Are the Humanities Doomed?

[Hegemony]

But there are also tons of degrees that don't translate into any specific career. When I worked in insurance, a whole lot of people there had humanities degrees: English, history, art history, etc. You don't have to major in Business to work in insurance. I also worked briefly for Wall Street. My two closest friends there had an English degree and a history degree. One is now a trader; the other is head of a division of a brokerage. When I was talking to the head of our law school a while back, he said they prefer applicants who major in things other than business and pre-law, because they're majoring in their subjects because they have actual interests and are not just going through the motions. He said in his experience, the Classics majors are standouts.

There's also the fact that there are not enough jobs in the field for everyone to be a chemist or an advertising executive, even if everyone wanted to be (and they don't). I'd guess a librarian who is suited to the job is happier than an advertising executive who is not, even if the librarian has a smaller salary. Maximizing salary is not the only criterion when looking for a career. And although the salaries are certainly not stupendous, the major that actually has the highest employment rate in the field is Religious Studies.

That said, there are some humanities majors who made the big bucks. When I meet someone with an interesting top job, I ask them what their major was in college. For example, I was talking to a recording studio executive a while back. Turns out he majored in "General Studies." Certainly worked out for him.

[Caracal]

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."

No, the logic fail is all yours.

"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."

Can you spot the problem here?

And there's nothing specious about the claim that certain majors might go into less lucrative fields. Part of that probably does reflect career goals, but it also reflects skills and what gets valued on the market. You can't look at a stat like "workers with terminal bachelor's degrees in the humanities had a median salary 8% lower than that for all terminal bachelor's degree holders" and conclude that those people are making 8 percent less than they would have made if they had been majors in something else. Surely you know this, right?

[Wahoo Redux]

Like Rush Limbaugh during a democratic presidency, some posters simply want the humanities to fail.

Why I am not sure.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/02/07/study-finds-humanities-majors-land-jobs-and-are-happy-them

[Caracal]

But there are also tons of degrees that don't translate into any specific career. When I worked in insurance, a whole lot of people there had humanities degrees: English, history, art history, etc. You don't have to major in Business to work in insurance. I also worked briefly for Wall Street. My two closest friends there had an English degree and a history degree. One is now a trader; the other is head of a division of a brokerage. When I was talking to the head of our law school a while back, he said they prefer applicants who major in things other than business and pre-law, because they're majoring in their subjects because they have actual interests and are not just going through the motions. He said in his experience, the Classics majors are standouts.

There's also the fact that there are not enough jobs in the field for everyone to be a chemist or an advertising executive, even if everyone wanted to be (and they don't). I'd guess a librarian who is suited to the job is happier than an advertising executive who is not, even if the librarian has a smaller salary. Maximizing salary is not the only criterion when looking for a career. And although the salaries are certainly not stupendous, the major that actually has the highest employment rate in the field is Religious Studies.

That said, there are some humanities majors who made the big bucks. When I meet someone with an interesting top job, I ask them what their major was in college. For example, I was talking to a recording studio executive a while back. Turns out he majored in "General Studies." Certainly worked out for him.

Right, my high school friend who makes an absurd amount of money doing something with technology that none of us understand is an English major. I also know a couple of writers and people who do work for non profits that don't make them much money. It isn't like they'd have some more lucrative career if they'd only had the sense to major in something practical.

[marshwiggle]

Like Rush Limbaugh during a democratic presidency, some posters simply want the humanities to fail.

Why I am not sure.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/02/07/study-finds-humanities-majors-land-jobs-and-are-happy-them

From the article:

But a study being released today by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences -- based on data from the U.S. Census and other government sources, plus Gallup polling of workers nationwide -- challenges the myth of the underemployed, unhappy humanities graduate.

So, if "humanities porn" is like "adjunct porn", and not representative of reality, who are the "advocates" for these people who are focusing on the worst-case scenarios? And what do they want to accomplish? (It stands to reason that many people writing articles are probably English graduates themselves, for instance.)

[Caracal]

Like Rush Limbaugh during a democratic presidency, some posters simply want the humanities to fail.

Why I am not sure.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/02/07/study-finds-humanities-majors-land-jobs-and-are-happy-them

From the article:

But a study being released today by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences -- based on data from the U.S. Census and other government sources, plus Gallup polling of workers nationwide -- challenges the myth of the underemployed, unhappy humanities graduate.

