Are the Humanities Dead?

[mathmom]

<p>Not that my kids took. NYS has a government requirement which was rolled into AP Econ for the older son. (He wrote a paper about the pros and cons of various ways to run elections.) Younger son took a test to get out of the requirement. They didn’t do current events in school.</p>

[Niquii77]

<p>

Which you clearly know from all those humanities courses you’ve taken. </p>

<p>Oh wait.

</p>

<p>

Well when someone is so close minded I’m not sure what you can do.

<em>starts a slow clap</em> </p>

<p>Amen. </p>

<p>californiaaa, you should take a humanities class or at least get more hearsay about humanities from a source other than your daughter.</p>

<p>All of humanities is not propaganda. That is a fact. It is not debatable. Your “experiences” were unfortunate ones that lead you to believe such. Find an honest humanities professor and wholeheartedly give them you time. Remove your preconceived beliefs and honestly look at humanities for what it is.</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>

Was there not a class called Civics or something equivalent?

</p>

<p>US Government which looked at how government functions (in theory)… not specific issues.</p>

<p>TBH, I’ve taken 100+ credits worth of humanities. There wasn’t propaganda and I’m the first to call a spade a spade. I openly challenged my profs and they challenged me right back. No, we didn’t always agree. Many times they’d pick the opposite side of the issue- whatever it was. So-called “liberal” issues didn’t really come up. And my bioethics classes had a VERY healthy mix of conservatives and liberals which led to great discussions.</p>

[NavalTradition]

<p>

Where I went to high school the only assembly we had for a person, we had for a communist adulturer.

</p>

<p>Really? Most districts have MLK day off. </p>

<p>Or did Nelson Mandela actually come to your school?</p>

<p>

World History class, you better not suggest that a country is poor not because of something America or Britain did, but because of a cultural flaw. Civics or American History class, you better not suggest that perhaps it’s okay to expect English be understood by people in the US. You better not question the value of using the money of American taxpayers to stop whatever “bad” thing any other country does to its own people. You better not suggest that maybe it’s okay for private business to determine who they want to do business with based on whatever criteria they want. You better not suggest that maybe firearms don’t cause murders, or that there might be problems with gun control.

</p>

<p>You had better not… Or what? Did you get sent to the principal’s office? Suspended? Did they put something On Your Permanent Record? Grow some stones, son! </p>

<p>I was a young conservative in high school, had my own National Review print subscription from grade 10 on. I used to argue with the teachers in class. Not all of them were thrilled about it - although I did get a very good LoR to Dartmouth from the Sandalista Spanish teacher. But nothing bad ever happened to me.</p>

[Philovitist]

<p>

World History class, you better not suggest that a country is poor not because of something America or Britain did, but because of a cultural flaw. Civics or American History class, you better not suggest that perhaps it’s okay to expect English be understood by people in the US. You better not question the value of using the money of American taxpayers to stop whatever “bad” thing any other country does to its own people. You better not suggest that maybe it’s okay for private business to determine who they want to do business with based on whatever criteria they want. You better not suggest that maybe firearms don’t cause murders, or that there might be problems with gun control.

</p>

<p>Every class I took in high school involved people doing all of these things (poorly) and people not doing any of them.</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>This is one of the oddest threads I have ever read on CC. californiaa, are you high?</p>

[Pizzagirl]

<p>

World History class, you better not suggest that a country is poor not because of something America or Britain did, but because of a cultural flaw. Civics or American History class, you better not suggest that perhaps it’s okay to expect English be understood by people in the US. You better not question the value of using the money of American taxpayers to stop whatever “bad” thing any other country does to its own people. You better not suggest that maybe it’s okay for private business to determine who they want to do business with based on whatever criteria they want. You better not suggest that maybe firearms don’t cause murders, or that there might be problems with gun control.

