Are the Humanities Doomed?

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

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. 

Internships requiring specific technical skills are indeed quite likely to be openly advertised.
This is not the case for many generic office roles potentially filled by humanities graduates. The probability further decreases if one excludes large corporations actively recruiting graduates from top schools (I am pretty sure that a humanities degree from Harvard does open a lot of doors).

[apl68]

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.)

It seems to me that any type of higher education ought to promote a kind of humility in the face of a world that's a lot bigger and grander than any one of us can comprehend.  And yet I've found in reading at The Fora that people can get through higher ed and earn advanced degrees and yet still have very little humility, and minds that are very, very tightly closed.  Maybe it's a byproduct of that weeding-out process.  Maybe an occupational hazard of having to master so much in the way of knowledge and skills is a failure to remember that "the more you learn, the less you know."  If members of the educated professions--humanities, lawyers, engineers, scientists, doctors and all--didn't come across as such know-it-alls so much of the time, they might provoke less opposition to their expertise.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

Do we have any evidence of this?

[apl68]

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.

Do we have any evidence of this?

Marshwiggle (and polly) are making valid points here about students from these sorts of backgrounds facing greater challenges in some respects.  I've seen what they're talking about.  My concern is that recognition of these challenges seems to be leading to a conclusion that these students shouldn't even bother trying to study anything that conventional wisdom says doesn't have dollar signs all over it.  It's as if students from rural, working class backgrounds are being told that any effort to study the humanities is an aspiration above their station.  It's not right to tell them all that, any more than it's right to tell them all that about getting an education in the first place.  Some of them could thrive in a humanities major, given opportunity and encouragement.

Please understand that I'm talking about undergrad majors here.  When it comes to grad education in the humanities, "just don't go" is, however much we might wish it were otherwise, the best advice in most cases.

[marshwiggle]

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.

Do we have any evidence of this?

Marshwiggle (and polly) are making valid points here about students from these sorts of backgrounds facing greater challenges in some respects.  I've seen what they're talking about.  My concern is that recognition of these challenges seems to be leading to a conclusion that these students shouldn't even bother trying to study anything that conventional wisdom says doesn't have dollar signs all over it.  It's as if students from rural, working class backgrounds are being told that any effort to study the humanities is an aspiration above their station.  It's not right to tell them all that, any more than it's right to tell them all that about getting an education in the first place.  Some of them could thrive in a humanities major, given opportunity and encouragement.

I have always said that the really good students could thrive no matter what they study. My objection has always been to recruiting unmotivated, unexceptional students into programs to keep the numbers up when those students are not going to be the first ones hired no matter what they study.

I would never try to talk someone out of something they're passionate about. But if someone doesn't know what they want to study, (or even IF they want to study), they should do something else until they know what they want to study.

It has nothing to do with "their station"; it has everything to do with avoiding making a huge investment of time and money just to do what someone else suggests they should.

[Wahoo Redux]

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.

Do we have any evidence of this?

Marshwiggle (and polly) are making valid points here about students from these sorts of backgrounds facing greater challenges in some respects.  I've seen what they're talking about.  My concern is that recognition of these challenges seems to be leading to a conclusion that these students shouldn't even bother trying to study anything that conventional wisdom says doesn't have dollar signs all over it.  It's as if students from rural, working class backgrounds are being told that any effort to study the humanities is an aspiration above their station. 

My father, the son of an alcoholic cement salesman, was exactly one of these middle class students who did very well in life.  He took his family to a gray-collar / blue-collar middle-class town connected to a highway where I grew up.

My last employer and my current employer are both open enrollment teaching schools serving mid-middle-class, lower middle-class, working class and poverty-class populations.  Both schools serve a number of 1st generation students.

I am very familiar with the demographic being described here.

But I understood the argument to be that students from the lower socioeconomic demographics fail with humanities degrees because they lack social connections and acumen. 

I wondered if I misunderstood or if there is evidence of this phenomenon.

It sounded like Marty Nemko's cluess ranting.

[apl68]

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.

Do we have any evidence of this?

