Are the Humanities Doomed?

[spork]

^ Hence my previous references to the Content Asian Studies blog post. The paths that people are now following to achieve proficiency in certain skills are not being institutionalized by undergraduate humanities programs.

[Wahoo Redux]

Let's say things like fine arts start to vanish from higher education. I wouldn't like it, for several reasons, but it doesn't necessarily mean the end. It will be interesting (perhaps tragically sad, perhaps not) to see how the arts survive.

Every one of the great concert musicians in the contemporary world is a product of lifelong conservatory training.  Every one.

From Eugène Ysaÿe to Van Kilburn to Heifetz to Perlman to Andre Watts to Yo-Yo Ma to the current crown prince of the fiddle, Chritian Li----all of the products of the great conservatories.  They do not live normal lives but are doused in highest caliber music and musicians from early childhood.  I doubt there is any other way to create these geniuses. 

I've had a couple of old friends who did conservatories or major music schools.  They are like D-1 athletes for music.

Classical musical training really only takes place in intensive higher education.

[mahagonny]

Let's say things like fine arts start to vanish from higher education. I wouldn't like it, for several reasons, but it doesn't necessarily mean the end. It will be interesting (perhaps tragically sad, perhaps not) to see how the arts survive.

Every one of the great concert musicians in the contemporary world is a product of lifelong conservatory training.  Every one.

From Eugène Ysaÿe to Van Kilburn to Heifetz to Perlman to Andre Watts to Yo-Yo Ma to the current crown prince of the fiddle, Chritian Li----all of the products of the great conservatories.  They do not live normal lives but are doused in highest caliber music and musicians from early childhood.  I doubt there is any other way to create these geniuses. 

I've had a couple of old friends who did conservatories or major music schools.  They are like D-1 athletes for music.

Classical musical training really only takes place in intensive higher education.

I suppose this could dovetail nicely into a statement that civilization would go right down the crapper without academic tenure. As for me, not to reiterate more than needed, I find it hard to let my heart bleed if a humanities department bites the dust because it can't afford to maintain tenured positions and the decades ahead planning entailed when it already has non-TT faculty who are great teachers. It is not then knowledge that's going away, just effective management. [edited to add] For that matter, once upon a time you could have a school without a diversity diversity and inclusion diversity equity and inclusion staff and their full time salaries, and somehow it worked.

[Caracal]

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?

This can be easily derived from 2 observations:
1) Income of post-secondary graduates is strongly affected by parental income
Canadian data, but I suspect this effect  is even stronger in the US
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/11f0019m/11f0019m2019012-eng.htm
2) Earnings for the 25th percentile of English graduates are not particularly middle class
web tool
https://lehd.ces.census.gov/data/pseo_explorer.html?type=earnings&specificity=2&state=08&institution=00137000&degreelevel=05&gradcohort=0000-3&filter=25&program=23,14

I.e. if one is likely to end with below median earnings for a chosen major, humanities are not a good choice

So, I went and poked around at those data, and actually, they don't really support the arguments being made here.

Really, when you look more closely at the data what becomes apparent is that the argument about students deciding not to be humanities majors because they are making rational choices about their earnings potential really falls apart. For example, if you look here,  psychology majors have increased pretty dramatically in the last decade and English degrees have decreased, but the earnings for those two degrees are almost exactly the same by any metric. Health degrees have skyrocketed but again, they actually make very similar salaries to English majors, or foreign language majors, another group where the number of degrees has fallen.

There are all these other examples where the narrative just doesn't fit. Philosophy majors really earn very similar amounts to biology majors for example. (At least at most places, there are big differences by institution, which I assume reflect fields of study) Yet, somehow I must have missed all the rhetoric about how biology is a dying discipline only suitable for the wealthy. 

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

So, I went and poked around at those data, and actually, they don't really support the arguments being made here.

Really, when you look more closely at the data what becomes apparent is that the argument about students deciding not to be humanities majors because they are making rational choices about their earnings potential really falls apart. For example, if you look here,  psychology majors have increased pretty dramatically in the last decade and English degrees have decreased, but the earnings for those two degrees are almost exactly the same by any metric. Health degrees have skyrocketed but again, they actually make very similar salaries to English majors, or foreign language majors, another group where the number of degrees has fallen.

