Very reasonable. But dont blame those caught up in those still unhealthy systems for making the choices they do as a result. If college were free, health care universal, and a guaranteed income safety net in place we might all make different decisions. Until that time…
1 Like
Without the humanities, we see patterns, but are unaware of our own heuristics, and when they may cause us to reason incorrectly.
Without the humanities, there is no reason to care about the news.
Many of the people who win prizes and recognition see simple things that others missed, because they have been exposed to things that differ from others, and therefore their brains are well-equipped to recognize patterns and make new connections that were previously unimagined.
The more we know, the more we can see in a large and deep way. Such knowing can then lead to technical explorations that help humanity, but might not have existed without underlying ideas.
The humanities are relevant as long as people exist on this earth. That doesn’t preclude there being apprenticeships and other options for other people. The idea that there is only one path to a good life is precisely the sort of notion that can be debated among those well-schooled in the humanities.
First, the decreasing number of humanities students implies that any individual humanities student is in higher demand, all else being equal.
Second, there is a long history of what are known as "public intellectuals"who do not necessarily hold academic posts. The idea that the humanities must be professionalized is what I believe puts their future on campuses most at risk.
3 Likes
This seems like a close relative of the old canard that posits, “I can just basically give myself a philosophy degree in my spare time by reading Descartes and Kant.” I’m sure it’s that simple, and my philosophy degree represents an education that, how did he put it, I coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library.
I’d like to learn more about what this means.
Is this a rhetorical question?
Of course, none of this has anything to do with forcing anyone to do anything, or blaming anyone for doing or not doing anything. I assume it’s stipulated that you can do what you want to do. I certainly don’t care what anyone does.
The OP’s question is straightforward: what can be done to make the humanities more relevant, and perhaps thereby encourage more people to pursue study in those disciplines? Those who freely choose to not do so shall remain blameless.
My short answer is, I really don’t know. One of the the very real disadvantages of non-tech courses of study is that their marketing efforts are more challenging. Accounting, engineering, CS and so on have direct paths to employment straight out of undergrad. That’s powerful, especially for those who come from families of limited means. I’ve advised several kids in those situations to look seriously at the pre-professional degrees for those obvious reasons, knowing my kids enjoyed the luxury of choosing more generalized studies because grad school and time was something I could afford to give them. So, I get it, as do most people. The challenge is how to communicate the benefits of a broad liberal arts education that includes a heavy dose of humanities in a way that isn’t so nebulous. I’ve yet to hear anyone explain it to a skeptic in less than 5 minutes and in a way that changes perspectives.
What confounds me, however, is the implicit, and often explicit, assumption that the English or Philosophy or History major are going to be permanently doomed to a life of underemployment. I don’t really see that, and I’ve yet to see any authoritative source study showing this to be the case. “Biggest regret” majors polls? Lolz. In this made-up binary world of winners and losers painted for me by my favorite silly (and now banned) poster, @tomtownsend, I guess my kids and I only attract winners. In our winner world, the biology, english, philo, and history majors are all gainfully employed, and most of them right out of college. No grad school.
Although I can’t prove it, my sense is that a lot of people, including a few in this thread, think of the mediocre student at the mediocre directional college or uni that majored in history because it was doable, where engineering and CS are likely not doable for that kind of kid. Predictably, that kid doesn’t impress you as having acquired anything of value because he/she is still just mediocre. I will stipulate that most of STEM does operate to weed out those kinds of students, who can still find a home in the humanities to “check the college box”. That tends to be less common with humanities concentrators at selective schools. Drawing a conclusion from that limited exposure that humanities departments are not turning out good writers and critical thinkers is nonsense. I know poetry majors who can run intellectual circles around people on this board all day long, and I read here a lot of pretty flawed arguments full of clumsy use of rhetorical devices by people who champion STEM and pre-pro studies. So there’s that.
As for me, although I studied econ and finance, my Philosophy studies did and does more for me than anything else I ever pursued, including law school. That is where I really learned how to think, write and learn.