Marshwiggle (and polly) are making valid points here about students from these sorts of backgrounds facing greater challenges in some respects.  I've seen what they're talking about.  My concern is that recognition of these challenges seems to be leading to a conclusion that these students shouldn't even bother trying to study anything that conventional wisdom says doesn't have dollar signs all over it.  It's as if students from rural, working class backgrounds are being told that any effort to study the humanities is an aspiration above their station.  It's not right to tell them all that, any more than it's right to tell them all that about getting an education in the first place.  Some of them could thrive in a humanities major, given opportunity and encouragement.

I have always said that the really good students could thrive no matter what they study. My objection has always been to recruiting unmotivated, unexceptional students into programs to keep the numbers up when those students are not going to be the first ones hired no matter what they study.

I would never try to talk someone out of something they're passionate about. But if someone doesn't know what they want to study, (or even IF they want to study), they should do something else until they know what they want to study.

It has nothing to do with "their station"; it has everything to do with avoiding making a huge investment of time and money just to do what someone else suggests they should.

That's my concern, though--that students who would be motivated to study the humanities are being discouraged from doing so.  Neither I nor, I think, anybody else here is wanting the humanities to recruit as majors undermotivated students who just want to get their piece of paper that entitles them to a lucrative job. 

That's not the same as saying that there should be no gen ed humanities requirements.  The slackers will do poorly no matter what they study.  Good students can pick up a variety of useful perspectives if exposed to a variety of disciplines.

[spork]

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.

Presentist? What does that mean? Refute the data mentioned at https://contentasianstudies.wordpress.com/2020/09/05/post-2008-knowledge-the-future-of-the-humanities-and-area-studies/ with data of your own. The data at that webpage includes a 50% decrease in the number of undergraduate history majors in the decade after the 2008 recession at a public R1 university, and a national 34% decrease over the same period.

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.

Do we have any evidence of this?

Marshwiggle (and polly) are making valid points here about students from these sorts of backgrounds facing greater challenges in some respects.  I've seen what they're talking about.  My concern is that recognition of these challenges seems to be leading to a conclusion that these students shouldn't even bother trying to study anything that conventional wisdom says doesn't have dollar signs all over it.  It's as if students from rural, working class backgrounds are being told that any effort to study the humanities is an aspiration above their station. 

My father, the son of an alcoholic cement salesman, was exactly one of these middle class students who did very well in life.  He took his family to a gray-collar / blue-collar middle-class town connected to a highway where I grew up.

My last employer and my current employer are both open enrollment teaching schools serving mid-middle-class, lower middle-class, working class and poverty-class populations.  Both schools serve a number of 1st generation students.

I am very familiar with the demographic being described here.

But I understood the argument to be that students from the lower socioeconomic demographics fail with humanities degrees because they lack social connections and acumen. 

I wondered if I misunderstood or if there is evidence of this phenomenon.

It sounded like Marty Nemko's cluess ranting.

I don't think we can rely on personal anecdotes as being representative of the college-going population at large. Neither one of my parents went to college, they provided their children with a middle-class lifestyle in the 1970s and 1980s. But those of us who came from those backgrounds and ended up with PhDs are most likely far less numerous than those from those backgrounds who never went to college, attended college but never completed a degree, or otherwise fell through the cracks. On average people who obtain a bachelor's degree earn significantly more than those with just a high school diploma at the same point in time, but guess what? My income with a PhD is in inflation-adjusted terms the same as my father's.

I looked up BLS median annual salaries for a few occupations.

Editor, $61K: One of those jobs that nominally requires a bachelor's degree and that academics often say someone with a humanities bachelor's degree is well-suited for. Typically requires ~ 5 years post-college related experience to obtain a job with this title.

Dental hygienist, $76K: requires associate's degree, often obtained relatively inexpensively at community college. Once you've complete the program and are licensed, you quality for a job with this title.

Sales manager, $127K: most have bachelor's degrees. Typically requires ~ 5 years post-college related experience to obtain a job with this title.

While humanities fields might be wonderful preparation for a career as a sales manager, they are not pitched that way by the people who deliver them, nor do 18-year olds entering college associate the study of the humanities with that career. The message that the 18 year olds get is instead "You can major in X and maybe after college work your way up to being an editor, which pays less than being a dental hygienist who went to college for two years and also pays less than what your classmates who are studying other fields will be doing in their careers."

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't think we can rely on personal anecdotes as being representative of the college-going population at large.

I was specifically asking for statistics.

The rest of this was not what I was asking.

