<p>Except that the data don’t support that inference. The percentage of students studying computer science and engineering has edged up only slightly since 1970, from 6.3% to 7.8%, while the percentage studying natural sciences has actually declined, from 9.8% to 7.6%. Combining the two, there’s been an overall slight decline in STEM fields, from 16.1% in 1970 to 15.4% in 2010. Meanwhile, humanities have held steady at about 17%. The big growth has come in business (from 13.7% in 1970 to 21.7% in 2010) and in “other fields,” mostly vocationally-oriented (9.1% in 1970 to 23.4% in 2010), at the expense of education (21.0% in 1970 to 6.1% in 2010) and social sciences (23.0% in 1970 to 16.4% in 2010). So the movement isn’t from humanities to STEM, it’s from education and social sciences to business and “allied health professions.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmm . . . that doesn’t sound like any humanities class I’ve ever had . . . or taught. Have you ever taken one?</p>
<p>In addition to the humanities bachelor students there are also plenty students of students that take humanities or “social sciences” courses -(Why does everyone feel the need to tag sciences onto everything nowadays?)- who are from outside fields and use the courses electives. Sometimes this is to increase their breadth of knowledge, but often this is an attempt to boost gpa’s because there are frankly a lot wider selection easy courses in the humanities then the sciences. The point is for whatever reason probably the bulk of the student population has at least some exposure to the humanities at the undergraduate level, so I don’t think the study of the humanities is dying off, just that as said in previous posts we are now seeing students specialize more while having a few unrelated fringe courses, rather than having a comprehensive liberal arts-esque education.</p>
<p>As to why courses like “Urban-feminism-ethnic classes” don’t have a lot of enrollment, it is kinda obvious: these courses appeal to a very select group of people. While tons of people might have enough of a passing interest to sign up for an intro to psychology or intro to biology class, even as a elective, there are a lot fewer people who would be interested in taking a Women’s/gender studies course or a middle eastern studies course, because they feel these courses relate very little to them.</p>
<p>Education has always been about increasing employment prospects for everyone except the wealthiest of individuals who don’t have to worry about employment prospects. There’s no “now” element to it. </p>
<p>I’m taking a Philosophy class. And it’s a real one, I’m the only non-Philosophy or PPE (PPE is Politics, Philosophy, Economics) student that I’ve met in there. There are grad students in Philosophy in there too. The field isn’t a joke, but the class is. And I suspect that a lot of humanities classes are the same. They could easily make the class harder but they don’t. I think if they increased the difficulty there’d be more respect for these majors and they’d be more employable. I do like the class, but it is simply too easy.</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 …”</p>
<p>I wish it would be true. It would be really interesting to learn about the past. If an idea survived for millennia, it is worth studying, IMHO.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, many modern ideas are way too progressive. Stanford mixes Iliad with rap music, for example. I like Iliad , I like rap, but I don’t want to mix them together! I don’t want even to try!</p>
<p>If Humanities are so popular, why they are compulsory for students? Computer science, for example, is not compulsory.</p>
<p>This is a really interesting, pressing issue. </p>
<p>I study a foreign language and its literature because I like it and I’m eager to embrace it. It’s a world that I’m not currently part of as an American, and by studying the mechanics and the essence of it, I feel like I have a more broad, global outlook on life, which makes me feel happy and accomplished inside. </p>
<p>This reminds me of the entire notion of a general education. Back in the Renaissance days, they were striving for students to be well-read and well-written, and the entire point was to move from looking upwards at God to horizontally on all of humanity. The humanities and humanism came at a really important, vital time in our history, and that’s something that helped shape our societies today. </p>
<p>I would really like for the humanities to stay. I like being challenged and pushed to think about something abstract and something other than just “I need to get a job that makes a ton of money.”</p>
<p>"I like being challenged and pushed to think about something abstract "</p>
