Are the Humanities Doomed?

[Wahoo Redux]

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?

Most relevant if your single criteria for college is salary. 

Not so relevant if you have another objective in mind.

I, for instance, would never want to be a dental hygienist.  I am not alone in that.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

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.

Based on the posts above, it appears that you use quite narrow definition of "comparable majors".
Furthermore, some majors that you have specifically mentioned as having similar earnings, but remaining popular (i.e. biology), are known to be poor choices for students requiring large loans to graduate.

Most relevant if your single criteria for college is salary. 

Not so relevant if you have another objective in mind.

I would paraphrase it to:
Most relevant if one has to take 50k in loans to get a bachelor degree.
Not so relevant if you don't (either by virtue of being rich or going through college 30 years ago when tuition was way lower)

[Caracal]

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.

Based on the posts above, it appears that you use quite narrow definition of "comparable majors".

At this point, I'm just legitimately confused about what you're trying to argue. Basically, the discussion has gone like this:

You and spork: Humanities majors are dying because of rational choices of students-look how much less English Majors earn than Engineering Majors"
Me: Certain STEM Majors earn more, but actually if you compare humanities majors to disciplines outside of STEM, and even some in it, there's really not much difference.
You and Spork: The point is that humanities majors are declining because they can't keep up with the times and provide students access to stable employment.
Me: So, wait why aren't students fleeing psychology majors since they earn about as much as English majors. And why are we so focused on the supposed penalty that students get from being a humanities major when earnings are very similar for lots of other majors.
You: Seems like your definition of comparable majors is very narrow. The point is humanities majors are only for the rich.

Data can't lie by itself, but people can certainly use it to spin misleading narratives.

[Wahoo Redux]

Most relevant if your single criteria for college is salary. 

Not so relevant if you have another objective in mind.

I would paraphrase it to:
Most relevant if one has to take 50k in loans to get a bachelor degree.
Not so relevant if you don't (either by virtue of being rich or going through college 30 years ago when tuition was way lower)

Why is it we feel the need to say obvious things or to be extraordinarily literal?

The point is very simple: we go to college for a myriad of reasons. 

It is very true, I think, that the majority of students want a passport to gainful employment----in fact, this has been agreed upon so many times that I do not know why we constantly point it out. 

It is also very true that people have ambitions and desires that are not entirely predicated upon salary.

I would not want to spend my adult working hours with my hands in other people's mouths, particularly considering what we will find there once people seek out a dentist.  I do not care that my salary after two relatively cheap years of education and 5 years of work is better than the earnings of a bachelor's degree at the same point in life.  I am not alone in this.

Certainly students balance the need for a career, cost, and outcomes; this is obvious.

I know it seems like some of us don't get it, but we get it.  We don't need to point out the obvious. 

[marshwiggle]

The point is very simple: we go to college for a myriad of reasons. 

It is very true, I think, that the majority of students want a passport to gainful employment----in fact, this has been agreed upon so many times that I do not know why we constantly point it out. 

It is also very true that people have ambitions and desires that are not entirely predicated upon salary.

Putting all this together, it means that in order to increase enrollment to one program or discipline, you're mainly going to have to find people considering other *similar or adjacent disciplines. (There aren't likely lots of people considering STEM who can be talked into humanities, or vice versa.)

*So assuming things like psychology are similar or adjacent to humanities, is there any research to show that perceptions of salary are what drive the choice? If other factors are more important in most students' decisions, then all of the discussion about salary, regardless of whether it's favourable or not, are beside the point.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

At this point, I'm just legitimately confused about what you're trying to argue. Basically, the discussion has gone like this:

You and spork: Humanities majors are dying because of rational choices of students-look how much less English Majors earn than Engineering Majors"
Me: Certain STEM Majors earn more, but actually if you compare humanities majors to disciplines outside of STEM, and even some in it, there's really not much difference.
You and Spork: The point is that humanities majors are declining because they can't keep up with the times and provide students access to stable employment.
Me: So, wait why aren't students fleeing psychology majors since they earn about as much as English majors. And why are we so focused on the supposed penalty that students get from being a humanities major when earnings are very similar for lots of other majors.
You: Seems like your definition of comparable majors is very narrow. The point is humanities majors are only for the rich.

Data can't lie by itself, but people can certainly use it to spin misleading narratives.

From my perspective the exchange was the following (additions bolded):

You and spork: Humanities majors are dying because of rational choices of students-look how much less English Majors earn than Engineering Majors, while increasing tuition means that those earnings are not high enough to help dealing with increasing debt load post-graduation
Me: Certain STEM Majors earn more, but actually if you compare humanities majors to disciplines outside of STEM, and even some in it, there's really not much difference.
You and Spork: Those disciplines also are a poor choice for anyone, who needs to take large loans to get a bachelor degree.   The point is that humanities majors are declining because they can't keep up with the times and provide students access to stable employment.
Me: So, wait why aren't students fleeing psychology majors since they earn about as much as English majors. And why are we so focused on the supposed penalty that students get from being a humanities major when earnings are very similar for lots of other majors. 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.
You: Seems like your definition of comparable majors is very narrow as you keep comparing between different poor choices. The point is humanities majors are only for the rich.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

Why is it we feel the need to say obvious things or to be extraordinarily literal?

