Are the Humanities Doomed?

[Hegemony]

"The kinds of things that produce a great artist can't be systematized into a teaching method the same way." But humanities courses are not all devoted to creating works of art, but also to thinking about and understanding works of art.  There are classes in painting, and also in art history; there are classes in creative writing, and also in English and comparative literature. Perhaps analogous to the way science-literate people should understand how vaccines are made and tested, without necessarily learning all the nuts and bolts of stuff like what stabilizers are suitable and the umpteen steps in determining whether an adjuvant is effective.

One could argue that "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," but one could also argue that the proliferation of nursing ethics, business ethics, bioethics, ethics in psychology, etc. courses is evidence of how non-humanities disciplines acknowledge their need for the humanities.

As for why the humanities and sciences have to compete — in my ideal world, they would not.  Most people if not everyone would have a good basic education in both, and an appreciation for both. I don't hear many people here arguing that teaching science is pointless, but I do hear people arguing that teaching the humanities is pointless. That they clearly did not pick up on the value of humanities teaching is evidence, in my view, of why more and better humanities teaching is important.

[marshwiggle]

As for why the humanities and sciences have to compete — in my ideal world, they would not.  Most people if not everyone would have a good basic education in both, and an appreciation for both. I don't hear many people here arguing that teaching science is pointless, but I do hear people arguing that teaching the humanities is pointless. That they clearly did not pick up on the value of humanities teaching is evidence, in my view, of why more and better humanities teaching is important.

I'd be happy to hear from advocates for everyone taking humanities courses who also support everyone being required to take probability and statistics and research methods courses. (Notice neither of those are specific to a field of science, but all about understanding how to think scientifically, and how to tell evidence-based statements from propaganda.)

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.

That's pretty common. In the engineering school my daughter attended, every engineering sub-discipline taught its own calculus. The argument is typically that math departments are too theoretical in their approach, and that other disciplines want more emphasis on application.

[Caracal]

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

No, but it highlights the shallowness and intellectual poverty of many of the anti-humanities arguments. At base, a lot of it is just about intellectual chauvinism. Some posters seem to not grasp that they are asking for levels of proofs of the utility of degrees that their own disciplines can't produce either. If you get more majors and more people assume that majoring in your discipline is going to produce results, it can be easy to pretend that the value of your discipline is self-evident.

Which is convenient, because I'm not sure that many undergraduate degrees really have a concrete demonstrable value. Take computer science or computer engineering. I know quite a few people who do coding or severer management with humanities degrees who have absolutely zero formal training. They quite literally never took a course with computer in the title in college. I get the impression from these people that isn't really particularly unusual in their fields.

Now, this doesn't mean computer science majors are worthless, it just suggests that they may not create a particularly exclusive path to a job. I'd be inclined to go further and argue that much of the apparent success of computer science majors on the job market, has little to do with their choice of major. People with an interest and aptitude in computing are naturally more likely to gravitate towards a computer science major, and there's a good job market for people who can build up skills in those areas.  but when those people decide to go major in something else, and build up those skills as hobbies, it isn't clear they pay any real price for that on the job market.

[spork]

As for why the humanities and sciences have to compete — in my ideal world, they would not.  Most people if not everyone would have a good basic education in both, and an appreciation for both. I don't hear many people here arguing that teaching science is pointless, but I do hear people arguing that teaching the humanities is pointless. That they clearly did not pick up on the value of humanities teaching is evidence, in my view, of why more and better humanities teaching is important.

I'd be happy to hear from advocates for everyone taking humanities courses who also support everyone being required to take probability and statistics and research methods courses. (Notice neither of those are specific to a field of science, but all about understanding how to think scientifically, and how to tell evidence-based statements from propaganda.)

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.

That's pretty common. In the engineering school my daughter attended, every engineering sub-discipline taught its own calculus. The argument is typically that math departments are too theoretical in their approach, and that other disciplines want more emphasis on application.

I've been advocating that every student here be required to take statistics. Some of the strongest opposition to this comes from the math department, because those faculty members don't want statistics to be eligible for the one-and-done check box math course in the gen ed requirements.

I'll repeat what I posted earlier -- this is why the majority of undergraduate-level humanities programs in the USA are doomed:

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

Edited to add: GRE, GMAT, and LSAT scores of philosophy majors were mentioned in a previous post. I don't think this is relevant to the survival of undergraduate humanities programs across U.S. higher ed. I think only about 1/3 of the adult U.S. population completes a bachelor's degree, a far smaller percentage completes a graduate degree, and a far, far smaller proportion of those graduate degrees are in humanities fields. The vast majority of 18-year olds do not enroll at a college thinking that in four years they will be starting a graduate program in a humanities field and thus need to major as undergraduates in that field.