</p>

<p>This is complete nonsense. My kids both took contemporary-political-issues types of classes and debated these issues, and got good grades for cogently expressing their opinions. I know for a fact that the teacher’s opinion on these matters was quite different from their own. I have one conservative child and one liberal child. They both did fine.</p>

[alh]

<p>

I am fine with Humanities and Social Sciences in HS, because they are free of charge. However, I doubt that many people would voluntarily pay Stanford tuition ($60,000) for introductory freshman Humanities.

</p>

<p>

My point is simple: it is pathetic to pay $60,000 to study political correctness. You can get it for free, at any corner. Since freshman courses required in Humanities and Social Sciences are focused on PC, I think that price tag is too big for the value. Why spend time and money?

</p>

<p>You would be surprised how many reading this board would voluntarily pay current tuition rates at what we consider to be the best-fit-for-our-individual-kids schools (including Stanford) for them to study Humanities and/or Social Sciences and pretty much only Humanities and/or Social Sciences.</p>

<p>I am raising my hand… and am willing to pay extra for the sort of PC instruction to which you object, and many of my friends feel the same. Many. </p>

<p>It is understandable you wouldn’t want to pay $60,00 a year for a college you don’t see as a good fit for your kid. I wouldn’t want to do that either and just wouldn’t.</p>

[cobrat]

<p>I find it really odd Californiaa and one or two other posts make it seem as if you must agree 100% with the Profs on their “PC/lefty views” or you’ll fail. </p>

<p>I find that amusing not only due to factors others pointed out, but also my own experience at probably one of the most PC/lefty colleges in the nation…especially when I attended and for alums a few decades back. </p>

<p>Many of the Profs I had the most vehement disagreements/in-class arguments with on political/social issues were in courses in which I excelled. Ironically, some of the classmates who tried to write what they thought their Profs wanted in the same class ended up not doing so well because they weren’t as able to write/craft as effective a written argument…even if their essays closely mirrored the Prof’s views.* </p>

<p>Moreover, there are humanities/social science fields which have been stereotyped within academia as being dominated by right-leaning folks…especially conservatives/libertarians. A few off the top of my head are Economics, Classics, and certain concentrations within American History/Politics/Studies. </p>

<p>In addition, STEM fields are not necessarily free of political/social ideology whether from Profs or classmates/colleagues. </p>

<p>One former supervisor recalled having an Electrical Engineering class where students ended up having to teach themselves the course material because the long-time Prof was much more interested in discussing his political campaign for Mayor in his local town and his political platform instead of teaching the course material. And for practically the entire semester. </p>

<p>From my own experience, CS majors and colleagues who were engineering/CS majors working in computer technology in several previous workplaces and a few computer conventions tend towards the extremes which made for lively lunchtime/after work dinner/bar discussions. Either they were hardcore right-leaning libertarians or hardcore progressive radical left progressives**. Despite that huge political spectrum gulf between the two groups, everyone was professional enough to keep such discussions civil and to confine such discussions to our breaks/after work. </p>

<p>Weren’t too many who were in-between the exceedingly wide middle except a few folks like myself. </p>

<ul>
<li>Some courses required us to workshop our drafts with each other earlier in the semester.<br></li>
</ul>

<p>**Not as radical as many undergrad classmates when I attended. However, they did come pretty close.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@cobrat

Weren’t too many who were in-between the exceedingly wide middle except a few folks like myself.

</p>

<p>The in-betweeners are less likely to talk about politics all the time compared to those who have more extreme viewpoints.</p>

[cobrat]

<p>

The in-betweeners are less likely to talk about politics all the time compared to those who have more extreme viewpoints.

