<p>Alright, so whether or not Stanford’s humanities are victim of a terrible inferiority complex, can someone tell me what internship and career services are like for people interested in humanities-related fields?</p>
<p>Senior0991, I think you and I have different ideas of what it means to “hold” a belief.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly–which is why she’d overstate it, in order to prove her point.</p>
<p>While I agree that some majors tend to have more arrogant people (though not all CS, etc. majors are that way), it’s apparent you and I have had pretty different experiences, so I think we can just agree to disagree.</p>
<p>I am a senior at Stanford majoring in the humanities. The academic culture here in regards to humanities is something I feel very strongly about. </p>
<p>In general, there is a lot of condescension from techies towards fuzzies. Perhaps they won’t laugh at fuzzies outright for their choice of major, but the attitude that many techies have is that the humanities are easy and useless. Most of my friends here are techies, and although they never insult me directly, I always sense this undercurrent of condescension from them. Sometimes, I feel pretty bad about it. When you do well and get good grades, but people always tell you it’s “because you’re a fuzzy” and all your classes are easy, it’s hard to feel a true sense of achievement. I know I should just believe in what I’m doing and not care about what other people think, but it’s hard when I’m surrounded by people who keep telling me that what I’m doing is worthless. </p>
<p>Not only is there condescension from techies towards fuzzies, there is condescension from techies towards other techies and fuzzies towards other fuzzies as well. Almost all engineering majors look down on MS&E, for instance. And some social science majors (mostly econ) look down on humanities majors because they perceive those majors to actually be useless (as in, unemployable). Basically, there is this notion of an academic hierarchy with majors ranked along a scale of techie to fuzzy: engineering majors like CS and EE are at the top, while humanities majors like English and philosophy are at the bottom. Natural science and social science are somewhere in the middle.</p>
<p>In short, condescension towards the humanities is a real problem here, and it’s one of the things I dislike most about Stanford. Not everyone thinks this way, but enough people do for it to be an issue.</p>
<p>I’m a junior at Stanford, and perhaps you can guess from my username that I’m an EE major. Like nearly everyone at Stanford, my friends come from everywhere on the spectrum of techie to fuzzy. I also think that many of the experiences people described of “mocking people’s majors” is much more tongue in cheek than anything. For instance one person was at a career fair, and suggested it smelled because there were lots of engineers there. I didn’t take that as an insult, I found it funny and, more than slightly true. I would like to make one point that I feel no one has discussed yet here:</p>
<p>I believe much of the condescension techie majors have towards fuzzy majors is because required courses here are definitely skewed to the advantage of humanities oriented students. There’s 3 quarters of IHUM, 2 qtrs PWR, an additional Humanities requirement, an additional Social Sciences requirement, 2 education for citizenship and 1 year of world language. Contrast that with just having to take one “math” class one “science” class and one “engineering” class. I put those in quotes since everyone who wants to get rid of the requirement easily knows which classes to take (such as stats 60, cs 105, etc) and honestly these courses are barely at the high school level in terms of difficulty, let alone Stanford level. While I agree that there are some easy ways to get rid of some of the fuzzy requirements theres no backdoor when it comes to IHUM and you have to be lucky to backdoor your way around PWR. This naturally builds resentment amongst some techies since simply by virtue of requirements its easier on humanities majors. </p>
<p>One of my closest friends in an English major. If it were her choice she would never take a techie course in college. Just as, if it were my choice, I would never take a class that required me to write papers or read long texts in college. While I would say we are pretty extreme as far as Stanford students go, I also believe both desires are perfectly reasonable. It has nothing to do with viewing those classes as useless, but those domains simply aren’t where our interests lie.</p>
<p>On another related note, I DO believe it is a widespread view on campus that techie majors are more difficult (not as widespread that those majors are more useful however) than fuzzy majors. I would say my fuzzy friends are the first to be like oh wow you major in EE that’s so tough. I hear that at Princeton, part of the reason grade deflation was implemented was so no one would be at a disadvantage, grading wise, when it came to picking their major. I’m not saying that we should have such a policy at Stanford. However I do think that the fact that a more humanities focused school like Princeton suggested that humanities majors were more lenient than others raises some serious questions.</p>