[Caracal]

I'd be happy to hear from advocates for everyone taking humanities courses who also support everyone being required to take probability and statistics and research methods courses. (Notice neither of those are specific to a field of science, but all about understanding how to think scientifically, and how to tell evidence-based statements from propaganda.)

Absolutely on probability and statistics. I don't consider myself a particularly qualitative historian, but even so, basic probability and statistical ideas are crucial towards how I evaluate evidence. I don't do anything theoretically complex, but when I'm trying to evaluate evidence and figure out what conclusions are reasonable to draw, I think in terms of representative and non-representative samples, sample bias, outliers etc.

Research methods I'm a bit less sure about. If I was appointed the czar of some college and given unlimited resources, I'd completely scrap gen ed structure as it exists and replace it with something that involved interdisciplinary course series taught by professors in different disciplines examining some sort of problem or debate. The problem with the way gen-ed courses usually are structured is that they lack any context and the relevance to a students other classes isn't clear. It would be neat to have a structure where you can have courses where biology majors can learn about eugenics, social darwinism and the role of scientists in promoting these ideas, while history majors can get a better grounding in current scientific ideas about genetics and evolution. In the process you could have some really interesting discussions about the philosophy of science and its role in society.

[Hibush]

That's pretty common. In the engineering school my daughter attended, every engineering sub-discipline taught its own calculus. The argument is typically that math departments are too theoretical in their approach, and that other disciplines want more emphasis on application.

I've been advocating that every student here be required to take statistics. Some of the strongest opposition to this comes from the math department, because those faculty members don't want statistics to be eligible for the one-and-done check box math course in the gen ed requirements.

I agree that a universal statistics course is essential so that people have basic tools for determining what is true based on information they see.

I recall our dear forumite Daniel Von Flanagan vigorously arguing that statistics without a solid grounding in calculus is unthinkable. I disagree. No calculus is needed to understand the basics of probability, the assumptions underlying hypothesis testing, or the difference between expected outcomes before and after you look at the results. Those are all things students should be able to do even if they have only struggled through algebra.

[Caracal]

I'll repeat what I posted earlier -- this is why the majority of undergraduate-level humanities programs in the USA are doomed:

The irony is that a historical prospective would allow you to understand how myopic and presentist these ideas are.

[Caracal]

That's pretty common. In the engineering school my daughter attended, every engineering sub-discipline taught its own calculus. The argument is typically that math departments are too theoretical in their approach, and that other disciplines want more emphasis on application.

I've been advocating that every student here be required to take statistics. Some of the strongest opposition to this comes from the math department, because those faculty members don't want statistics to be eligible for the one-and-done check box math course in the gen ed requirements.


I agree that a universal statistics course is essential so that people have basic tools for determining what is true based on information they see.

I recall our dear forumite Daniel Von Flanagan vigorously arguing that statistics without a solid grounding in calculus is unthinkable. I disagree. No calculus is needed to understand the basics of probability, the assumptions underlying hypothesis testing, or the difference between expected outcomes before and after you look at the results. Those are all things students should be able to do even if they have only struggled through algebra.

Yeah, I agree. It works on the same principle as lots of other subjects. When I'm teaching introductory history courses, or gen-ed courses,  I'm really trying to get the students to understand how to think about the past using historical reasoning. Can an intro history class teach you how to make an original historical contribution? Does it allow you to fully engage with the historical literature? No, it can't do those things, but it can allow students to understand a mode of thinking.

Same thing with statistics. I certainly can't create or evaluate a complex statistical model based on the statistics I took in college and high school. However, I did learn how to think in a statistical mode and that's something that is really valuable, both in my work and in other aspects of my life.

[marshwiggle]

I agree that a universal statistics course is essential so that people have basic tools for determining what is true based on information they see.

I recall our dear forumite Daniel Von Flanagan vigorously arguing that statistics without a solid grounding in calculus is unthinkable. I disagree. No calculus is needed to understand the basics of probability, the assumptions underlying hypothesis testing, or the difference between expected outcomes before and after you look at the results. Those are all things students should be able to do even if they have only struggled through algebra.

Yeah, I agree. It works on the same principle as lots of other subjects. When I'm teaching introductory history courses, or gen-ed courses,  I'm really trying to get the students to understand how to think about the past using historical reasoning. Can an intro history class teach you how to make an original historical contribution? Does it allow you to fully engage with the historical literature? No, it can't do those things, but it can allow students to understand a mode of thinking.

