<p>blossom,</p>
<p>I agree. I think that Humanities should advertise more such options for adults. I know that many adults are taking Humanities as MOOC. </p>
<p>There is a tremendous interest in Humanities … just not for major.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Little surprises me because I am a tenured English professor at a large comprehensive university in the Northeast. I have served on many hiring committees and have written numerous outside evaluator reports for candidates for tenure and promotion at other schools. My experience has not confirmed your perceptions. Humanities faculty are institutionally rewarded for choosing a very narrow area and working it to death. There is little incentive to see the big picture. Many young faculty know of little that is outside their tiny, tiny niche. They don’t even know modern or ancient languages. They read nothing that does not pertain to their area of fill-in-the-blank studies. Their work is historically and aesthetically uninformed, sometimes painfully so. Continental theory will only take you so far when you don’t know anything about Rabelais, Virgil or Milton. I’ve observed that many undergraduates do love theory courses because the material makes them feel smart without really requiring them to read widely or deeply. Just figure out how to apply the theorist to everything, and you’ve got the educational equivalent of Casaubon’s key to all mythologies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Surprisingly(?), humanities as bachelor’s degree majors are slightly more popular than social studies, and more popular than science and engineering combined, according to [Bachelor’s</a>, master’s, and doctor’s degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions, by field of study: Selected years, 1970-71 through 2009-10](<a href=“http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11/tables/dt11_289.asp]Bachelor’s”>Bachelor's, master's, and doctor's degrees conferred by degree-granting institutions, by field of study: Selected years, 1970-71 through 2009-10) . I.e. humanities are far from dead as far as undergraduate student interest goes. However, the ranks of humanities majors thin considerably at the doctoral level (fewer than any of social studies, science, or engineering).</p>
<p>californiaaa, I don’t agree with your post. </p>
<p>
I have not yet had a professor who forced me to agree to his views. My professors actually enjoy when a student doesn’t agree with them because it gives them a chance to see the other’s perspective. </p>
<p>
Why shouldn’t religious kid be encouraged to question their own values and beliefs. Values and beliefs based on morals, society, the self, etc. not just religious. There is untapped growth for a person who is unwilling to look within themself and question what they believe.</p>
<p>I think that overall the humanities are doing well enough, just perhaps not at specific schools. The reality is that the role of college HAS changed, and will continue to do so, and the model that worked a century ago is not keeping up.</p>
<p>
Most people don’t care about the particular issues that are dear to Profs. in ANY field. I am an engineering grad student, and I don’t really care about the research that most of my professors do. Most immigrants are also under financial constraints that all but plant them in STEM fields, but that does not mean that they do not care about these issues, just that they are under more pressure not to maximize the return.</p>
<p>
Yes and no - while being poor does put more pressure on you to have a profitable major and minimize expenses, just as many poor kids as rich kids lean towards the humanities, and many of them believe (however erroneously) that majoring in something they care about and in which they have talent will lead towards a profitable career. Some of the financially poorest students I knew went into the humanities.</p>
<p>
Then college is going to be a rough place for them. A major function of education, especially at the collegiate level, is to get the individual thinking and to challenge assumptions and long-embedded views. There are certainly kids from non-religious families who don’t feel comfortable discussing religion, but somehow they get through it and are usually better for having done so.</p>
<p>
See point 3 above. You do not have to leave college with the same political or economic viewpoint as your professors, but you should come out of it having examined your beliefs and with the ability to defend and argue them in an informed, rational, and civil manner.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My major was Arts & Humanities. We were seen as that radical hipster college on my U (not entirely a true representation but we definitely were far more liberal than the rest of the U and about as humanities-oriented as you could get). The majority of our students had some religious affiliation and they had absolutely no issue discussing any issue. In fact, some of our students were even <em>gasp</em> conservative and it led to really good discussions. </p>
<p>You seem to have a pretty negative (and IME distorted) view of humanities majors/classes, californiaaa. Not just in this thread, but in several others.</p>
<p>"No. Next question? " - Consolation.</p>
<p>Agreed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps this has something to do with the dismal job prospects for humanities Ph.D.s? </p>