<p>Finally, I find it sort of a joke that people here think certain majors are more marketable than others. I know I used to feel that way as a freshman, and maybe first qtr sophomore year, but truly speaking as long as your major teaches you how to think critically you should be fine in the job search. Yale for instance is very skewed towards the humanities, yet their graduates don’t seem to have trouble finding jobs. I mean sure an English major probably can’t be a software engineer without taking CS classes, but its not as if there aren’t other employers out there besides Google and Facebook (which by the way hire humanities majors for other operations important for their business, such as marketing for instance) </p>
<p>For more on this topic I believe the Stanford Review wrote a three article sequence on the humanities at Stanford. It was pretty interesting and you should be able to find it online.</p>
<p>
Check out this link:
[Career</a> Development Center - Stanford Career Fairs | Student Affairs](<a href=“http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/cdc/employer/career-fairs]Career”>http://studentaffairs.stanford.edu/cdc/employer/career-fairs)</p>
<p>As you’ll see, there is only one career fair devoted to liberal arts, and the rest of them open to non-athlete undergrads are all tech-related. The normal career fairs seem to be dominated by tech/finance companies too from my experiences. </p>
<p>So as a humanities major you’ll have to be a bit more proactive. That said, there are plenty of opportunities available to a Stanford humanities major, whatever you’re into. </p>
<p>I see you’re deciding between Stanford and Yale. Honestly regardless of whether or not Yale’s humanities program is academically superior, I think it’s important to have some sense that your presence on campus and in the surrounding area is respected. From what I’ve heard Yale will definitely give that to you. Stanford (and Silicon Valley) on the other hand?</p>
<p>
This comes from a CS major.</p>
<p>
This comes from an EE major.</p>
<p>
This comes from a humanities major. </p>
<p>Note the disparity. Recall that EE and CS are at the very top of the hierarchy. So I’d recommend to take the top two comments with a (large) grain of salt.</p>
<p>^ I’m not a CS major (I say that because it’s easier for others on this site to understand, but I’ve taken more CS classes than many CS majors)</p>
<p>Like I said, my classes are evenly divided among the so-called “hierarchy” (literally from hard sciences to social sciences to humanities), so I’d say my experience is pretty spread out. And on top of that, I’m involved with a certain organization (won’t say what for anonymity) that has given me a broader perspective (outside my own) on the techy-fuzzy divide.</p>
<p>I think it really says something that even a humanities major is participating in the derogatory language imposed on the humanities discipline, i.e. fuzzy.</p>
<p>I don’t find the term “fuzzy” to be derogatory, and neither do other humanities majors at Stanford (at least, I don’t think they do). We call each other fuzzies and don’t have a problem with it. It’s the attitude I have a problem with, not the terms fuzzy/techie.</p>
<p>[Stanford</a> launches effort to increase study of humanities | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/04/19/stanford-launches-effort-to-increase-study-of-humanities/]Stanford”>Stanford launches effort to increase study of humanities)</p>
<p>[I</a> Have Two Heads: Fuzzy Wuzzy Wasn’t Fuzzy, Was He? | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/04/19/i-have-two-heads-fuzzy-wuzzy-wasn’t-fuzzy-was-he/]I”>http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/04/19/i-have-two-heads-fuzzy-wuzzy-wasn’t-fuzzy-was-he/)</p>
<p>[Editorial:</a> Techies aren’t “sheep” | Stanford Daily](<a href=“http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/04/20/editorial-techies-aren’t-“sheep”/]Editorial:”>Editorial: Techies aren’t “sheep”)</p>
<p>Seems like this is a popular subject of discussion on campus right now.</p>
<p>I am taking a very broad sampling of courses for my freshman year, and have not met a single person who takes the purported “fuzzy vs. techie” thing seriously. It’s obviously reductive in the extreme, and antithetical to Stanford’s desire to offer innovative interdisciplinary majors and the widest array possible of interesting courses. If anyone is susceptible to thinking about undergraduate education in such limited, binary terms, maybe it is a response to media-inflated fears about the job market, perhaps exacerbated by parental/cultural pressures to only consider majors with above-average earnings prospects. Everyone I know, however, understands that the ability to effectively communicate complex ideas, both orally and in writing, is hugely valued in every area of the marketplace, and thus they value their training in the humanities as well as the sciences.</p>