So, if "humanities porn" is like "adjunct porn", and not representative of reality, who are the "advocates" for these people who are focusing on the worst-case scenarios? And what do they want to accomplish? (It stands to reason that many people writing articles are probably English graduates themselves, for instance.)

I don't know. Who are you guys? People who have a weird burr about their persistent beliefs that the humanities aren't practical and students should study something useful instead.

[marshwiggle]

So, if "humanities porn" is like "adjunct porn", and not representative of reality, who are the "advocates" for these people who are focusing on the worst-case scenarios? And what do they want to accomplish? (It stands to reason that many people writing articles are probably English graduates themselves, for instance.)

I don't know. Who are you guys? People who have a weird burr about their persistent beliefs that the humanities aren't practical and students should study something useful instead.

Here's what I said a little over a year ago:

[M]y point is that adjunctification is a symptom of the problem the humanities have. Programs that have solid enrollment tend not to have a lot of part-time instructors.

I believe that if the humanities can actually establish their value in the public mind, rather than simply assert it loudly, then solid voluntary *enrollment will reduce adjunctification.

It's not people like me that have to be convinced; it's the public. Professional programs often use salaries to establish this value, but that wouldn't work if peoples' experience was otherwise; i.e. if people know a lot of engineering graduates working at McDonald's, then that's going to override any institutional propaganda.

Since salaries are clearly not the only measure of "success" or "life satisfaction", then what are the metrics by which the public in their own experience can see that humanities graduates are better off than those people from professional programs?

If there are any criteria by which humanities are significantly better off, they should be easy to identify.

[Wahoo Redux]

But a study being released today by the American Academy of Arts & Sciences -- based on data from the U.S. Census and other government sources, plus Gallup polling of workers nationwide -- challenges the myth of the underemployed, unhappy humanities graduate.

So, if "humanities porn" is like "adjunct porn", and not representative of reality, who are the "advocates" for these people who are focusing on the worst-case scenarios? And what do they want to accomplish? (It stands to reason that many people writing articles are probably English graduates themselves, for instance.)

What are you talking about, Marshy?

[polly_mer]

Poli Sci is in the social sciences, not in the humanities.

I'd guess that even those who deplore the humanities, like some here, read books, or watch movies or TV, or listen to music. Humanities majors created all of those things.

No, generally the folks in the arts create really interesting entertainment, particularly music and movies/television.

Almost none of the books I read were written by humanities degree holders.  The most off-putting advertisement for a book is the author has an MFA or English degree and this is the first book.  Lots of people write great books; almost none of the thought-provoking books are written to be taught in classes.  Instead, someone writes because they need to write and that writing resonates with many other people.

One of the worst things that humanities folks do to public perception is insist that studying the humanities in college is somehow the path to a better life than studying other things in college.  That's demonstrably untrue, particularly for those of us poor kids who read a lot.

[mahagonny]

Poli Sci is in the social sciences, not in the humanities.

I'd guess that even those who deplore the humanities, like some here, read books, or watch movies or TV, or listen to music. Humanities majors created all of those things.

No, generally the folks in the arts create really interesting entertainment, particularly music and movies/television.

Almost none of the books I read were written by humanities degree holders.  The most off-putting advertisement for a book is the author has an MFA or English degree and this is the first book.  Lots of people write great books; almost none of the thought-provoking books are written to be taught in classes.  Instead, someone writes because they need to write and that writing resonates with many other people.

One of the worst things that humanities folks do to public perception is insist that studying the humanities in college is somehow the path to a better life than studying other things in college.  That's demonstrably untrue, particularly for those of us poor kids who read a lot.

Well, how do you teach creativity other than to show what other creative people have done in detail? And the works of art are already there to be gleaned from, with or without accredited instruction.

[spork]

[. . .]

You can't look at a stat like "workers with terminal bachelor's degrees in the humanities had a median salary 8% lower than that for all terminal bachelor's degree holders" and conclude that those people are making 8 percent less than they would have made if they had been majors in something else. Surely you know this, right?

Sigh. That's not what I wrote. I'm not going to try to define the ecological fallacy or distributions in a way you can understand.

[. . .]