There are all these other examples where the narrative just doesn't fit. Philosophy majors really earn very similar amounts to biology majors for example.  (At least at most places, there are big differences by institution, which I assume reflect fields of study) Yet, somehow I must have missed all the rhetoric about how biology is a dying discipline only suitable for the wealthy. 

The things you describe do not mean decreasing popularity of the humanities is irrational.
They mean that popularity of several other fields is.
For example, your statement about biology is a testament that the general public is yet to catch up with reality: due to insane competition (mostly driven by throngs of students hoping to get into medicine-related jobs) biology majors are among the least paid in STEM. This applies to all levels: overproduction of PhDs in this field is notorious.
https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2012/07/stellar-opportunity

[Caracal]

So, I went and poked around at those data, and actually, they don't really support the arguments being made here.

Really, when you look more closely at the data what becomes apparent is that the argument about students deciding not to be humanities majors because they are making rational choices about their earnings potential really falls apart. For example, if you look here,  psychology majors have increased pretty dramatically in the last decade and English degrees have decreased, but the earnings for those two degrees are almost exactly the same by any metric. Health degrees have skyrocketed but again, they actually make very similar salaries to English majors, or foreign language majors, another group where the number of degrees has fallen.

There are all these other examples where the narrative just doesn't fit. Philosophy majors really earn very similar amounts to biology majors for example.  (At least at most places, there are big differences by institution, which I assume reflect fields of study) Yet, somehow I must have missed all the rhetoric about how biology is a dying discipline only suitable for the wealthy. 

The things you describe do not mean decreasing popularity of the humanities is irrational.
They mean that popularity of several other fields is.
For example, your statement about biology is a testament that the general public is yet to catch up with reality: due to insane competition (mostly driven by throngs of students hoping to get into medicine-related jobs) biology majors are among the least paid in STEM. This applies to all levels: overproduction of PhDs in this field is notorious.
https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2012/07/stellar-opportunity

It isn't that humanities majors earn a lot less than other fields. Its that a few majors earn a lot more. Math, Chemistry, Engineering, Physics, Economics, Computer Science.  Obviously, its perfectly rationale that more people are going into majors that might lead to employment in well paying fields. However, not everyone is going to be capable of being a STEM major and some people who might be, are going to be unhappy with that career path. For people with skills in other areas, people in humanities fields earn pretty similar amounts. Yet, nobody seems to spend their time carting about psychology, or nursing degrees and how they are out of step with our modern times.

[spork]

^ 29% decrease in the number of English literature/language bachelor's degrees conferred since 2005-06, which was the post-Vietnam War peak (NCES).

See the median annual income for a dental hygienist posted earlier. Nurses had a similar 2019 median annual income, $73,300, with 66% having a two-year associate's degree (BLS and ONET).Projected growth in demand over the next decade: 5-7%.

For editors, with four-year bachelor's degrees, an average of five years prior experience, and a median annual income that is  $12-$15K lower, the projected job growth is -7%.

Why take longer and pay more for a planned career path that pays on average 20% less and for which demand is likely to decline, unless one is already wealthy?

[Caracal]

^ 29% decrease in the number of English literature/language bachelor's degrees conferred since 2005-06, which was the post-Vietnam War peak (NCES).

See the median annual income for a dental hygienist posted earlier. Nurses had a similar 2019 median annual income, $73,300, with 66% having a two-year associate's degree (BLS and ONET).Projected growth in demand over the next decade: 5-7%.

For editors, with four-year bachelor's degrees, an average of five years prior experience, and a median annual income that is  $12-$15K lower, the projected job growth is -7%.

Why take longer and pay more for a planned career path that pays on average 20% less and for which demand is likely to decline, unless one is already wealthy?

Because very few English majors are going on to careers as editors. Time to give this one up. You guys have constructed a whole edifice on cherry picking the data. English majors are mostly in decline because other people hold these misconceptions you've illustrated nicely.