<p>So zenko, if my D, who has a heavy “techie” background, gets to Stanford and decides to go “fuzzy”, will she be happy? Is Stanford still a viable choice for those kids who mainly pursue the humanities in your opinion?</p>
<p>dignified, all signs point to yes. Stanford is more than a viable choice for humanities–it has top-flight departments in all of the humanities, and a strong institutional commitment to maintaining them. I’ve had great experiences with all of my humanities courses so far, especially the two IntroSems I’ve been lucky enough to take. IHUM and PWR have been very good as well. I have heavy interest and proclivity on the techie end of the spectrum as well, and the thing is that here, I can have it all.</p>
<p>
From the academics point of view, very much so. I have met many awesome humanities students here, and most of those who doubt their decision to attend are artists/performers who wish they considered conservatory programs more. The way I see it though, if you’re passionate enough you can always do an MFA. </p>
<p>I recommend everyone read the articles cited in posts 30 and 31 of this thread. Like someone mentioned, this is a very current topic on campus. </p>
<p>I personally was put-off by the Daily’s Editorial. I recommend reading the comments associated with this editorial, as it is important to remember that the editorial is ultimately just one perspective, and a biased one at that (looking through past editorials, the editorial board would much rather write about technological developments than any art or cultural ones). For instance, comparing CS106a to IHUM is, as one student responder put it, reckless at best. </p>
<p>I thought the “fuzzy wuzzy wuzzy” article was a very solid and objective glimpse into how the seemingly innocent labels of “techie” and “fuzzy” can prove detrimental. One problem I have with Stanford is that many students are not interdisciplinary. As the article mentioned, this is a widespread problem throughout campus not confined to any one general field.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stanford’s humanities programs are strong across the board (with the exception of the arts, as previously pointed out, but I don’t know if you would necessarily group those with humanities). All the humanities classes I’ve taken here have been excellent, with the exception of IHUM. (Maybe one way to increase student interest in the humanities would be to get rid of IHUM. It’s so poorly taught that it’s no wonder students are put off by the humanities if that’s their first exposure to the field here.) The humanities professors here are top-notch–they really care about teaching, and are always available to help students. </p>
<p>So academically, I don’t at all regret coming here to study humanities. I just wish the culture were more respectful towards students who study the humanities. I’m not familiar with other colleges, but I get the feeling that east coast schools don’t have this problem with the fuzzy/techie divide. </p>
<p>There are places here where you can seek out more humanities-inclined students, however. SLE is great for that, and in retrospect I wish I had chosen do to that in freshman year instead of IHUM. I hear Stanford is planning to expand the SLE program in the near future so that it can accomodate more students. (Although, SLE students are negatively stereotyped by everyone else on campus. This is probably another symptom of the lack of respect for humanities here.)</p>
<p>My experience has been very different from LazyAsian’s–both my IHUMs have been very well-taught, both by the profs and the postdocs in section (and I think I have rather high standards). I think SLE sounds great, though, and I do expect that there will be more offerings of that kind coming from the Humanities department in the near future. Also, we’ve discussed this point on this forum before, but I really don’t think there is any serious negative stereotyping of SLE people here–it is tongue-in-cheek, friendly ribbing about the relative insularity of the program.</p>
<p>Here is an excellent program on this very topic @ Stanford:</p>
<p>[A</a> Conference at Stanford University | Bechtel Conference Center | Encina Hall | May 11, 2011 | Humanities at Stanford](<a href=“http://humanexperience.stanford.edu/bibliotech/program]A”>http://humanexperience.stanford.edu/bibliotech/program)</p>
<p>[n the past 6 months, I’ve been helping the folks at Stanford University to put together BiblioTech. From the humble beginnings during coffee conversations and lunches at the Faculty Club, the conference has gained momentum. I read articles about their being “too much tech” in the world and their is a concerned quorum who are keen on balancing our techno-terrific lives with creativity from the humanities departments.</p>
<p>Innovation is not only binary in computer code but comes from the meshing of arts, literature, philosophy and languages. Perhaps Biblio-Tech is a reflection on the true meaning of the global village. That said, I will be giving my views on May 11th at Stanford along with some learned and distinguished colleagues.]</p>