Humanities grad school -- "don't do it"

Parents Forum
41

<p>^^If you know hundreds of math/science students, and you don’t believe in people having natural inclinations to different subject areas, then WHO exactly do you know? Or do you define “well-read” differently than I? </p>

<p>Someone who panics when a college asks for a list of books read in the past year, with asterisks next to school books, is not someone I would consider “well-read.” Someone who “doesn’t have time to read” and genuinely reads <10 books a year for pleasure (that’s less than one book a month) is not well-read, no matter their good intentions. Those two descriptors, either/or, apply to an awful lot of my friends (including some of the humanities students, but the careless attitude wrt reading is anecdotally more prevalent among those who dislike literature as an academic subject). And I suspect that if I asked them straight out whether they considered themselves “well-read,” 90% would answer no. 75% wouldn’t be particularly ashamed of it, because they have many other priorities that they rank above reading broadly in many genres for leisure. My statement remains true even if you strike out “broadly in many genres.”</p>

<p>I consider the arts and the humanities to be fundamentally different academic areas that attract people with different innate talents; for example, someone gifted in language may not be particularly interested in music or visual art. “Popular imagination” does tend to separate the sciences and humanities/arts (as a lump).</p>

<p>Do “science/math people particularly dislike reading”? Well, I’d want to see some statistically significant social science research–several have been done on reading habits, probably this variation has been thought up already–before making such a sweeping generalization. In my personal experience, math/science students are less inclined toward leisure reading than humanities/social science students. I don’t know enough students with fine arts as a primary interest to judge.</p>

<p>But even in my small high school, there are tons of exceptions to my generalizations. If you “can’t think of a single exception” to the statement that every math/science student or professor of your acquaintance is “well-read,” from a sufficiently large pool of acquaintances–well, sorry but I don’t believe you. And since you have absolutely no reason to lie, that makes me question your judgment (or memory).</p>

42

<p>The “journey” to getting a PhD in English, history, and pure science is very long – often 5+ years. The “journey” to try to make a career in the chosen profession is also long – often 3-5 years. And for many reality then strikes that the journey does not lead to a livelihood. And for those who wish (and do) create families, the need to make a livelihood becomes overwhelming, and often very difficult.</p>

<p>I personally know of several very smart PhD who have been caught in such situations. My sense is that their attempt to change course when they are in their 30s often leads to dissatisfaction and failure. To say that employers will often look at the potential of PhD in fields indirectly related to mainstream of their markets, and to hire based on respect for the degree is not substantiated by reality. It is rare for such candidates to get interviews of any kind.</p>

<p>It’s curious to me that many of the responders to this thread, downplay the facts, which even a casual amount of research will show are spot on.</p>

<p>As we guide our own children in their pursuit of a career, and in their selection of a college, we need to instill a sense of reality into their journey. It’s the wisdom of our adulthood.</p>

43

<p>I do “believe in people having natural inclinations to different subject areas” and this broadly accounts for preference in choice of major. I just don’t agree that an interest in math/science precludes an interest in arts/humanities (or vice versa.)</p>

<p>I don’t know science/math people who hate to read. Maybe some do, but I am not aware of it, and it’s certainly not a defining characteristic of those who study science/math. I wouldn’t necessarily agree with your measuring by “number of books read for pleasure per year” and neither would my English professor friends. But my point is that my many friends, family members, and acquaintances who study or work in math/science professions are all well-educated with many interests – and they like to read.</p>

44

<p>

</p>

<p>Donna, I swear I’m not picking on you or your son, but this is as good a case study as any. Your scenario might work perfectly for him. He might come out of grad school without any loans. He might have the personality to work as an art dealer, and finish grad school at a time when galleries are hiring, or when he can get financial backing to open his own store. His classmates who took out loans, and/or who lack the schmoozing gene, and/or who’ve been trained to regard a nonacademic career as failure, are going to be in a world of hurt. </p>