<p>I think this is where the “humanities is dead” angst is coming from. With newly minted Ph.D.s having an extremely hard time finding tenure-track jobs, academics in the humanities have a harder and harder time justifying their graduate programs, which at major research universities have traditionally been the heart of the educational enterprise. And they can’t in good conscience encourage their best undergraduates to pursue graduate studies in their own discipline, either. A large part of what they did in the past was to cultivate the next generation of humanities scholars. With that function cut off, or at least substantially curtailed, many academics in the humanities feel increasingly like a dying breed of dinosaurs, in a field with no future.</p>
<p>Yet the objective statistics seem to indicate that there are still quite a few undergraduate humanities majors, and many more undergrads taking some humanities courses. The study of humanities isn’t dying, it’s just not on a growth trajectory, and therefore it’s not where colleges and universities are making big new investments. In fact, they’re moving in the opposite direction: with humanities Ph.D.s in abundant supply, many colleges and universities are happy to have more undergraduate courses taught by low-cost, part-time adjuncts, with the result that even fewer tenure-track positions open up, exacerbating the job crisis for newly minted Ph.D.s (and increasing the ranks of those willing to work as low-paid adjuncts). It’s not the death of humanities, it’s economic restructuring. I can’t help but believe this shift will over time damage the quality and output of scholarly research in humanities fields–adjuncts scrambling to teach 5 classes at 3 schools don’t have time for such foolishness, and it’s not part of their job description. So to that extent, the economic restructuring is causing harm to serious humanities scholarship. That’s a blow to the humanities, but not a mortal one. But the problem isn’t lack of undergraduate interest in the humanities, it’s the new economics of the academic profession.</p>
<p>To romanigypsyeyes, cosmicfish , Niquii77 </p>
<p>"Then college is going to be a rough place for them. A major function of education, especially at the collegiate level, is to get the individual thinking and to challenge assumptions and long-embedded views. "
"you should come out of it having examined your beliefs and with the ability to defend and argue them in an informed, rational, and civil manner. "</p>
<p>Do you really think that someone is ready to pay his own money to get questioned? How often liberals subscribe to Rush Limbaugh? How often Evangelicals read move-on.org? Who would spend time, energy and money to listen opposite views? </p>
<p>People don’t want to be questioned. People don’t want to be forced to reexamine their believes. People don’t want to be in a rough place. Why should they?</p>
<p>Certainly, many students avoid Humanities classes. Or choose something less controversial. For example, Berkeley has a waiting list to study Ancient Greek myths, and no waiting lists for Urban-feminism-ethnic classes. Students choose noncontroversial classes, even in liberal Berkeley.</p>
<p>Humanities sell a product. Education. You can’t sell your product if you don’t listen to your customer.</p>
<p>Morally scrupulous persons of an Abrahamic persuasion who wish to study ancient Greek may be in for some unwelcome surprises.</p>
<p>NavalTradition</p>
<p>Not at all. Because Ancient Greek myths are studied as myths. Nice, easy, non-controversial. </p>
<p>Feminism, on the other hand, is presented as the only true religion :).</p>
<p>
Yes. </p>
<p>
Those who have genuine curiosity in how others live and perceive the world around them. </p>
<p>These are college students. Minds that are curious and impressionable. Minds that are no longer under the amount influence they had previously been under in their parents’ household. </p>
<p>
You are correct. People don’t like to be questioned and forced to to see the flaws within themselves. Does that mean we shouldn’t questions people? No. It means we should question them. We should have them look within themselves. Why? When people look within themselves and honestly judge their ways they are able to grow. They are able to become honest with themselves. They may see the perceptions that they once believed are out of touch with reality. </p>
<p>This is why we need humanities. We need humanities to expose everyone to everyone’s perceptions, histories, beliefs, values, etc. We needs humanities to expose people to past ideas, to past perceptions, to past thought processes and see how some of those are still applicable to today. </p>
<p>Do they have to agree with those ideas, perceptions, processes? No. That’s the glorious part about it. You don’t have to agree, but you are aware that there are differences in how people go about situations and facets of life. </p>
<p>I believe that a humanities class should be required for every single college student. Just maybe if we get more people entering the workforce that are aware of the flaws that create corrupt societies then our future just might be a little brighter.</p>
<p>Niquii77 ,</p>
<ol>
<li>" People don’t like to be questioned and forced to see the flaws within themselves. Does that mean we shouldn’t questions people? No. "</li>
</ol>
<p>Look, you want to question people believes, to show them “uncomfortable truth” … and you want them to PAY you for it?! Only a masochist would do it. </p>
<ol>
<li>“I believe that a humanities class should be required for every single college student.”</li>