Same thing with statistics. I certainly can't create or evaluate a complex statistical model based on the statistics I took in college and high school. However, I did learn how to think in a statistical mode and that's something that is really valuable, both in my work and in other aspects of my life.

This is the point, and why I included research methods; in the same way that studying humanities is supposed to be preparation for life, understanding how science works is important for life. Think of the past year, and all of the claims from all over the place of "fake news" and "junk science". Society needs to have a general level of understanding of how do evaluate claims in order to function. (The media does a very bad job of encouraging this, and often fails to exhibit the most basic understanding itself.)

[Parasaurolophus]

I'd be happy to hear from advocates for everyone taking humanities courses who also support everyone being required to take probability and statistics and research methods courses. (Notice neither of those are specific to a field of science, but all about understanding how to think scientifically, and how to tell evidence-based statements from propaganda.)

Most critical thinking courses run out of philosophy departments include modules on statistical reasoning. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many of us who didn't support requiring everyone to take a proper stats course, at least in principle. (Maybe that's too strong, but I guarantee you'd find broad-based support for it.)

Edited to add: GRE, GMAT, and LSAT scores of philosophy majors were mentioned in a previous post. I don't think this is relevant to the survival of undergraduate humanities programs across U.S. higher ed. I think only about 1/3 of the adult U.S. population completes a bachelor's degree, a far smaller percentage completes a graduate degree, and a far, far smaller proportion of those graduate degrees are in humanities fields. The vast majority of 18-year olds do not enroll at a college thinking that in four years they will be starting a graduate program in a humanities field and thus need to major as undergraduates in that field.

The point of mentioning performance on those tests wasn't that everyone does or should go on to take further courses in those fields. The point was that at least one humanities discipline does a fantastic job at imparting the skills measured by those tests--better, even, than non-humanities disciplines. You'll recall that I was responding to the charge that the humanities have nothing much to offer students in the way of skills or preparation. There are issues with relying on that kind of data, but I think it goes a long way towards showing that at least some humanities majors aren't a waste of time. And if we grant that much, it seems likely we should grant far more.

[apl68]

I agree that a universal statistics course is essential so that people have basic tools for determining what is true based on information they see.

I recall our dear forumite Daniel Von Flanagan vigorously arguing that statistics without a solid grounding in calculus is unthinkable. I disagree. No calculus is needed to understand the basics of probability, the assumptions underlying hypothesis testing, or the difference between expected outcomes before and after you look at the results. Those are all things students should be able to do even if they have only struggled through algebra.

Yeah, I agree. It works on the same principle as lots of other subjects. When I'm teaching introductory history courses, or gen-ed courses,  I'm really trying to get the students to understand how to think about the past using historical reasoning. Can an intro history class teach you how to make an original historical contribution? Does it allow you to fully engage with the historical literature? No, it can't do those things, but it can allow students to understand a mode of thinking.

Same thing with statistics. I certainly can't create or evaluate a complex statistical model based on the statistics I took in college and high school. However, I did learn how to think in a statistical mode and that's something that is really valuable, both in my work and in other aspects of my life.

This is the point, and why I included research methods; in the same way that studying humanities is supposed to be preparation for life, understanding how science works is important for life. Think of the past year, and all of the claims from all over the place of "fake news" and "junk science". Society needs to have a general level of understanding of how do evaluate claims in order to function. (The media does a very bad job of encouraging this, and often fails to exhibit the most basic understanding itself.)

Here's another thing that society could use.  It needs an understanding of history--that our present is the creation of things that happened in the past, that people weren't always like they are now--and not just because they were inferior to us--and that different groups in society have different histories that do much to explain why they think the way they do now.  To anybody who has any kind of grounding or training in history the lack of this sort of perspective, and the problems caused by it in our society, are obvious.  Which is why some awareness of history needs to be part of the equipment needed to be considered an educated citizen.

Granted, all too many undergrads who take gen ed courses in history gain nothing at all from it.  The same can be said of all too many undergrads taking gen ed math, science, statistics, and research methods.  That's their fault for failing to take advantage of the opportunity they were given.  It's not an argument for just dropping any of these things from an undergrad education.

As for the debate over who makes the most money or has the best chances of finding a good job--that's largely a red herring.  Any good college education in any major should prepare a student well enough for the job market, if the student is prepared to work at it.  But fear that majoring in anything other than STEM or business will condemn you to poverty is driving students away from the study of the humanities--a study that could greatly benefit them--in droves, and needlessly.  We're all likely to end up poorer for it.

[polly_mer]

But fear that majoring in anything other than STEM or business will condemn you to poverty is driving students away from the study of the humanities--a study that could greatly benefit them--in droves, and needlessly.  We're all likely to end up poorer for it.