<p>Nothing wrong with pursuing your bliss, as long as there’s backup. The kids I know who want to be professional musicians or dancers are aware that they may end up teaching privately, or running a studio, or working for a foundation. The athletes will become coaches or work with agents or find something to do on the corporate end of a fitness business. A brilliant and charming young friend with an impeccable undergrad pedigree, including a very spiffy fellowship, is planning on getting a humanities PhD and a university job…but is also planning for what happens if it doesn’t work out.</p>

45

<p>I know many math/science people who have no respect whatsoever for the study of literature. </p>

<p>Richard Feynman, as just one example, jeers at the English courses at MIT, and also complained that these were the only classes he couldn’t ace. Not that it matters at all.</p>

<p>I am not ignoring the facts.</p>

<p>No one has spoken to point: if one’s heart is set on a career in the Humanities in higher ed, how can one get there without taking the risk?</p>

<p>I was deterred; the discouragement worked; I tried other things. I am so glad that my inner guides sent me back and I now have the career I desired.</p>

<p>How could I, or anyone else, have achieved this otherwise?</p>

<p>How can one become an actor, an artist, an academic, a financial analyist, a lawyer, a programmer, a musician without trying? None of these professions are in good shape. We can’t funnel all these people into health care, and if we did, what would insurance companies do to the earnings of these folks?</p>

<p>I think the reasonable thing to do is assess the risks and weight how important a particular career is to one’s happiness. The old saw holds: If you can imagine yourself doing something else, do it. But if you can’t …</p>

46

<p>Why does everyone care what some pointed-headed, humanities wanna be grad students do? I don’t get the judgmental, know better than the individuals involved tone of this thread.</p>

<p>The news has been delivered – proceed at one’s own risk.</p>

<p>So of us are glad we took the risk, some are bummed. That’s what risk means.</p>

<p>I have taken other risks that haven’t panned out.</p>

<p>I was advised against writing novels. So far I have two unpublished mss. So advisers were right; not a fun experience. On the other hand, I <em>did</em> write two novels. I can self-publish, try to chop them up and publish sections, give readings.</p>

<p>Risk means things may not work out.</p>

47

<p>

</p>

<p>I think being a lawyer must be the safety career for MA or PhDs from humanities programs. I have known many lawyers who either left the non-tenure academic track or could see that academic positions were few (and filled with people who weren’t likely to retire anytime soon) and PhD candidates wanting to fill those positions were many. So far, all of those people have found a satisfying career in practicing law.</p>

<p>And it is not just humanities graduates that have to face this problem. It wasn’t that long ago, when the space program was winding down, that PhDs in physis, etc. had a devil of a time in getting a job. </p>

<p>But I agree that you do have to follow your bliss as long as you don’t borrow gobs of money to do it. After all, there is always law school. ;)</p>

48

<p>

</p>

<p>You do realize that my “scenario” was a joke, something I just made up, right? He is only in his second year of college, after all! In any event, if he does go to grad school, of course he’ll have some kind of realistic backup plan for making a living if he doesn’t end up with a college teaching position he considers desirable. It doesn’t have to be working in a gallery; he could teach high school (once upon a time that was his primary goal, in fact), or work in a museum, or do any one of innumerable other things he might enjoy. I’d much rather have him do something that makes him happy and allows him to make enough money to get by, than embark on a “career” that doesn’t interest him. After all, to be realistic, he’s rather unlikely ever to have a stay at home spouse he needs to support, even temporarily.</p>

<p>And besides, he could always live with me for the next 30 years. (Another joke; don’t worry.)</p>

49

<p>Donna, a joke, but as Hemingway said, “Isn’t it pretty to think so?”</p>

50

<p>Of course one should follow their bliss, but they need to think about the Plan B as well. Even before the currently horrible market for tenure track jobs in the Humanities (the slight blip, there, at the end of the 1980s, the slight blip again in the mid 1990s) I regularly had undergrads and MA students telling me that they wanted to pursue doctorates because they loved to read … literature. </p>