</ol>
<p>OK, you understand that not many students would voluntarily subject themselves to Humanities that confront them and put them into uncomfortable position (there is not enough masochists). So you want to force Humanities on students, in a form of a requirement. This is happening, already.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The problem with forcing people to study subject, that they don’t want to study, breeds disrespect. More you force something, more resistance you get.</p></li>
<li><p>Ask your Russian colleagues about Humanities during Soviet era. It was an obligatory course in college (just as you suggest). They were learning Marxism-Leninism. Just ask, whether they had any respect for the Profs that were teaching this subject.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>"We should have them look within themselves. Why? When people look within themselves and honestly judge their ways they are able to grow. They are able to become honest with themselves. They may see the perceptions that they once believed are out of touch with reality. "</p>
<p>I think that Humanities Profs shall look within themselves and ask “Why my course is less popular than STEM? It is an easy course. The grades are inflated. Why students are not interested in signing for it”?</p>
<p>When people look within themselves and honestly judge their ways they are able to grow. They are able to become honest with themselves. They may see the perceptions that they once believed are out of touch with reality. - exactly.</p>
<p>Humanities, IMHO, currently, are not in touch with the reality that students are living in. Humanities shall change, not students.</p>
<p>
I do not believe the purpose of humanities is to make the person come to “uncomfortable truths”. Rather, I believe the purpose of humanities is to expose the learner to the perceptions, values, beliefs, etc. of others. With learning of aforementioned topics, the learner is able to relate those to their own. The learner may agree or disagree with another’s perception, values, and beliefs, but they should be asked why. They should be asked why they agree/disagree on with some supporting evidence. </p>
<p>Should they pay for it? Sure, make them pay for it. What are the paying for? They’re paying for an education. They are not paying to be made uncomfortable. They are not paying to be told they are wrong. That is not what humanities is about and I would not expect a functional humanities class to be conducted in a way that disrespects opinions and makes the students uncomfortable. </p>
<p>
From your reasoning, would you believe we shouldn’t teach students math? Or reading? Or anything they don’t want to learn?</p>
<p>
Humanities, when taught in an environment that fosters discussions, respect, and analysis, is not “less” popular. Perhaps, the actual problem is how the majority of professors are teaching humanities and not humanities itself. At my university, humanities is not looked down upon. The students look forward to the course, actually. </p>
<p>
Humanities shall change? How should humanities change? Why should humanities change to, californiaaa? A society that focuses on material and monetary growth seems to be what should change…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, there’s something to what you say. Socrates raised uncomfortable questions that forced people to reexamine their beliefs, and they put him to death for it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet, according to the latest figures available (link in post #16), there are more humanities majors than natural sciences, computer science, and engineering majors combined. I think young people have a far deeper hunger for knowledge and critical perspectives than you give them credit for.</p>
<p>
This. Young minds are eager to learn.</p>
<p>Maybe this trend is a positive, signaling increases in the number of students who are interested in the sciences and using them to engineer technologies this world relies on. Designing a system that takes the raw rules of electromagnetism and makes it possible to communicate with others near-instantaneously is certainly more interesting and applicable than constantly rehashing the same thousand+ year old ideas instead of coming up with new ways of thinking.</p>
<p>Maybe that’s the real problem: the humanities keep trying to define everything in terms of sacred ideas from centuries if not millennia ago, while the world keeps moving forward. Philosophy and history departments need to stop dwelling on the same concepts over and over if they want to stay relevant. Humanity is fundamentally changing because of technology, something which the likes of Plato or Jesus could never have predicted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s not actually the way classics is taught at the undergrad level, least of all at Berkeley.</p>
<p>
I don’t believe that is the real problem. In my humanities courses we have studied philosophers. We have analyzed their work and criticized their beliefs. Many times in class it has been mention that the philosophers were unable to predict the turning of events and that there belief is simply out of touch and not applicable in the world of today. </p>
<p>However, to push aside philosophy and history will be a certain damning of our future. Ever heard that history repeats itself? So do concepts, beliefs, and societal structures. There is wealth in philosophy and history to take note in and use in the future.</p>