</p>

<p>Except those interested in politics and/or those who act as impromptu referees in the discussions.</p>

[californiaaa]

<p>I never said that all Humanities and Social Science is propaganda. Yes, it is possible to find an interesting class.</p>

<p>However, many Social Science courses are very progressive. Nothing wrong with progressive. I voted for Obama twice. Yes, I don’t see much value in paying for these classes, when you can get the same education on any progressive web site, for free.</p>

[blossom]

<p>Californiaa, I admire you if you can teach yourself macroeconomics, anthropology, and psychology from a website.</p>

<p>Me- I’m glad I went to college.</p>

[californiaaa]

<p>Where did I blame anthropology and psychology? Macroeconomics is a real thing, I don’t understand why is it grouped with Social Sciences. It is a real science.</p>

<p>Feminism / gender / class / race / sexuality … Are you ready to pay $5,000 per course to study THIS?</p>

[cobrat]

<p>

Macroeconomics is a real thing, I don’t understand why is it grouped with Social Sciences. It is a real science.

</p>

<p>The few times I’ve seen Econ majors assert the above, the overwhelming reaction I’ve observed from STEM majors, especially Engineering/CS folks was ROTFLOLing accompanied by loud snorts and muttering “Are you freakin’ joking/kidding?!!”</p>

<p>The exact same reaction which tends to arise from STEM majors when Politics/Poli-sci majors assert the same thing*. :D</p>

<ul>
<li>Funny enough, the ones who did it IME seem to be exclusively concentrated in a few concentrations within American Politics.</li>
</ul>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>If anything, I would argue that it is much easier to teach yourself most basic STEM topics with a textbook than humanities/social sciences. Math, physics, etc are all fairly easy to self-teach if you’re dedicated. </p>

<p>Isn’t the common argument that STEM is far more cut and dry than humanities? Seems much easier to teach yourself from a textbook if that is the case…</p>

<p>

Feminism / gender / class / race / sexuality … Are you ready to pay $5,000 per course to study THIS?

</p>

<p>I’m not willing to pay 5k/class to study anything, but to each his/her own.</p>

[whenhen]

<p>

Isn’t the common argument that STEM is far more cut and dry than humanities? Seems much easier to teach yourself from a textbook if that is the case…

If the professor is any good, that isn’t the case. Sure it’s possible to self teach the fundamentals but a good professor forces his students to go well beyond the basic concepts, even in an intro survey class. Also, it’s very difficult to replicate labs/field work even with the best online simulations. </p>

<p>The above is true for most subjects. I’ve seen US history classes which essentially required no critical thinking, only fact recall. I’ve seen others where students were expected to heavily synthesize information in addition to just learning rudimentary facts.</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>whehen, I wasn’t saying that I believe it. I think californiaaa’s argument is BS. My point was just that IF you’re going to say that about humanities, you gotta say it about STEM. </p>

<p>Sorry I should’ve clarified :)</p>

[Niquii77]

<p>

I think californiaaa’s argument is BS.

Phew! I’m glad I’m not the only one. </p>

<p>californiaaa, I would be delighted to hear your argument about how macroeconomics is more “real” of a science than the other social sciences. How can you just assert that it’s a real science. What’s your background? Your research? Expertise? Sources?</p>

[cobrat]

<p>

Isn’t the common argument that STEM is far more cut and dry than humanities? Seems much easier to teach yourself from a textbook if that is the case…

</p>

<p>That’s the common argument and in practice, many STEM majors do end up effectively teaching themselves either due to necessity* or due to feeling they’ll get more out of self-studying than going to class.</p>

<p>However, students who feel STEM is so cut and dried tend to be thrown for a loop if they happened upon a STEM course where the Professor won’t make it so cut & dry. </p>

<p>Saw this in a summer stats course where the students with the most problems seemed to be hardcore math/engineering majors or some Econ majors who can’t deal with ambiguity in thinking out the word problems or in being cold-called in class. Granted, it probably didn’t help that the Prof was using the Socratic method to teach Statistics for Econ majors. </p>

<ul>
<li>E.g. One supervisor’s Electrical Engineering Prof who ended up spending the entire semester discussing his mayoral campaign and his political platform instead of covering course material in that EE class. :(</li>
</ul>