6 Likes
In high school I often find that the strongest STEM kids are often (although not always) also the strongest humanities kids. They chose to major in STEM, incidentally, but they also continue to nurture their humanities interests through college or after not because of all the cheerleading for the humanities, but because they have a wide variety of intellectual interests and find this divide artificial. As I keep saying, it is not either / or. Their jobs are often in STEM for a variety of reasons. I guess you may think they are lost to the humanities. Maybe that is so in some visible way. But if they come back later in life to effect/canvass for changes in policy etc, it is often from a position of long familiarity with the area of their interest.
5 Likes
I agree with this post but boy, I’ve met a LOT of mediocre STEM grads in my professional life. On CC every CS major works at Google and every ME major works at Ford and every bio major works at Pfizer…all well compensated and on a fine career path.
Check out the “genius bar” at your local mall to meet the CS kids who scraped by, didn’t get an internship or didn’t get an offer after their coops. Go look up the bio of the young employees of your city’s permitting department… engineering lite…who are in terminal jobs filing building plans. And meet the lab tech who took the hourly job at your local hospital while they retook the MCATs five years ago and are now stuck in a dead end job, subpar scores, and no meaningful plan to get on a career track.
2 Likes
I don’t doubt it, particularly in high school, because to be good at the humanities requires work, and so the kids who are strong in STEM, which is hard, are more likely going to pursue excellence in everything they do, and they are more likely to be intellectually curious. And I like the way you describe it as an artificial divide; that’s how I see it too.
The question then becomes one that is more focused job outcome. There is no question of at least the immediate advantage of engineering and CS and some pre-pro in terms of job placement. But that doens’t mean the other kids are all going to be poor, which I know you’re not saying.
The most compelling argument to me for the position that kids should major in employable STEM (so, I guess, no biology) is that they have to land on their feet with a good paying job right out of college. I can empathize, but that’s just not a problem that my kids had to worry about. I’m glad that my financial situation allowed them a little time and flexibility. It’s a luxury.
1 Like
No one likes to think about that because the conventional wisdom here is that STEM degrees are a guarantee of high level employment. In reality, there is no college or major that guarantees success - much of what leads to achievement are personal qualities that are entirely unrelated to what college you attend.
7 Likes
Yes, I agree. I live in Seattle, and although Boeing HQ moved to Chicago a few years back, a lot of the engineering force is still here. Those engineers run the gamut. They are all fine engineers I’m sure, and none of them are stupid, but don’t mistake them for renaissance people who are incredibly literate and insightful with strong writing and CR skills. Pfft, I’m laughing out loud at the very idea. A friend here is a GT graduated aero guy married to a UPS graduated English major. Talk about a study in contrasts. At any rate, he coached one of my kids rec soccer teams, and his emails were embarrassingly bad. His wife still apologizes for it all the time.
At my son’s LAC, a very large percentage of athletes major in Economics. Environmental Science and Biology also quite popular.
1 Like
I went to U of Mich College of Engineering back in the 80s, and there was even a separate English department within the COE. Apparently we could not handle the “regular” English classes. I found it easier than my High School English courses at a public HS, kind of ridiculous. I went to grad school for Cell Biology, and Biologists are a completely different personality type, at least back then. They were so exuberant, which matched my personality much better. I also was no longer the only female in a class of 200 men.
2 Likes
Same is true at the LACs my kids attended.
Ha ha ha! My roommate at my alma mater was a Civil Engineering guy. He would be the first to tell you about his limitations outside of that world, and to this day he jokes at get-togethers that he’d still be unemployed if I hadn’t written his cover letters.
Very, very few people are strong in everything.
In answer to the OP, perhaps trying to implement more Core-style requirements in the first two years. (And no, a handful of distribution requirements don’t count.). For example, Boston College requires two courses in Philosophy as part of its Core Curriculum, and as a result 10-15% of students graduate with a double major with one being Philosophy, even some STEM majors.
As the author of the article notes, perhaps students need to be introduced to Hume courses earlier?