<p>Nothing is more abstract than math and theoretical Physics. If you want to be challenged, I’ll suggest cosmology - study of the origins and eventual fate of the universe.</p>
<p>Excuse me, but this statement is hubristic in the extreme. We are not “smarter” than we used to be. </p>
<p>Rule by technocrats is dangerous. Science can answer the “how” but it cannot answer the “why.” Right now, for example, the US is experiencing major political embarrassment and worse because we used technology to do things that we should not have. No one drew a line or said, “That’s not necessary,” or “The consequences of exposure outweigh the benefits.” There was no judgement at the wheel, simply a sense of “we can do it, so let’s do it.” Disaster. The more we are able to do through science, the more careful we must be. A systematic and rigorous study of the humanities should complement scientific training. Go read Edward Tenner.</p>
<p>NSA spying was authorized by politicians with degrees in Humanities. Not by technocrats. </p>
<p>Most of the politicians have degrees in Humanities. Are they humane? </p>
<p>“we used technology to do things that we should not have.” … You refer to “we”, but there is no “we, as a society”. It was the president, who did it. President, who majored in Humanities. Google technocrats were against this idea, right from the beginning. Snowden, computer scientist, exposed the hypocrisy.</p>
<p>Critical thinking? A humanities major (Obama) authorizes spying, NSA (Napolitano majored in Humanities) implements it, but you blame computer scientists for it?</p>
<p>Californiaaa, why are you according the science domain the privilege of separating out its disciplines (biology, computer science) but not the humanities? Should students not learn about writing (composition) or the past (history), as long as they have a bio course and a CS course? It seems to me that you are lumping humanities into a homogenous mass because they do not happen to matter to you.</p>
<p>I agree with you on Plato. I would not mind learning more about Plato, for example. Unfortunately, Humanities tend to be focused on progressive issues, not on Plato. </p>
<p>I think, students don’t like to be lectured on the dangers of technology by people, who don’t understand technology, but have a vocal opinion about it.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure most schools make you take some sort of science requirement, be it biology, chemistry, physics, etc. And they also have you take some math (related) class. Likewise, they make you take a foreign language class and a literature class. And so on. </p>
<p>In sum, they’re trying to introduce everyone to both the how and why aspects of an education. There’s both the concrete and the abstract. </p>
<p>And by abstract, I mean relating to thoughtfulness. 2 + 2 = 4, of course, but what about a broken heart? Can you ever heal from it? Can you even mend something you can’t see or control? What does it mean to heal, or to even love? </p>
<p>You can’t just memorize this. You need to be able to look within yourself and think about humanity as a whole to propose a decent answer. And ultimately, you’ll never be right OR wrong, so it’s the process and the chase that counts. </p>
<p>I’d rather try something and put my entire heart into it and fail than just remember how to do some skill without any personal accomplishment. At least for me, it’s about the experience and the journey. I’d like my education to be meaningful to me that way. </p>
<p>But of course, people vary. That’s just how it is.</p>
<p>Strawman. Show me where I blamed computer scientists. You won’t find it. My point is that the belief that science makes the humanities obsolete is naive and hubristic. You will also note that I did not use the hackneyed and meaningless phrase “critical thinking.” You will see that I claimed that scientific and humanistic knowledge should complement each other. </p>
<p>I use “we” as a a citizen of the polity of the United States.</p>
<p>"Just because they have a degree in humanities does not mean the are ethical. " - then what’s the point of Humanities?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I understand if student learns a subject, because he enjoys learning this subject.
Obviously, it doesn’t apply to compulsory classes in Humanities.</p></li>
<li><p>I understand if student is learning some important skills for future employment.
Humanities still need to make a case that they teach useful skills. For example, recent studies showed that science majors have better analytical and critical thinking skills than Humanities majors, especially in Ethnic Studies.</p></li>
<li><p>Humanities major doesn’t make you a better human being. Many notorious politicians, lawyers, CIA agents had degree in Humanities.</p></li>
</ol>
If you want to be challenged, I’ll suggest cosmology - study of the origins and eventual fate of the universe.</p>