Olo

0.o Several of our graduate humanities programs (economics and philosophy) come to mind rate among the best in the world.

sakky

Uh, I'm pretty certain that economics is a social science, not a humanity.

Mikalye

Unless things have changed significantly since I was there, the answer is no (obvious stars excepted). Salaries are almost always determined by supply and demand and for humanities academics, supply outstrips demand. Note that this applies primarily to junior faculty, at senior levels, most have proven themselves worthy, or left. But even if they have stayed, if they are not likely to be sought out and poached by a rival organisation, then they are unlikely to be especially highly compensated.

Mikalye

When I visited MIT, trying to make up my mind if it was for me, I sat in on no engineering or physical sciences classes. I presumed that they would be excellent. Rather, I sat in on a lot of humanities and arts classes, because these were important to me, and I had my doubts about MIT. My doubts were proven wrong. I attended MIT, and have never regretted that call.

The most significant reason that I doubted the quality, was the relatively low numbers of students choosing to major in the Humanities or Arts. I thought, before I went, that this would be a weakness. Instead it is a strength. MIT humanities and arts classes tend to be small. But most importantly, at many other schools there are some fantastic facilities (particularly in arts) that are reserved for the exclusive use of students majoring in those subjects. That just doesn't happen at MIT.

Most of the famous MIT faculty teach any undergraduates who sign up for there classes. At many rival schools, the famous faculty tend to teach graduate students primarily and undergraduate courses for majors in that field. As a rule (and there are exceptions), they do not teach level one classes in that field. For example, when I was a freshman, Noam Chomsky taught a freshman seminar. Yes, I know he is a linguist and therefore actually out of scope for this discussion, but the principle of "[someone you have heard of] teaches freshmen" still holds true and is rare in academia, but common at MIT. Yes, this is helped by the lack of a graduate student population studying English Literature, for example. But however it happens, an undergraduate majoring in Engineering will still have the opportunity to spend time with some extremely well regarded humanities faculty in a quite close environment. It doesn't matter how famous many of the faculty are at another institution if, as an undergraduate, you do not get to study with them.

Olo

I guess you have a very narrow or I have a very wide definition of the humanities. I think most people would agree with me in including the social sciences into the humanities. The distinction seems to be fields of study not related to the natural sciences (philosophy, literature, art, psychology, etc).

Obviously some of them have scientific elements and employ the scientific method, they're the sciences dealing with human activity, culture, and behavior.

But if you'd like me to rephrase it to suit your definition, several of our graduate HASS programs rate among the best in the world.

sakky

Most people would agree with you? I would actually say that few people would agree with you.

The social sciences are a group of academic disciplines that study human aspects of the world. They differ from the arts and humanities

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science

Besides, think of it this way. If what you are saying is true, then why, as you pointed out, does MIT even bother to mention 'Social Sciences' in the title of "School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences" (HASS)? After all, if social sciences are really part of the humanities anyway, then mentioning social sciences along with humanities is redundant. It would be like me saying "The United States and Massachusetts". Hence, if nothing else, apparently MIT seems to believe that the social sciences are distinct from the humanities.

Olo

You're right, then. I have wide definition of "the humanities." I know that functionally, when people here say "humanities" they refer to "things not technical," and I've adopted that definition in my day-to-day usage.

phuriku

I'm sure Chomsky gets paid just as much as the science bigshots. This applies to the other prominent humanities professors as well. From what I've overheard from discussions here (surprisingly, a lot -- why are business decisions discussed so often in public places?), professors are just as shallow as everyone else - the primary reason that profs move from one school to the next is the cash.

collegealum314

^^only if the dept. they are moving to is about the same level as the one they are leaving. UPenn has been desperately trying to steal chemistry faculty members by breaking the bank and have only been moderately successful because they don't have a top 10 chem department.

quirkspawn

If y'all haven't read the famous physicist Richard Feynman's hilarious autobiography "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!" yet, you really should. Anyhow one of the stories he tells is about UChicago offering him a huge salary to work there instead of teaching at Caltech. He turned down the offer at UChic telling them that with all that money, he'd do what he always wanted: to get himself a mistress and give her an apartment. The problem is he'd argue with her, and inevitably end up unhappy and distracted from his work. In short, what he had always wanted would have been bad for him, so he had to turn down their offer.