<p>There is one thing that distinguishes the students who graduate with PhDs and manage to get work teaching in the university (and, the occasional MFA, which unfortunately has become a way to hire people even more cheaply, but I digress). Most of those PhDs who get jobs got thorough career advice that they LISTENED TO. They sat on committees. They constantly acquired online teaching skills. They continuously developed both a main area or two of research and developed others, besides. Sounds a bit like what Mythmom does.</p>

<p>A sigh of disclaimer here. DD has superb aptitudes for math and science – esp given that her high school was not good in these areas at all – but her aptitudes for social sciences and humanities are much greater. She is taking almost nothing but humanities courses now. Oh well. At least she does know, from the dinner table talk (DH is also a professor) to have no illusions that teaching college/university is mainly about getting to sit around reading and debating ideas. </p>

<p>A great irony is that while many of us get PhDs in literature because we love reading great literature, we spend lots of time reading student papers which isn’t great lit (yet). Now I will stop procrastinating. Back to that stack of theses!</p>

51

<p>Which of my jokes are you referring to, mythmom? I’m not sure his living with me for the next 30 years is that pretty to think about, as much as I might personally appreciate it!</p>

52

<p>

</p>

<p>To be fair, sometimes you do get some people who actually say things like that and mean it.</p>

53

<p>Have I or anyone else in this thread ever said that “an interest in math/science precludes an interest in arts/humanities”? You’re arguing a straw man. Ten books a year read for pleasure is not a particularly high barrier for “well-read” (which is not synonymous with “well-educated”–lots of well-educated people are not well-read nor care to become so). I know many math/science-oriented people who love books; I also know some, like mythmom does, who dismiss literature as useless and couldn’t name the last novel they’ve read. It so happens that in my personal experience, the majority of acquaintances who fall into this category are oriented towards science and math (some also toward practical socsci, i.e. econ).</p>

<p>

I wish I knew. I’ve thought seriously about aiming to become a humanities professor, because I love theory. My backup plan is library science, which is also genuinely a good fit for me, but that choice will have to be made before grad school since they require different credentials. Law school is the backup-backup, but substantially more expensive and it seems like humanities-oriented people are “advised against” it these days as well.</p>

54

<br>

<br>

<p>I agree. My natural inclination is toward science; I have a science PhD and work in biotech clinical research. But I love ancient history and I envy Classics majors. I read a lot of ancient literature and history and wish I had time to read more. I wish I had the time to learn Latin and Greek. Nearly all scientists I know have significant interests in disciplines other than science - often in humanties disciplines.</p>

55

<p>From the Atlantic, “The Management Myth:”

</p>

<p>[The</a> Management Myth - The Atlantic (June 2006)](<a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200606/stewart-business]The”>The Management Myth - The Atlantic)</p>

<p>And,</p>

<p>LSAT scores by major (gives some idea of analytical skill):
[Average</a> LSAT Scores for 29 Majors with over 400 Students Taking the Exam](<a href=“http://www.uic.edu/cba/cba-depts/economics/undergrad/table.htm]Average”>Business | University of Illinois Chicago)</p>

<p><a href=“http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2009/09/choice-of-college-major-sways-lsat-score.html[/url]”>http://legalblogwatch.typepad.com/legal_blog_watch/2009/09/choice-of-college-major-sways-lsat-score.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

56

<p>That list is fine, but we should bear in mind that the exams are composed by folks whose minds work more like physics/math types than the folks at the bottom of the list.</p>

<p>They are not objective in anyway. I am not speaking out of sour grapes because my D with her American Studies major way outperformed the top statistic, and my GRE’s were over 95% all around and 99% in verbal, and that’s without any math in college after Calculus in high school.</p>