The point is very simple: we go to college for a myriad of reasons. 

My point is that the fraction of prospective students who can afford to not to prioritise earnings is steadily decreasing, thus, putting strain on humanities (and other) departments. Average student debt for graduates is already 30+k and rising.

[spork]

[. . .

The point is very simple: we go to college for a myriad of reasons. 

[. . .]

There is a significant difference between the "we" coming from medium to low SES backgrounds, who need a reasonable rate of return on educational investment to (1) pay off educational debt, (2) compensate for the opportunity cost of not engaging in full-time employment while in college, and (3) stay in a higher income bracket for a significant amount of time after college, and the "we" who (a) can rely on family wealth regardless of major or institution attended or (b) are able to attend an elite university and benefit from institutional reputation and networks dense with social capital.

I happen to fall into the (b) category, which even twenty-five years ago was an extremely small proportion of the college-going population.

[Wahoo Redux]

There is a significant difference between the "we" coming from medium to low SES backgrounds, who need a reasonable rate of return on educational investment

Once again, there is no need to state the obvious. 

There is no need to state a recognized truism that has been agreed upon any number of times.

And why is that relevant anyway?  This is not a discussion of low SES backgrounds.

Students may pursue any education they choose for whatever reasons they choose, and they may pay for it however they can. 

If low SES students don't want a humanities degree, no one will force them to pursue one. 

Do you have a point in bringing this up again and again?

Is there something else we should learn other than you opinion / observation that a humanities degree might be a bad investment for someone who wants to pursue upward mobility (even though this is demonstrably not true in comparison with other degrees)?

This is a theme that several posters orbit around.  Is there some sort of resentment involved?

[Caracal]

You: Seems like your definition of comparable majors is very narrow as you keep comparing between different poor choices. The point is humanities majors are only for the rich.

Oh ok, so really the only good choices are certain STEM disciplines, economics and maybe business? Why didn't you just start with that ridiculous argument instead of wasting our time with all the nonsense about the humanities.

[Wahoo Redux]

Why is it we feel the need to say obvious things or to be extraordinarily literal?

The point is very simple: we go to college for a myriad of reasons. 

My point is that the fraction of prospective students who can afford to not to prioritise earnings is steadily decreasing, thus, putting strain on humanities (and other) departments. Average student debt for graduates is already 30+k and rising.

Agreed.  It is obvious. 

Your own database, however, indicates that humanities degrees are not unique in this regard. 

And your own database indicates that, even with loan issues, humanities majors experience upward mobility typical of college graduates.  The government will work with you on paying back your loans; I know this from experience.  They are certainly a burden but not insurmountable obstacles for a lot of people.

People seem to want to hold onto their bias against the humanities even when their own information militates against their reasoning.  This is why people have their opinions about the humanities.

[Hibush]

I post again with a certain trepidation for the result...

The effects of the Covid crisis on net hiring of faculty is reported by the CUPA-HR.

In terms of sheer number of positions, the disciplines of Business, Management, and Marketing and Biological and Biomedical Sciences lost the greatest number of faculty over the past academic year.

A vocational and a science field got hit the hardest. Not Humanities.

The biggest percentage losses were in Leisure and Recreational Activities, and Library Science, both vocational majors. Not Humanities.

[marshwiggle]

I post again with a certain trepidation for the result...

The effects of the Covid crisis on net hiring of faculty is reported by the CUPA-HR.

In terms of sheer number of positions, the disciplines of Business, Management, and Marketing and Biological and Biomedical Sciences lost the greatest number of faculty over the past academic year.

A vocational and a science field got hit the hardest. Not Humanities.

The biggest percentage losses were in Leisure and Recreational Activities, and Library Science, both vocational majors. Not Humanities.

Biology has been a not-great STEM choice for quite a while. It's worth pointing out that it is also one of the least quantitative fields within STEM.

[dismalist]

The absolute numbers are meaningless. Business and Bio were large. They're suely still large.

The relative decline is what matters. That leaves Library and Leisure. Could be a pure Covid effect. Don't know.

[spork]

The absolute numbers are meaningless. Business and Bio were large. They're suely still large.

The relative decline is what matters. That leaves Library and Leisure. Could be a pure Covid effect. Don't know.

Biology has been heavily over-enrolled, in relation to labor market demand, at both the undergraduate and graduate levels for many years.

There was some pre-pandemic indication that "business" enrollments were starting to slip at the graduate level, basically in the non-elite MBA programs that every struggling university thought would be cash cows about thirty years ago. I would not be surprised if undergraduate business enrollments were starting to soften as well, but I haven't drilled down into the data far enough to know if this is actually the case.