The truth is that I would bet the actual degree matters very little outside of a pretty small selection of fields. It's mostly a proxy for skills and interests. For the rare person who might be choosing between an English degree and a Computer Science degree, it probably isn't a particularly important choice. If they're talented enough at the tech stuff, they can probably hone the skills that will get them hired out of college without doing a comp sci degree.

[marshwiggle]

It isn't that humanities majors earn a lot less than other fields. Its that a few majors earn a lot more. Math, Chemistry, Engineering, Physics, Economics, Computer Science.  Obviously, its perfectly rationale that more people are going into majors that might lead to employment in well paying fields. However, not everyone is going to be capable of being a STEM major and some people who might be, are going to be unhappy with that career path. For people with skills in other areas, people in humanities fields earn pretty similar amounts. Yet, nobody seems to spend their time carting about psychology, or nursing degrees and how they are out of step with our modern times.

Both psychology and nursing, and all of the STEM fields mentioned above have to be constantly updating their content according to the progress in those fields. There are ideas and practices of the past that have been proven to be scientifically unsound, and so they have to change. In humanities, there are two differences from this. On the one hand, historically part of the "pitch" in humanities is that the knowledge is timeless, and the reason what is studied and how doesn't need to change is that human nature and the human condition is universal. On the other hand, as humanities have become more "inclusive", there has been a move to hear more "voices" from other communities. The reason that  I'm using the quotation marks is specifically that these changes are based on intellectual fashion and ideology, rather than on any objective factors like I pointed out for STEM. In STEM, the scientific process isn't dependent on, or supportive of, any particular ideology or fashion, and so the changes are based on the process, not on the preferences of faculty.

For instance, issues such as vaccine safety are not determined by the makeup of faculty in medical schools; the process for testing vaccines is based on objective measures, and so some vaccines are determined to be safe and some are not; no-one gets to decide which is OK based on their personal experience. And different medical schools can't have different positions on this; at most they can disagree on aspects of the issue which need to be resolved by further study, and in principle, they can agree on what methodology would definitively answer the question.

Summary: "Out of step with modern times" is a luxury STEM can't afford and is intellectually counterproductive.

[spork]

^ 29% decrease in the number of English literature/language bachelor's degrees conferred since 2005-06, which was the post-Vietnam War peak (NCES).

See the median annual income for a dental hygienist posted earlier. Nurses had a similar 2019 median annual income, $73,300, with 66% having a two-year associate's degree (BLS and ONET).Projected growth in demand over the next decade: 5-7%.

For editors, with four-year bachelor's degrees, an average of five years prior experience, and a median annual income that is  $12-$15K lower, the projected job growth is -7%.

Why take longer and pay more for a planned career path that pays on average 20% less and for which demand is likely to decline, unless one is already wealthy?

Because very few English majors are going on to careers as editors. Time to give this one up. You guys have constructed a whole edifice on cherry picking the data. English majors are mostly in decline because other people hold these misconceptions you've illustrated nicely.

The truth is that I would bet the actual degree matters very little outside of a pretty small selection of fields. It's mostly a proxy for skills and interests. For the rare person who might be choosing between an English degree and a Computer Science degree, it probably isn't a particularly important choice. If they're talented enough at the tech stuff, they can probably hone the skills that will get them hired out of college without doing a comp sci degree.

How about journalism? 2019 median salary: $48,000. Projected job growth over the next decade: - 11%.

Data doesn't care whether you believe in it or not.

[polly_mer]

The truth is that I would bet the actual degree matters very little outside of a pretty small selection of fields.

This is entirely true. 

The data indicate that eliteness of institution matters far more than major for most majors: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/does-college-matter/400898/ is a different link with the same points that have been repeatedly made.  Thus, someone who wants to major in the humanities is best advised to go to a selective or better institution for the networking aspects and companies that recruit humanities majors for jobs. 