5 Likes
And for every anecdote like that, there will be others that will be different. My husband is a civil from a top private university. He not only writes very well, he is also well read! And in lots of different subjects!
Stereotypes are often just that, stereotypes.
3 Likes
I’ve spent a good deal of time in and around law schools, so I’m curious about this statement. It’s a little convoluted though. Can you unpack it a bit?
LS loaded with humanities and PS kids, but presumably some other kids
Is it just the humanities and poli sci kids that are learning for the first time how to think critically in the first year of LS?
But then some students didn’t need to make that intellectual transition and hence “ace” 1L? Who are they again? The non-humanities/PS kids? Or a mix?
I’d like to hear more about this.
I actually really don’t think this is entirely true. Yes, plenty of strong students are strong in both STEM and humanities fields. However, in my experience, some of this perceived strength is that humanities teachers are easier graders (particularly in the era of grade inflation, less so a few decades ago). Because many humanities teachers are more willing to grade flexibly, it means that yes it is easier to pass or even get an honor grade in a humanities class at some K-12 schools or even colleges.
There can be a fuzziness and also a complexity about grading in humanities courses that is often absent in more quantitive courses. But I’ve met (and taught) plenty of STEM students who are actually not nearly as strong in the humanities as their STEM field. Nor are they as strong as many of the most stellar of their peers who focus on the humanities. These STEM oriented kids may do well enough in their courses or even on the sort of standardized test that is amenable to memorization, but some do hit real ceilings in their ability to write eloquently, analyze figurative language and narrative structures, and produce creative work in humanities fields. And I definitely haven’t observed STEM kids as a whole being necessarily more intellectually curious than their humanities focused peers.
4 Likes
You’ve convinced me. I was just speculating on @neela1 's observation about their particular high school. Many of the kids gunning for STEM tend to be ambitious and self-starting and learn discipline early on or they wash out. At least at the HS level, I think those virtues tend to lead to hard work across the board and, then again at the HS level, good grades across the board. Where you might find a talented writer who is not particularly motivated and hence doesn’t do all the busy work or comply with deadlines etc. STEM kid won’t do that.
1 Like
This whole thread, and perhaps this entire forum, is built on an edifice of stereotyping and generalizations.
We tend to defend the ones we like, and dissect the ones we don’t.
We need your help on the front lines. I will call on you the next time we’re doing battle with the hackneyed “LAC kids will all become baristas” stereotype, and I expect you to show up. 
1 Like
Sure. And there is a LOT to be said for just buckling down and doing the work even for a class or subject that doesn’t interest you. This is a gross generalization, but I think sometimes there is a willingness in kids who love the arts and humanities to give up on STEM fields early because they decide that they can’t do it or they aren’t willing to grind in STEM enough to get strong results. But I also think teachers can play a very big role in this attitude because the difference between an encouraging teacher and one who also believes a student can’t do the the work makes a huge impact on their students.
There is also another piece that came up with my daughter just a couple of weeks ago. She is quite good in both the humanities and STEM (and the arts as well), but she told me that she feels unable to pursue most STEM activities that interest her because there is no on-ramp at the high school level for a kid like her --that is a strong student who has never done anything STEM related outside of class before. She claims that it doesn’t matter that she gets As and A+s in all of her STEM classes, most of her peers who participate in those activities have been doing other STEM extracurriculars or STEM focused enrichment classes since at least middle school if not earlier. She stated that activities in other fields are just easier and more welcoming to join at 16 even if you have no experience. I actually think she is exaggerating somewhat. Based on the comments of her math, physics and chemistry teachers, those teachers would all be thrilled if she joined some of the STEM focused clubs at her school, but she certainly feels unwelcome and like without prior experience, she’ll stand out as the dummy/newbie, particularly as a young black woman.
4 Likes
And there are also plenty of STEM kids in high school that don’t like busy work or meeting deadlines. I had one of them! There is room for everone out there. Humanities, Social Sciences, Engineering, Healthcare, plumbers, firefighters , baristas. People tend to find their way and gravitate toward their strengths and interests unless they get sidetracked by some kind of adversity.
2 Likes