There's also the fact that there are not enough jobs in the field for everyone to be a chemist or an advertising executive, even if everyone wanted to be (and they don't). I'd guess a librarian who is suited to the job is happier than an advertising executive who is not, even if the librarian has a smaller salary. Maximizing salary is not the only criterion when looking for a career.

[. . . ]

All true, but this still does not solve the problem expressed in thread's title. Trying to save undergraduate humanities programs with "Our graduates make less money but are just as happy as everyone else" isn't going to increase enrollment when the primary goal of college for most students is career training/opportunity to achieve or maintain middle class lifestyles, especially if all they see "humanities professionals" do is teach what the "humanities professionals" do as "humanities professionals." Yes, some professors engage students in public history research projects with community partners, etc., but they are in a very small minority.

That said, there are some humanities majors who made the big bucks. When I meet someone with an interesting top job, I ask them what their major was in college. For example, I was talking to a recording studio executive a while back. Turns out he majored in "General Studies." Certainly worked out for him.

I doubt these folks are statistically representative. At minimum they are not publicized in ways that affect the perceptions of most 18 year olds and their parents.


"Humanities" as fields of study represent universities' institutionalization of certain types of knowledge and its dissemination. The average undergraduate student now finds that institutionalization very unattractive. That's where the failure lies. A friend of mine expresses it much better:

https://contentasianstudies.wordpress.com/2020/09/05/post-2008-knowledge-the-future-of-the-humanities-and-area-studies/.

[Ruralguy]

I think we can acknowledge that the arts contribute to society and personal growth whether or not the particular piece of "art" was created by a humanist.

I like some writers who had humanist training (say, Walter Isaacson), primarily technical training (say, Ray Kurzweil; Isaac Asimov; Sagan) and probably some with no training.

In addition though to just general appreciation, I have learned how to critique a piece of fiction, or an art work, piece of music, etc..  I have learned, albeit through a certain lens of teacher, what makes these things good and lasting. What makes a particular usage of pentatonic scale interesting? How is a particular scene in a film composed, and what about placement of actors, lighting, post-processing "speaks out."  I am glad I learned those things, though admittedly I only started to learn them in college, and then picked up some things on my own. Of course, I did not chose a career in the humanities or related to to my skills in the humanities, but I still made it part of my life.

I can't say whether or not this justifies all colleges and universities having a big humanities staff, but it does justify the discipline (not because I say so, but because it has at least 8some* value to everyone, and great value to a great many).

[Hegemony]

"And the works of art are already there to be gleaned from, with or without accredited instruction."

Well, it makes sense that you would be calling into question the point of any instruction in the humanities, since you are dismissive of the humanist enterprise generally. I suppose my saying that education helps people find a way in and an understanding of works of art will have little impact, particularly as it doesn't seem to have had any benefit in your case. I mean however much instruction you've had in it, you haven't found  any particular value in it. And yet others have found great value in it. But perhaps that's irrelevant.

It's also true that everything that's taught in classes in business, science, and similar disciplines can be found in books. The knowledge is already there to be gleaned from, with or without accredited instruction. And yet if that's all it took for people to acquire a deeper understanding, there would be no schools or universities.

[marshwiggle]

I can't say whether or not this justifies all colleges and universities having a big humanities staff, but it does justify the discipline (not because I say so, but because it has at least *some* value to everyone, and great value to a great many).

This is the important point: The question isn't about whether there is any value in studying humanities, but rather, what specific value there is in concentrated study of the humanities to the point of getting a major of even a minor.

For professional programs, most of the value comes from going far enough in the discipline to be professionally certified in it. There's no "minor" in medicine, since it would involve way too much work for no easily-definable benefit.

On the other hand, as many have pointed out, people can study all kinds of humanities areas for their own interest, (e.g. people who become Civil War re-enactors), so the value isn't tied to the credential of a degree.

[Ruralguy]

Even if there are enough STEM professors at a college like mine to agree to keep up majors and gen ed requirements in some of the humanities, most of us would agree that some subjects are in a death spiral,
and we'll probably have to give up the department structure, and maybe eventually the major, and lastly, the related gen eds after those faculty retire.

So, what do we do? How do we support the humanities without falling into a sunk cost fallacy? How do we convince students and parents and our own board?