"You'll Use This Everyday for the Rest of Your Life..."

[Caracal]

And to be blunt: The essence of the STEM/humanities divide is the presence or absence and relative importance of math.

If that's true, it highlights the way a lot of this is about what people have the skills to do and where they should be putting their energy. I was pretty good at math all the way up to pre-calc junior year, which I just completely bombed. I'm sure I could have done better if I'd actually wanted to work at it, which I didn't, but basically the math became abstract in a way that I couldn't really visualize and understand. No good would have come of me taking more advanced math. My C- was a very clear signal that I had neither the skills nor the motivation to be a STEM major.

Of course, I had a good math education all the way up to pre-calc and it has been useful in my life in various ways, at least some of it. Lots of people don't have a good math education and I'm sure some of these people have the capability to understand advanced math and enjoy it if they had the background I had in it. Obviously, that sucks for them and for the world and we need to try to fix it. But, lots of people's skills are in other things, reading, writing, analyzing etc and those things are valuable for the world and generally lead to decent jobs. That majors relying on different skills lead to jobs that earn a bit more isn't a reason to think that fewer people should be majoring in the humanities.

[marshwiggle]

And to be blunt: The essence of the STEM/humanities divide is the presence or absence and relative importance of math.

If that's true, it highlights the way a lot of this is about what people have the skills to do and where they should be putting their energy. I was pretty good at math all the way up to pre-calc junior year, which I just completely bombed. I'm sure I could have done better if I'd actually wanted to work at it, which I didn't, but basically the math became abstract in a way that I couldn't really visualize and understand. No good would have come of me taking more advanced math. My C- was a very clear signal that I had neither the skills nor the motivation to be a STEM major.

Of course, I had a good math education all the way up to pre-calc and it has been useful in my life in various ways, at least some of it. Lots of people don't have a good math education and I'm sure some of these people have the capability to understand advanced math and enjoy it if they had the background I had in it. Obviously, that sucks for them and for the world and we need to try to fix it. But, lots of people's skills are in other things, reading, writing, analyzing etc and those things are valuable for the world and generally lead to decent jobs. That majors relying on different skills lead to jobs that earn a bit more isn't a reason to think that fewer people should be majoring in the humanities.

Suppose you exchange "math" for "writing" in that and see what happens; (It's not perfect but it gets the idea across.)

I was pretty good at writing all the way up to (English?) junior year, which I just completely bombed. I'm sure I could have done better if I'd actually wanted to work at it, which I didn't, but basically the writing became abstract in a way that I couldn't really visualize and understand. No good would have come of me taking more advanced writing. My C- was a very clear signal that I had neither the skills nor the motivation to be a humanities major.

Of course, I had a good writing education all the way up to (English?) and it has been useful in my life in various ways, at least some of it. Lots of people don't have a good writing education and I'm sure some of these people have the capability to understand advanced writing and enjoy it if they had the background I had in it. Obviously, that sucks for them and for the world and we need to try to fix it. But, lots of people's skills are in other things, calculating, analyzing etc and those things are valuable for the world and generally lead to decent jobs. That majors relying on different skills lead to jobs that earn a bit more isn't a reason to think that fewer people should be majoring in STEM.

Why is the case considered so much stronger for math-intensive courses being optional while writing-intensive courses are required?

[Wahoo Redux]

Why is the case considered so much stronger for math-intensive courses being optional while writing-intensive courses are required?

Because of Bill Gates, Marshy.

[marshwiggle]

Why is the case considered so much stronger for math-intensive courses being optional while writing-intensive courses are required?

Because of Bill Gates, Marshy.

I haven't the slightest idea what you mean. Please explain. (Presumably Bill took some of both and eventually dropped out, so I don't get what that indicates.)

[Caracal]

Why is the case considered so much stronger for math-intensive courses being optional while writing-intensive courses are required?

If you argued that students should have to pass a really basic test in which they demonstrate that they grasp basic math concepts to avoid having to take some sort of "math for college" course, I'd agree in principle.

The kind of writing taught in an intro writing course is much closer to fractions and percentages than to Pre-Calculus. Also, do science majors not need to be capable writers? It is different, but you guys write papers and other stuff don't you? I know at a lot of places that you can take writing courses taught by STEM faculty which focus on writing about science.

[marshwiggle]

The kind of writing taught in an intro writing course is much closer to fractions and percentages than to Pre-Calculus.

Have you never heard a faculty member basically brag about not being able to figure out the tip on a restaurant bill without a calculator? Not being able to do "fractions and percentages" is considered quite acceptable. (And even kind of a badge of honour; "I'm an intellectual; I don't have to be able to do that kind of technical task.")

Also, do science majors not need to be capable writers? It is different, but you guys write papers and other stuff don't you? I know at a lot of places that you can take writing courses taught by STEM faculty which focus on writing about science.

