Are the Humanities Doomed?

[Caracal]

"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.

It goes back to the basic dismissive attitude towards the humanities. The operating assumption is that stuff like engineering is rigorous so most people wouldn't be able to pick it up on their own, but English is just reading some books.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

I know I asked a version of this question a long time ago...and I don't remember if I got an answer, but...

Where did this defensiveness about the humanities come from?

Maybe I missed it, but who ever said "that studying the humanities in college is somehow the path to a better life than studying other things in college"?

I have seen a lot of 'humanities teaches students to think about the world' kind of rhetoric, but I have never seen a 'humanities is the only way to study humans' sort of schtick.  And this is simply advertising, after all, not a dogma.

And why would you care?  Obviously the humanities are struggling as a major, so if someone did try to sell humanities as "the path" it did not work.

Is this a social class thing?  Or maybe people who actually love humanities material resent people who study the humanities?

[marshwiggle]

Where did this defensiveness about the humanities come from?

Maybe I missed it, but who ever said "that studying the humanities in college is somehow the path to a better life than studying other things in college"?

I have seen a lot of 'humanities teaches students to think about the world' kind of rhetoric, but I have never seen a 'humanities is the only way to study humans' sort of schtick.  And this is simply advertising, after all, not a dogma.

And why would you care?  Obviously the humanities are struggling as a major, so if someone did try to sell humanities as "the path" it did not work.

Is this a social class thing?  Or maybe people who actually love humanities material resent people who study the humanities?

The answer to this question is similar to the question of why people tell unsatisfied adjuncts to find another job.

In both cases, these questions come up because of stories in the media that say "the system" is "broken" or "post-secondary education is useless", and they illustrate it by pointing to (in one case) adjuncts living out of their cars or (in the other case) people with degrees who are baristas or working in a warehouse. In both cases, the people used for illustration represent a small fringe, BUT everyone in "the system" is implied to be at fault and/or clueless enough to perpetuate this. As one of those "professional fellows" as Polly calls them, I make a good living, my part-time teaching is a good sideline, my income is solid and my car is just for transportation. I don't like the implication that I am so clueless as to work like a dog for peanuts. (And I don't.) Similarly, I don't like the implication that the students I teach are likely to wind up working minimum wage jobs because that's all they can get. They have very good job prospects.

In both of those cases, the choices made by people who are most likely to wind up in those sort of sob stories are predictable. So the people who have not made those kinds of choices are often eager to point out that those choices were responsible for the observed outcomes.

So if humanities faculty want to say that unemployed graduates are typically those who avoided opportunities to prepare themselves for the working world, I'll be happy to hear the details and be supportive. On the other hand, if they throw up their hands and say it's not their problem*, then my response will be less collegial.


*Again, if they want to point to evidence that the demonstratable benefit of their program is something other than income, I'm eager to see the evidence and analysis, and if it's sound, I'll be glad to pass it on to other people.

[Wahoo Redux]

Which "humanities faculty want to say that unemployed graduates are typically those who avoided opportunities to prepare themselves for the working world"??

What?

What in tarnation are you talkin' about, son?

[Mobius]

The ones who want to be paid to think and never have held a FT job.

[mleok]

Saddest of all is how relatively few students in higher education seem to have much interest in learning much of anything, really.  Learning seems like something they do only under duress.

There is so much truth in these statements that I just get sad thinking about it.

[mahagonny]

Saddest of all is how relatively few students in higher education seem to have much interest in learning much of anything, really.  Learning seems like something they do only under duress.

There is so much truth in these statements that I just get sad thinking about it.

Sad and true.

"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.

It goes back to the basic dismissive attitude towards the humanities. The operating assumption is that stuff like engineering is rigorous so most people wouldn't be able to pick it up on their own, but English is just reading some books.

I don't think that. I just think the kinds of things that produce a great artist can't be systematized into a teaching method the same way.

[Mobius]

Humanities isn't doomed any more than other programs. Look at the regional publics with awful graduation rates and students who resist completing an internship. Business majors don't fare much better than a humanities major.

[apl68]

"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.

It goes back to the basic dismissive attitude towards the humanities. The operating assumption is that stuff like engineering is rigorous so most people wouldn't be able to pick it up on their own, but English is just reading some books.

I have gotten a definite vibe from some STEM folks to the effect that "You could never do what I spent so many years of rigorous courses learning how to do, but I can do what you do in my spare time if I really wanted to."  Massive superiority complex vibe, though it may not be intentional.

[Caracal]

"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.

It goes back to the basic dismissive attitude towards the humanities. The operating assumption is that stuff like engineering is rigorous so most people wouldn't be able to pick it up on their own, but English is just reading some books.

I have gotten a definite vibe from some STEM folks to the effect that "You could never do what I spent so many years of rigorous courses learning how to do, but I can do what you do in my spare time if I really wanted to."  Massive superiority complex vibe, though it may not be intentional.

There's a sort of science-supremacism that is common among some people in STEM disciplines. It leads some people to believe that their disc-lipless isn't just a way to gain knowledge about the world, but the only way to examine the world in a rigorous manner. Plenty of scientists don't believe this at all, but it seems to be pretty common.