For those headed toward careers where elite networks rule, school choice is more important since selective schools provide access to the companies and individuals necessary to further one's career.  Who attends these schools? Largely, wealthy kids who've had better access to the types of education, test preparation, and extracurricular activities that help them gain entry, says Kim Weeden, a sociology professor at Cornell University. Rich kids also have the ability to build their resumes via unpaid internships, an easier proposition for students whose families can help support them.

Formal classes are mostly irrelevant when the qualifications aren't tied to a particular major, which means those internships and co-op positions are all the more important to build the relevant skills in a business setting.

Thus, the conclusion from the data is that one should go to a selective institution and network one's butt off to get one of those 80% of jobs that aren't advertised . 

People who have humanities degrees can absolutely do interesting things with good jobs and good possibilities to move up the career ladder.  The problem is it's not the humanities degree itself or even the relevant skills that leads to those outcomes; it's leveraging sufficient social capital to be at a point where the skills and hard work matter.

[Caracal]

^ 29% decrease in the number of English literature/language bachelor's degrees conferred since 2005-06, which was the post-Vietnam War peak (NCES).

See the median annual income for a dental hygienist posted earlier. Nurses had a similar 2019 median annual income, $73,300, with 66% having a two-year associate's degree (BLS and ONET).Projected growth in demand over the next decade: 5-7%.

For editors, with four-year bachelor's degrees, an average of five years prior experience, and a median annual income that is  $12-$15K lower, the projected job growth is -7%.

Why take longer and pay more for a planned career path that pays on average 20% less and for which demand is likely to decline, unless one is already wealthy?

Because very few English majors are going on to careers as editors. Time to give this one up. You guys have constructed a whole edifice on cherry picking the data. English majors are mostly in decline because other people hold these misconceptions you've illustrated nicely.

The truth is that I would bet the actual degree matters very little outside of a pretty small selection of fields. It's mostly a proxy for skills and interests. For the rare person who might be choosing between an English degree and a Computer Science degree, it probably isn't a particularly important choice. If they're talented enough at the tech stuff, they can probably hone the skills that will get them hired out of college without doing a comp sci degree.

How about journalism? 2019 median salary: $48,000. Projected job growth over the next decade: - 11%.

Data doesn't care whether you believe in it or not.

What are you even talking about? I didn't say all fields or degrees had equally good job prospects. Part of the problem with journalism is that is a career oriented major. And, um, you're the one who keeps cherry picking data, not me. Seriously, your argument is totally incoherent and not at all based on a reasonable assessment of data. Repeating it endlessly doesn't make it any stronger.

[Caracal]

Both psychology and nursing, and all of the STEM fields mentioned above have to be constantly updating their content according to the progress in those fields. There are ideas and practices of the past that have been proven to be scientifically unsound, and so they have to change. In humanities, there are two differences from this. On the one hand, historically part of the "pitch" in humanities is that the knowledge is timeless, and the reason what is studied and how doesn't need to change is that human nature and the human condition is universal

Nope, that isn't really the basis for any humanities field. Certainly it is very wrong for History.

I think you're wrong about science too, but that's a different discussion.

[spork]

^ I'll phrase it in simpler terms:

1. Only a very small proportion of undergraduate students attend uber-elite universities where networking with people with pre-existing high levels of social capital is highly likely. 40% of undergraduates attend community colleges, where networking with the children of the wealthy is highly unlikely.

2. Given (1), economic prospects weigh heavily on the choice of academic major for a large proportion of undergraduates.

3. Undergraduate humanities programs are not designed and delivered in ways that take (2) into account. 

[Caracal]

^ I'll phrase it in simpler terms:

1. Only a very small proportion of undergraduate students attend uber-elite universities where networking with people with pre-existing high levels of social capital is highly likely. 40% of undergraduates attend community colleges, where networking with the children of the wealthy is highly unlikely.

2. Given (1), economic prospects weigh heavily on the choice of academic major for a large proportion of undergraduates.

3. Undergraduate humanities programs are not designed and delivered in ways that take (2) into account.

Oh? Then why do humanities majors not seem to earn much less than other comparable majors, even at non-elite universities? All assertions, no actual relevant evidence.