And that's the point; STEM faculty don't pride themselves on being illiterate in the way some humanities faculty pride themselves on being innumerate.

[Wahoo Redux]

Why is the case considered so much stronger for math-intensive courses being optional while writing-intensive courses are required?

Because of Bill Gates, Marshy.

I haven't the slightest idea what you mean. Please explain. (Presumably Bill took some of both and eventually dropped out, so I don't get what that indicates.)

I knew you wouldn't figure it out, my friend. 

Hint: It has something to do with the prominence of computers.

[kaysixteen]

I acknowledge my comparative, emphasize comparative innumeracy, but only because I no longer know how to do calculus, trig, let alone any of the stuff math majors take in advanced seminars.  I can however figure out tips, grade percentages, etc.  Exactly which humanities profs brag about their inability to do such things?

[mahagonny]

Where is the indignity in forgetting things that are not needed? Seems to me more like throwing out old socks.

[marshwiggle]

I acknowledge my comparative, emphasize comparative innumeracy, but only because I no longer know how to do calculus, trig, let alone any of the stuff math majors take in advanced seminars.  I can however figure out tips, grade percentages, etc.  Exactly which humanities profs brag about their inability to do such things?

Watch people trying to double a recipe, or, God forbid, have to convert between imperial and metric units. Things like this which require elementary school arithmetic are looked on by all kinds of people as Herculean tasks. Even in places where these are common tasks.

Now see how many STEM people view writing a grammatically correct one paragraph letter as an insurmountable obstacle.

[polly_mer]

To clear up some positions attributed to me that I do not hold:

1) People who have strong interests in the humanities should go to college and major in the humanities.  We do need people with those interests and skills in society.

However,

2) the current and projected situations is such that only people who have pretty good social capital as well as a humanities college degree tend to get middle class jobs.  That's a problem that is rapidly solving itself as the institutions catering to people with less social capital and inadequate K-12 educations cancel the humanities majors.  It's becoming hard to get a humanities degree if one isn't already in the social class that will do just fine whatever their college major.

3) marching everyone through the humanities basics again in college is a waste of resources.  People who are specializing in the humanities need those classes.  People who have excellent K-12 education and have decided they would rather specialize in something else should be allowed to specialize in their areas and toss the "old socks" parts of the humanities as they deem fit.  If educated people are making that case for the levels of math that people participating in modern society truly do on a regular basis (and no, your calculator is not a substitute for a solid math education), then educated people should also be making that case for the humanities as those of us without humanities college degrees use them.

4) The fix to people who can't do the equivalent of adding fractions in the humanities has to be done at the K-12 level.  Yes, writing is important.  The generically applicable parts of writing should be well in place by the time one graduates from high school.

5) Money isn't everything.  Someone who makes the trade-off to be, say, director of a small non-profit making middle class money when they could be VP of a large company is a successful outcome for society.  Being a clerk to support one's writing, art, or other intellectual activity is a good outcome.  Folding those jeans with no career ladder to climb and no interest in delving deeper into some intellectual pursuit, just like the people who didn't go to college, indicates waste in the system that could have gone to someone who would have appreciated an education.

[apl68]

I acknowledge my comparative, emphasize comparative innumeracy, but only because I no longer know how to do calculus, trig, let alone any of the stuff math majors take in advanced seminars.  I can however figure out tips, grade percentages, etc.  Exactly which humanities profs brag about their inability to do such things?

Watch people trying to double a recipe, or, God forbid, have to convert between imperial and metric units. Things like this which require elementary school arithmetic are looked on by all kinds of people as Herculean tasks. Even in places where these are common tasks.

Now see how many STEM people view writing a grammatically correct one paragraph letter as an insurmountable obstacle.

I know all too many people who can't do anything involving basic math.  But they're people who also don't have any higher education.  I don't recall ever meeting a prof in a humanities field (and I've met quite a few of them) who was a true mathematical illiterate.  In fact, I've known several whose work had a substantial quantitative component.  This "mathematically illiterate humanities prof" sounds like something of a straw man.

Marshwiggle, you give the impression that at some point you've been greatly insulted by somebody in the humanities who disrespected you and your field.  It's all too human to feel resentment over something like that.  Understand, though, that this sort of thing can go both ways.  A great deal of what you say on threads about this subject gives off a vibe--unintentional or not--of "STEM people know how to read and write and can do anything humanities people can do just as well if they want to, whereas humanities people are mathematical illiterates unable to do anything that STEM people do.  Therefore, STEM people are better than humanities people." 

Honestly, that's how you come across at times.  It rubs those on the other side of the debate just as much the wrong way as whatever it is they say that's offended you so much.  Add to that the fact that society and higher ed and funding agencies at least all profess to love STEM, while continually questioning the humanities' very right to exist, and you see why the humanities people in these debates can get kind of defensive.