[Hibush]

I have gotten a definite vibe from some STEM folks to the effect that "You could never do what I spent so many years of rigorous courses learning how to do, but I can do what you do in my spare time if I really wanted to."  Massive superiority complex vibe, though it may not be intentional.

There's a sort of science-supremacism that is common among some people in STEM disciplines. It leads some people to believe that their disc-lipless isn't just a way to gain knowledge about the world, but the only way to examine the world in a rigorous manner. Plenty of scientists don't believe this at all, but it seems to be pretty common.

Take this from the perspective of an applied scientist who trained in the basic sciences...

The superiority complex is real. To a significant extent, basic science training has been designed to weed out those who cannot attain such a sense of superiority. The field is just that cutthroat competitive. I, for instance, am no longer worthy in the eyes of some of my former colleagues.

On the other hand, in the part of academe I now find myself in, scientists are in a way more rigorous because they recognize that there are a whole lot of ways to examine the world.  (I find the applied side more fulfilling as well, still being able to make new discoveries while also having a positive impact on the world.)

[Ruralguy]

I think a lot of scientists recognize the importance of the arts in a way, but when it comes down to it, most scientists will think of science as *the* way to think about and do things, whereas the arts are kind of a grand diversion no matter how beautiful the painting, how meaningful the film or gripping the novel.

Being where I am, I deliberately try not to think this way, but then things like insane politics and crazy family show me how bad things can get when people ignore science (or really, any knowledge, but especially science).  I wish I were a better ally of the humanities, but it can be difficult, not because I dislike the humanities, but because I see doubling down on defense of a scientifically led life as even more critical.  So, I guess my opinion is sort of a bridge between Hegemony and Poly (now there's a nice sentence...).

[spork]

None of this "which is better" talk that people assume everyone else is engaging in is going to increase enrollment in humanities programs.

[Parasaurolophus]

FTR:

Link

But philosophy majors also have some of the highest scores in the LSAT and GMAT — the required tests for entry to law and business school respectively, according to figures from the Educational Testing Service (ETS). And when it comes to earnings for people who only have undergraduate degrees, philosophy majors have the fourth-highest median earnings, $81,200 per year, out-ranking business and chemistry majors, according to the ETS. Bar none, philosophy majors have the highest salary growth trajectory from entry to mid-career.

[...]

People with liberal arts degrees in disciplines like philosophy go on to do all sorts of jobs; most don't just sit around and philosophize in coffee shops or even in classrooms. According to PayScale.com, annual wages for people with B.A.s in philosophy range from $37,000 to $83,000. For welders, the site says the salary range is $23,000 to $63,000.

Since people with philosophy degrees do many things, one way to track them is by earnings regardless of their day job. According to American Community Survey data, the median earnings of full-time year-round employees ages 30-49 with a bachelor's degree in philosophy, and no graduate degree, was $51,000 per year from 2010 to 2012. In addition, the Department of Labor (DOL) also keeps statistics on what people earn by job category. "Philosophy and Religion Teachers, postsecondary" earn, on average, $71,350 (and presumably many are college professors with graduate degrees and the associated time-commitment and/or debt). The DOL's figures show that "Welding, Soldering and Brazing Workers" make $39,570 on average. Two other job categories including "welding" or "welder" have median wages of $40,040 and $36,450.

In addition to crushing the LSAT and the GMAT, philosophy majors outperform everyone overall on the GRE (and fall just after physics, math, engineering, and accounting on the quantitative section[3url]).

Those aren't unique contributions, but since that's the kind of data whose non-existence is being derided...

• 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.

This is an important factor, and some of the situation is due to the recalcitrance of philosophy departments in the '80s and '90s to grow these kinds of service courses. But it's worth remembering (1) that most philosophy departments are very small (e.g. 4 faculty), and that doesn't lend itself to teaching many such courses, whereas these professional programs are huge and the demand for these courses is likewise larger than what a small department could fulfill, (2) that these professional programs are huge and thus have a lot of clout when it comes to curricular matters, whereas the four philosophers at a given university are going to struggle to be heard (or even acknowledged) when they try to serve these curricular needs, and (3) some of those courses, if they're to be given in the context of a professional program, are actually highly specialized and would require a narrow specialist on staff to teach them well, in a fashion that properly serves the professional program's needs.

Having seen what passes for "ethics" courses in such professional programs, I can tell you that they leave a lot to be desired. I can also tell you (by way of illustrating (2) ) that the psych department here is trying to introduce its own professional ethics course even though our department already has one on the books (which they approved!), and because they're a powerful department and we're not they're able to ignore our protestations that the course already exists and is up to the appropriate standards. Something similar happened with business years and years ago. The other thing that happens is that you go to curriculum development meetings, you point out that your small department can service a need, everyone nods and says that's great, yeah, we should really do that, and then when the documents are prepared you find out that you've been entirely left out in the cold.

All that's just to say: it's tough! I expect that similar turf wars play out between the mathematics department and various other departments which would prefer an in-house mathematics course.

[Wahoo Redux]

I wish I were a better ally of the humanities, but it can be difficult, not because I dislike the humanities, but because I see doubling down on defense of a scientifically led life as even more critical.  So, I guess my opinion is sort of a bridge between Hegemony and Poly (now there's a nice sentence...).

Why do the sciences and the humanities have to compete?