No.  Just no. 

The people who could benefit from a humanities major in terms of knowledge who don't pick a humanities major due to fear of poverty probably would not be middle class with a humanities major.   Loving to read and play with ideas is not at all the same as being capable of getting a middle class job when the only people you know with middle class jobs are k-12 teachers.

<waves cheerily>

My child will likely major in the arts or humanities because of his personality, but he has the social capital to be middle class even without college.  He has social networks that can get him internships and coops for experience.  I will make every effort for him to select a college that will be aligned with his interests, which likely will not be the cheapest option to check boxes.

But there was no path from where I started to a good middle class life through first bachelor's degree in the humanities.  Even BA to MLS wasn't really an option to be solidly middle class.  However, 30 years of STEM that involved moving around the country, acquiring middle class and professional class friends, and acquiring middle class habits that are now automatic means my child is well positioned to be middle class.

Ignoring the realities of the social capital in getting a middle class job with formal education in the humanities means complete ignorance of vast swatches of literature and history.  It's on a level with claiming scientific basic knowledge and blindly accepting that small children won't get and pass a respiratory virus.

[Wahoo Redux]

But fear that majoring in anything other than STEM or business will condemn you to poverty is driving students away from the study of the humanities--a study that could greatly benefit them--in droves, and needlessly.  We're all likely to end up poorer for it.

No.  Just no. 

The people who could benefit from a humanities major in terms of knowledge who don't pick a humanities major due to fear of poverty probably would not be middle class with a humanities major.   Loving to read and play with ideas is not at all the same as being capable of getting a middle class job when the only people you know with middle class jobs are k-12 teachers.

<waves cheerily>

My child will likely major in the arts or humanities because of his personality, but he has the social capital to be middle class even without college.  He has social networks that can get him internships and coops for experience.  I will make every effort for him to select a college that will be aligned with his interests, which likely will not be the cheapest option to check boxes.

But there was no path from where I started to a good middle class life through first bachelor's degree in the humanities.  Even BA to MLS wasn't really an option to be solidly middle class.  However, 30 years of STEM that involved moving around the country, acquiring middle class and professional class friends, and acquiring middle class habits that are now automatic means my child is well positioned to be middle class.

Ignoring the realities of the social capital in getting a middle class job with formal education in the humanities means complete ignorance of vast swatches of literature and history.  It's on a level with claiming scientific basic knowledge and blindly accepting that small children won't get and pass a respiratory virus.

Polly, your syntax is very confusing here.  I suspect this was written in a hurry.

I wonder if you could restate what you are saying here a little more clearly.

I also wonder about your ideas regarding internships and a "social networks."  Certainly you know that plenty of students get internships from corporations and government offices staffed by people who are are strangers to the student. 

Are you a follower of Marty Nemko?

[marshwiggle]

Polly, your syntax is very confusing here.  I suspect this was written in a hurry.

I wonder if you could restate what you are saying here a little more clearly.

What I read Polly saying is that someone who is from an urban, middle class family with parents who are professionals (and university graduates themselves) will be able to translate any degree into some sort of middle class job. On the other hand, someone who is first-generation, from a rural area, is not very likely to be able to do so unless the degree is very career-focused. The culture and parents' social connections have a huge influence in the difference between these scenarios.

[apl68]

Polly, your syntax is very confusing here.  I suspect this was written in a hurry.

I wonder if you could restate what you are saying here a little more clearly.

What I read Polly saying is that someone who is from an urban, middle class family with parents who are professionals (and university graduates themselves) will be able to translate any degree into some sort of middle class job. On the other hand, someone who is first-generation, from a rural area, is not very likely to be able to do so unless the degree is very career-focused. The culture and parents' social connections have a huge influence in the difference between these scenarios.

If this is what polly is saying then she has a point.  But I think she is generalizing too much.  The humanities are not just for urban rich kids.  I'm from a rural area, and my family was only borderline middle class.  I grew up in a working-class community, and have long since returned to one after my long interlude of working at an R1 in the big city.  That interlude did not make me forget my roots.  I'm well aware of the challenges that members of different social groups face in seeking a higher education. 

And I still believe that undergrad majors in the humanities should be seen as a viable choice for students from a variety of backgrounds.  Certainly they're not for everybody.  A college education of any sort is not for everybody.  Not everybody is cut out for the same pathway.  But this idea that study of the humanities is some kind of ornamental frill that is only for the idle children of the rich simply isn't true.  I can see how polly might have grown up with such an idea.  It's hardly an uncommon one.  That said, it's unfortunate that a person of her obvious intelligence should hold onto it so stubbornly after having had so much experience of the broader world.