Neither one of my parents went to college, they provided their children with a middle-class lifestyle in the 1970s and 1980s. But those of us who came from those backgrounds and ended up with PhDs are most likely far less numerous than those from those backgrounds who never went to college, attended college but never completed a degree, or otherwise fell through the cracks. On average people who obtain a bachelor's degree earn significantly more than those with just a high school diploma at the same point in time, but guess what? My income with a PhD is in inflation-adjusted terms the same as my father's.

I looked up BLS median annual salaries for a few occupations.

Editor, $61K: One of those jobs that nominally requires a bachelor's degree and that academics often say someone with a humanities bachelor's degree is well-suited for. Typically requires ~ 5 years post-college related experience to obtain a job with this title.

Dental hygienist, $76K: requires associate's degree, often obtained relatively inexpensively at community college. Once you've complete the program and are licensed, you quality for a job with this title.

Sales manager, $127K: most have bachelor's degrees. Typically requires ~ 5 years post-college related experience to obtain a job with this title.

Nor was this...

While humanities fields might be wonderful preparation for a career as a sales manager, they are not pitched that way by the people who deliver them, nor do 18-year olds entering college associate the study of the humanities with that career. The message that the 18 year olds get is instead "You can major in X and maybe after college work your way up to being an editor, which pays less than being a dental hygienist who went to college for two years and also pays less than what your classmates who are studying other fields will be doing in their careers."

People who are editors are generally pretty passionate about their work.  I would be making at least double what I am making now without the decade of poverty in grad school, and I would be able to live where I wanted, if I had stayed in underwriting----at least up to the point I leaped to my death from the top of the MetLife Building.

Getting paid $XXXX is not the only thing in life.

[spork]

The "follow one's passion at all costs" concept is not very persuasive to a large proportion of undergraduates, especially if they're coming from low SES backgrounds or have had white suburban middle class fear drilled into them from an early age by their parents. 

[polly_mer]

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-01-09-for-students-to-succeed-social-capital-matter-just-as-much-as-skills-here-s-why

https://hechingerreport.org/the-real-reasons-many-low-income-students-dont-go-to-college/

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/talent-acquisition/pages/managing-hiring-managers-high-expectations-for-new-college-graduates.aspx

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prestoncooper2/2018/06/08/underemployment-persists-throughout-college-graduates-careers/?sh=56585cd67490

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/03/privileged-poor-navigating-elite-university-life/585100/

[polly_mer]

https://edpolicy.education.jhu.edu/how-social-capital-can-help-close-the-achievement-gap/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/17/18647250/privileged-poor-university-admissions-anthony-abraham-jack

https://hechingerreport.org/high-school-grads-least-likely-america-go-college-rural-ones/

https://hechingerreport.org/rural-colleges-arent-supplying-the-workers-rural-businesses-and-agriculture-need/

https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-gamma/higher-ed's-dirty-little-secrets

https://www.wsj.com/articles/do-elite-colleges-lead-to-higher-salaries-only-for-some-professions-1454295674

[Wahoo Redux]

The "follow one's passion at all costs" concept is not very persuasive to a large proportion of undergraduates,

Never said it was.  We humanities folks are weirdos. 

I just want to reach the weirdos like me.  There are enough. 

[Wahoo Redux]

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2019-01-09-for-students-to-succeed-social-capital-matter-just-as-much-as-skills-here-s-why

etc. etc.

Okay.

I think this is one of those little agons in which we argue something that is not in contention.

We all know that growing up middle-class gifts kids with social capital and that poor kids generally are faced with socioeconomic hurdles----that's why they publish books like Rich Dad, Poor Dad.

What I wanted to know, specifically, was, if a poor kid gets a humanities bachelor's degree are they unable to climb the professional ladder? 

Do we have numbers that illustrate how humanities degree holders are unable to overcome socioeconomic limitations?

Does a humanities degree confer no socioeconomic benefits to students from lower socioeconomic strata?

[spork]

[. . .]

What I wanted to know, specifically, was, if a poor kid gets a humanities bachelor's degree are they unable to climb the professional ladder? 

Do we have numbers that illustrate how humanities degree holders are unable to overcome socioeconomic limitations?

Does a humanities degree confer no socioeconomic benefits to students from lower socioeconomic strata?

None of these questions are the topic of this thread. On average, people who obtain bachelor's degrees earn more than people with only high school diplomas.