Maybe people around here could try to offend each other and take offense less?

[Caracal]

2) the current and projected situations is such that only people who have pretty good social capital as well as a humanities college degree tend to get middle class jobs.  That's a problem that is rapidly solving itself as the institutions catering to people with less social capital and inadequate K-12 educations cancel the humanities majors.  It's becoming hard to get a humanities degree if one isn't already in the social class that will do just fine whatever their college major.

Can we have the evidence of this? Do students from poorer backgrounds who go to college and major in humanities actually have dispropriatonely worse outcomes?

[marshwiggle]

Marshwiggle, you give the impression that at some point you've been greatly insulted by somebody in the humanities who disrespected you and your field.  It's all too human to feel resentment over something like that.  Understand, though, that this sort of thing can go both ways.  A great deal of what you say on threads about this subject gives off a vibe--unintentional or not--of "STEM people know how to read and write and can do anything humanities people can do just as well if they want to, whereas humanities people are mathematical illiterates unable to do anything that STEM people do.  Therefore, STEM people are better than humanities people." 

For reference:
My spouse has a humanities degree, and is quite successful.
Two of my kids have humanities degrees. The third is studying engineering.
The two who studied humanities knew from before they started what their professional goals were and how their degrees fit in.

I don't object to humanities degrees; I do object to the shotgun approach of "take anybody who doesn't know what they want to do, who may have a lousy high school background, and shovel them in here." All of my kids did IB in high school, so they were all well prepared for university.

I do not and would not advocate shoveling students who don't know what they want to do into STEM (or anything else), especially those with poor high school preparation. After high school people should work until they decide they want more education and why. Post-secondary education should be for people who know why they are there and why they're in whatever program they're in.

One other thing that does annoy me; humanities faculty often try to play both sides of the fence. They say how many CEOs are humanities grads, but if someone complains that their degree didn't get them a job they then throw up their hands and say "It's not job training!" You can pick one or the other, but not both. No degree is a ticket to a job, but some are more useful that way than others. Students have to apply themselves during school and after graduation, but faculty will often hide behind "the economy", or for people who went to grad school, "government underfunding of education" for the lack of academic jobs. Either stop recruiting by implying that humanities degrees are the ticket to a corner office, or tell students and graduates that they're going to have to work hard and adapt to be employed. I'll support either one, but not both. (And again, ANY program that implies it's the ticket to success is open to the same criticism.)

[Caracal]

Marshwiggle, you give the impression that at some point you've been greatly insulted by somebody in the humanities who disrespected you and your field.  It's all too human to feel resentment over something like that.  Understand, though, that this sort of thing can go both ways.  A great deal of what you say on threads about this subject gives off a vibe--unintentional or not--of "STEM people know how to read and write and can do anything humanities people can do just as well if they want to, whereas humanities people are mathematical illiterates unable to do anything that STEM people do.  Therefore, STEM people are better than humanities people." 

For reference:
My spouse has a humanities degree, and is quite successful.
Two of my kids have humanities degrees. The third is studying engineering.
The two who studied humanities knew from before they started what their professional goals were and how their degrees fit in.

I don't object to humanities degrees; I do object to the shotgun approach of "take anybody who doesn't know what they want to do, who may have a lousy high school background, and shovel them in here." All of my kids did IB in high school, so they were all well prepared for university.

I do not and would not advocate shoveling students who don't know what they want to do into STEM (or anything else), especially those with poor high school preparation. After high school people should work until they decide they want more education and why. Post-secondary education should be for people who know why they are there and why they're in whatever program they're in.

One other thing that does annoy me; humanities faculty often try to play both sides of the fence. They say how many CEOs are humanities grads, but if someone complains that their degree didn't get them a job they then throw up their hands and say "It's not job training!" You can pick one or the other, but not both. No degree is a ticket to a job, but some are more useful that way than others. Students have to apply themselves during school and after graduation, but faculty will often hide behind "the economy", or for people who went to grad school, "government underfunding of education" for the lack of academic jobs. Either stop recruiting by implying that humanities degrees are the ticket to a corner office, or tell students and graduates that they're going to have to work hard and adapt to be employed. I'll support either one, but not both. (And again, ANY program that implies it's the ticket to success is open to the same criticism.)

I think you are misinterpreting "recruitment." Mostly this is just trying to combat this mistaken belief that humanities majors don't get jobs and that it is not a "useful" degree. The declining number of humanities majors isn't matched by declining earnings or rising unemployment, it is about perception. When you see that poster from the philosophy department about prominent people who got degrees in philosophy and the things that some majors do for a career, they aren't trying to persuade anybody that a philosophy degree is some sort of golden ticket. All they want to do is tell the student who is interested in philosophy that pursuing their interests isn't wasting their college tuition.