stereotype, but I've read several tweets from individuals who fit into one of those two groups in the past two weeks wanting to get paid for just that.

[Caracal]

• Humanities faculty make claims about vocational outcomes without presenting any evidence in support of those claims. Such evidence might exist, but if it's not presented the claims ring hollow.
• Faculty ignore students' vocational concerns entirely with pronouncements about how humanities are essential to "life of the mind" and "what it means to be human."
• Curricular content and delivery often reflect a slightly more advanced form of what students have been subjected to in K-12, or they are structured to replicate at the undergraduate level the work of humanities professionals (historians, philosophers, etc.) when effectively zero of the students will go on to become humanities professionals (in other words, academics.
• The proliferation of nursing ethics, business ethics, bioethics, ethics in psychology, etc. courses is an example of how humanities programs have lost control over their own curricular turf.

Hmm, except I don't actually see much evidence for these claims either.

On curriculum, here are some upper level courses I just pulled up from departments

Anti-Semitism and Modern Europe
The Civil Rights Movement
American Cities
Racial Violence; Colonial times to the present
History of Capitalism in The US
Comparative Genocide
Gandhi and Radical Dissent in the Modern World
Supernatural Europe
Human Rights in Latin America
Using and Abusing the Medieval Past in the Modern World
Fascism: A Global History

I can tell you these courses do not replicate graduate work. The person teaching the class on Gandhi, for example, is probably an East-Asianist, but the class is presumably going to go pretty far afield from East Asia into subjects the person almost certainly didn't study at all in school. I'd guess the person teaching the Fascism course probably does study facism, but I'd bet their training is as a Europeanist and the class presumably takes them to the Americas and Asia, etc. etc.

The point is that this claim that all of these humanities people just teach courses that they don't try to make relevant and interesting to undergrads just isn't true. Now, there are plenty of lower level courses, but those are often important. Students don't know anything about African history for the most part, so you have to start them somewhere with a course that covers the area broadly. Intro courses in American History and Europe might not serve quite that purpose, but they are still vital for people who are studying to be teachers.

[Caracal]

There is some good thinking here worth reflecting on, and seeing how far Hayat's perspective can go.

First, the geology analogy.
For when you take which courses, the argument would be to have a freshman field geology course where they go hiking and collect rocks. Presumably, something about that activity underlies the interest in geology. The field trips and lectures gets them familiar with some of the bigger questions in geology that are answered in later courses. If instead you make them take physical chemistry and crystallography before doing geomorphology as seniors there will be very few who make it through.

In the history curriculum, the idea is to move the curriculum to societal concepts and ideas rather than time periods. It is indeed a big shift, and it is good to see the process of trying to adapt a Civil War course to that, especially to a framework that is poorly represented during the civil war. In reflecting on that, I'd say the first step would be to stop thinking about the course as being based in the Civil War, and instead having the Civil War be a case study in a course about concepts that are well illustrated with that case.

One of those concepts could be the social acceptance of slavery. In the period where most of the population was involved in food production, which ended roughly at that time, there were to main modes of agriculture. Subsistence agriculture and commercial agriculture. The latter often depended on slave or indentured labor from other regions. Indeed Passover this week commemorates the end of the Egyptians "Hebrew Bracero" program (ht Tom Lehrer). So the US system was more the historic norm than an aberration. How did that norm change, and how has the concept of humanity been associated with different people? That would be a timely class!

On the practical experience before going into courses, I like that idea. I'd love to teach a freshman course where you go to an archive, dig something up, research it and write on it. I think you're right that it would expose students to the most interesting parts of the discipline first. The problem, of course, is that you can't do that with a class of 45 students, so that would present some real financial and logistical problems where I work.

On the other point. Comparative history can be interesting. People teach global histories of slavery and there's nothing wrong in theory with such a course. A guy wrote a book years ago that compared Russian Serfdom and American Slavery. However, I'm not sure it would substitute for a Civil War course. The Civil War is really the fulcrum of American History and its incredibly relevant today. People are tearing down statues and nazis are marching around trying to protect those statues. My students are really interested in all of this stuff and my Civil War classes are always full.

To be clear, I think we can have both, and to a large extent we already do. There are lots of courses covering broad topics or looking at something in different times and places. However, there's also a place for courses that have a particular historical timeframe and try to understand particular issues  within that time frame.

[Wahoo Redux]

These discussions on this particular subject remind me of the political "debates" on other message boards.

The point is not really to investigate an issue but to plant a flag.

[marshwiggle]

You are a card, Marshy.

Are YOU quite so good that you can be quite so arrogant?

Why does this display arrogance? I have no problem working with students over a range of ability; I'm a lot less excited about working with students who are unmotivated. And I think it's doing them a great disservice to shuffle them into university because it's "the thing to do". It would be far better to let them work for a year or two, and if they decide at some point that they want to study and they know what they want to study, then I'll be glad to work with them.

It really would be arrogant for me to think I could give them motivation.

[spork]

• Humanities faculty make claims about vocational outcomes without presenting any evidence in support of those claims. Such evidence might exist, but if it's not presented the claims ring hollow.

https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/workforce/employment-status-humanities-majors

A quick skim of that webpage: not seeing any information at all about salaries. I can get a bachelor's degree in any field and work at McDonald's.

Why don't y'all just do a Google search yourselves?

https://www.amacad.org/humanities-indicators/workforce/earnings-humanities-majors-terminal-bachelors-degree#:~:text=1%20Median%20earnings%20for%20humanities,social%20sciences%20or%20life%20sciences.

https://www.payscale.com/college-salary-report/common-jobs-for-majors/humanities

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/10/05/new-data-what-humanities-majors-earn

I sometimes remember why I quit coming here.  Gee whiz.

In relation to the topic of this thread, much of the information at those webpages is a logic fail that humanities majors are supposed to be trained not to make.

According to the AAAS webpage, the 2018 average median salary for all terminal bachelor's degree holders was $63K. According to the payscale.com webpage, only 8 of the 30 jobs listed have mid-career salaries that are higher than $63K. The majority of people holding every one of those jobs have non-humanities bachelor's degrees, suggesting the possibility that one's chances for employment in those jobs are lower if one has a humanities bachelor's degree.

The IHE article contains the statement, presumably derived from the AAAS, "Some of the gap in salaries for terminal bachelor's degrees in humanities vs. other fields is due to humanities majors entering professions that are more important to society than they are lucrative." This is exactly the kind of specious opinion-based claim that I referenced earlier.

Chart III-06a on the AAAS webpage shows that workers with terminal bachelor's degrees in the humanities had a median salary 8% lower than that for all terminal bachelor's degree holders. As stated in the IHE article, "Experts on the impact of salary and wealth would of course be correct to note that relatively modest salary gaps, over the course of a career, can create significant wealth gaps."

The average 18 year old starting college at an average four-year institution is not going to be persuaded to major in the humanities with arguments like "Philosophy is more important to society than accounting" or "Study history and earn hundreds of thousands of dollars less over the course of your working life than your classmates will earn in theirs."