Are the Humanities Doomed?

[spork]

[. . . ]

Nope, don't need artists, musicians or writers. Not at all.

To me, this statement is a total logic fail, one that completely undermines the argument about "liberal arts teach important, transferable critical thinking skills." No one is saying artists aren't needed. The supposition is instead that one need not get a university degree to be an artist.

I'm not going to hire someone who views himself or herself exclusively, or even primarily, as a poet to fix the boiler in my basement. I'm going to hire a plumber who fixes boilers. Whatever poetry the plumber might write in his or her off hours is not my concern.

Neither repairing plumbing nor writing poetry requires a four-year university degree.

You have your Picassos and your Faulkners and Wesley Willises, but most Artists-with-a-Capital-A are university educated.  This is where artists find mentors.  All professional classical musicians go through top-notch music schools.  I love Motley Crue (despite their apparent misogyny) but you don't need a university for that.  Tchaikovsky or Berg, you need a university trained musician.

Sorry for the apparently classism, but most plumbers do not write poetry.

And once again, we assume that LA pursuits only gain validity through direct degree-to-job dynamics.

Another logic fail. I never said that artistic pursuits gain validity -- whatever definition you might be applying to that word -- only through employment derived from formal university education.

As for classical composers, or other types of artists whose works are held in high regard by certain segments of certain societies, whatever expertise they gain from being mentored during post-secondary education is not coming from Music Appreciation 101 and Art History Survey 101. Generally those people (in the 21st century) are attending institutions that are essentially dedicated arts training academies, like the New England Conservatory or Royal Academy.

Edited to add: the humanities-centric gen ed requirements commonly seen across U.S. undergraduate programs are a vestige of the days when college was for clerical training and the members of the clergy were expected to know Greek and Latin as exegetical/liturgical languages. Degree-to-job dynamic for the elite. Then preparation for a career in law was added as a reason to attend a university; lawyers were also expected to know Greek and Latin. Another degree-to-job dynamic for the elite. Universities today are expected to serve very different populations and very different functions than they were a century or two or three or four ago, regardless of what today's university faculty want those populations and functions to be.

[mleok]

If its just a menu to be picked from three divisions, then it is pointless because the content and rigor will differ wildly. Unless the point is to "get exposure to a bunch of wildly different stuff with only tenuous connections", then, yeah, that kind of gen ed is fine. But IMHO, its better to a have a smaller and pointed gen ed requirement, if you believe in it and, after a time you can shows that people are learning what you want them to learn.

That's an interesting point, it's certainly easier to measure outcomes if one has a more coherent and consistent general education requirement.

[Ruralguy]

I think so, yes. Clear goals. Measurable outcomes. I'm not a huge fan of "Learn about the great philosophers and world art because both have value."  I agree that they both have value, but I'd rather see it sold as more of a skill (and I have seen appreciation of world culture, etc. expressed as a skill to be measured).

[spork]

I think so, yes. Clear goals. Measurable outcomes. I'm not a huge fan of "Learn about the great philosophers and world art because both have value."  I agree that they both have value, but I'd rather see it sold as more of a skill (and I have seen appreciation of world culture, etc. expressed as a skill to be measured).

Can you point me toward any publicly-available rubrics or other documentation about how this is done? We are in the process of "revising" our gen ed requirements, and I have no faith that whatever the different committees tasked with this project will come up with anything substantially different than what we have now.

[Ruralguy]

I wish I did. I thought our Assessment Committee had devised such a thing. I'll ask around. If I find something substantive, I will PM you, Spork. But I do think its important to try pretty hard, and get assessment of any gen ed core (as well as anything else) nailed down. 

[Hegemony]

Yeah, many people are going over to the "skills-based" assessment of the value of humanities. The fundamental assumption here is that it's not particularly worthwhile to learn about art history or to read Shakespeare, but those activities give you skills you can use in actually valuable things. Analyzing Hamlet or even Mad Max: Fury Roadhelps you analyze things in a way that society values: you can get a job that involves analysis, you can analyze public policy and become a more informed voter, etc. But knowing about actual works of literature or art is not something society sees much point in, apart from the transferable skills. So our place has gone from requiring stuff like a course in basic literature to a course in Analysis. Many of the new courses fulfilling this Analysis requirement are not anything like literature. I think the idea of becoming "cultured" — widely acquainted with important works — has lost favor entirely. If the students could get through their courses entirely without having any content, but only practice in "skills," I think everyone but a few humanities prof would feel that is an ideal solution.

[Ruralguy]

Thanks Hegemony, I think that's helpful.

[mleok]

Yeah, many people are going over to the "skills-based" assessment of the value of humanities. The fundamental assumption here is that it's not particularly worthwhile to learn about art history or to read Shakespeare, but those activities give you skills you can use in actually valuable things. Analyzing Hamlet or even Mad Max: Fury Roadhelps you analyze things in a way that society values: you can get a job that involves analysis, you can analyze public policy and become a more informed voter, etc. But knowing about actual works of literature or art is not something society sees much point in, apart from the transferable skills. So our place has gone from requiring stuff like a course in basic literature to a course in Analysis. Many of the new courses fulfilling this Analysis requirement are not anything like literature. I think the idea of becoming "cultured" — widely acquainted with important works — has lost favor entirely. If the students could get through their courses entirely without having any content, but only practice in "skills," I think everyone but a few humanities prof would feel that is an ideal solution.

I'm not sure that it's not particularly worthwhile to learn about art history or read Shakespeare, but I would certainly have issue requiring everyone to do so, especially if it reduces access due to the actual cost and opportunity cost of effectively increasing the time to degree by a year or so.

[Anselm]

Editorial by two Howard U. professors about the eliminations of its classics department:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/02/opinion/howard-university-classics-department.html.

Just this morning they interviewed a Howard Univ. classics professor on NPR.   I forgot her name but she have an eloquent defense for the importance of her department.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

New CHE article: Can Yale Reform Its Humanities Doctoral Programs?
Highlights:
- "the majority of Yale doctoral students do not land on the tenure track"
-"The numbers add up to a demand that Yale change its humanities culture to match the reality that its graduate students already face"
- programs declining to reform will get less doctoral students

I wish the concept of "if a humanities department doesn't do right by its doctoral students, it will get fewer of them." was widely applied (and not limited to humanities for that matter)

[Wahoo Redux]

New CHE article: Can Yale Reform Its Humanities Doctoral Programs?
Highlights:
- "the majority of Yale doctoral students do not land on the tenure track"
-"The numbers add up to a demand that Yale change its humanities culture to match the reality that its graduate students already face"
- programs declining to reform will get less doctoral students

I wish the concept of "if a humanities department doesn't do right by its doctoral students, it will get fewer of them." was widely applied (and not limited to humanities for that matter)

Paywalled.

OTOH, I'm not TT and I reap some advantages of that even as I lose a lot too.  If Yalies are looking strictly for the prestigious elite or R1 2/2 with lots of time off to research they are going to run into a lot of dead ends.  And the Yalies may not be attractive to a lot of teaching colleges which are paranoid about having an Ivy Leaguer ready to jump ship or look down their noses.

Nevertheless, if Yale is tanking, the needle on the hope meter is in the red.  Bad moon rising.

[spork]

New CHE article: Can Yale Reform Its Humanities Doctoral Programs?
Highlights:
- "the majority of Yale doctoral students do not land on the tenure track"
-"The numbers add up to a demand that Yale change its humanities culture to match the reality that its graduate students already face"
- programs declining to reform will get less doctoral students

I wish the concept of "if a humanities department doesn't do right by its doctoral students, it will get fewer of them." was widely applied (and not limited to humanities for that matter)

Maybe Yale should start pitching its law school to its humanities doctoral students as an "alt-ac" path. "You've already gone into debt and not had a full-time job for the last seven years, what's three more?"

[spork]

Link to the report referenced above:

Report of the Humanities Doctoral Education Advisory Working Group, Yale University

Lots of blah, blah, blah. Nothing explicit about reducing the number of students to match the availability of full-time faculty positions.

[Hibush]

Link to the report referenced above:

Report of the Humanities Doctoral Education Advisory Working Group, Yale University

Lots of blah, blah, blah. Nothing explicit about reducing the number of students to match the availability of full-time faculty positions.

The critical paragraph in that report's summary states, "Humanities doctoral education operates in relation to a specific market for academic employment. Fewer than half of the humanities doctoral students who matriculate at Yale obtain tenure-track jobs. Yale has an important role to play in the training of humanists and hiring of junior faculty. The Dean of Humanities of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) commits to the recruitment of a large number of assistant professors in the humanities over the next several years. The GSAS commits to support doctoral education in humanities."

The second sentence could imply that Yale's spectacularly good placement rate means that the specific market for academic employment is strong for Yalies. If one interprets it that way, their response of hiring more faculty so they can train more students makes a lot of sense.

On the other hand, Yale's expectation may be that 100% of matriculating students get TT jobs. Then the logic of their response is that they will assure full placement by hiring all the ones who fail to get jobs elsewhere.

For an executive summary, this section leaves a lot to the reader's imagination.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

Link to the report referenced above:

Report of the Humanities Doctoral Education Advisory Working Group, Yale University

Lots of blah, blah, blah. Nothing explicit about reducing the number of students to match the availability of full-time faculty positions.

There some items in the admissions sections that would contribute to this (if implemented):
- "Consider developing a master's program in its units through the exchange of doctoral admissions slots for fully funded master's slots."
- "The more successful a department is in mentoring its students to full-time, fulfilling jobs, the more gSaS might reward that department with the authorization to admit graduate students. Correlatively, the more attrition—especially late attrition—there is among graduate students in the department or the less successful the department is in guiding its students to completion, the more its future admissions might be limited. The working group agrees that program size and therefore annual admissions targets should be tied to fluctuating metrics rather than to historical entitlements."
- "The working group suggests recording and assessing student outcomes beginning at three years out from their doctorate in four categories: (1) those who place in non-tenure-track academic positions, whether as adjuncts, lecturers, or visiting assistant professors; (2) those who work in positions related to and enhanced by the skills in research and teaching developed by doctoral training; (3) those who work in positions with no clear relationship to doctoral training; and (4) those who leave Yale without completing the doctoral degree."