<p>There are so many thinking skills the LSAT doesn’t measure: Global thinking and the ability to make connections, intuitive grasp of affinities. Arguments are composed of skills not measured by the exam as well, and an intuitive grasp of the power relationships between human beings and how they deploy their power aint bad either but aint testable.</p>

<p>@DonnaL: Just fooling around along with you. Meant having some rich collector person to look after him. I wish I had that! Right now! I do have wonderful taste. Honest.</p>

<p>Keil: I’m sure you’ll figure it out.</p>

<p>Coureur: I don’t dispute what you say. In many instances it’s true. Certainly not in all. I read more books on Einstein and Darwin for my one measly course in intellectual history than I do on Shakespeare et al because although I have a PhD in English, science fascinates me. My favorite contemporary authors are Pynchon, who began in engineering, and Richard Powers, who began in biology. They switched to English because, in each of their words, it’s more “holistic.” </p>

<p>How did we ever start dropping that “W”?</p>

<p>Are they right? Probably not. Just their pattern. As I said, I think creativity, flexibility, kindness, all the good things are not distributed by discipline.</p>

<p>One of the most fascinating cinephiles I ever met was a plastic surgeon who fixed the faces destroyed by cancer. He said he had to go into a fugue state and literally imagine where the features belonged with his eyes closed to make new faces. He adores “serious” movies. He was one of S’s alumni interviewers and although he is a Dartmouth interviewer, helped steer S toward Williams after meeting him. (S is very introverted. No dis at all to Dart.) He is a fine, fine man at the boundaries of art/science/occult. And probably no one suspects how large a role intuition plays in his practice.</p>

57

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m curious how exactly you know this. Is there some sort of link or reference you can supply about who develops the LSAT? There isn’t even a tiny bit of actual math on the LSAT as far as I know.</p>

<p>I would more likely question the study because I don’t know what kinds of controls it included, or because “average” score doesn’t always tell the story - absent standard deviation or any other statistical information. Plus it doesn’t appear like there are huge differences in the scores anyway - it looks like +/- 5 pts from the mean.</p>

<p>Edit- I figured I better add this. When I say I am curious how you know this, I mean exactly that. I am not saying you are incorrect. I have no idea. I am seriously asking if you have information on who develops these tests because I am curious about it.</p>

58

<p>I just meant that we kow tow to these tests which only match what some people think is the best way to measure readiness for certain learning situations/professions. I didn’t mean it was skewed toward physics or math majors, just to that kind of analytically ability which is just one kind of intelligence needed to really succeed as a lawyer.</p>

<p>Sorry. Not a very interesting point on my part. And as I say, thankfully not at all relevant to my situation because my D would not be happy with a 156/7 and would have to revise her entire list of law schools. She is applying this year.</p>

<p>I only give that caveat because I have so often had sciency folk attack me/us (pointed headed Humanities people) with the idea that our arguments are all born of the fact that we’re just not as capable so we resent such findings. Not true.</p>

<p>And just for the record, in case I haven’t made it clear (not that anyone cares) I admire mathematicians, scientists and engineers as much as I do artists, philosophers, theorists, sonnetiers, etc. We need all kinds of minds. I will readily admit I wasn’t quite adept enough at math to do the kind of science I would have liked to (atomic chemistry) or least not good enough in the non-supportive environment (of women) in the sixties and early seventies. I admire those who can, and don’t resent them at all.</p>

<p>However, I do know that many of them can’t do what I can. I met a doctor who was totally shocked that I had a PhD in English. He had wanted to be an English major but switched to biology because he couldn’t ace any paper. (Easy peasy for me.) I really felt sorry for him. He built a million a year + anethesiologist practice.</p>

59

<p>I agree that everyone should have a backup plan. EVERYONE. Whether you are a humanities student or an engineering major, or anything in between. I live right outside of Detroit. I know many, MANY engineers, doctor, architects, etc that are all unemployed. Actually, I have 4 friends that graduated last year from U of M. One was a business major, one a sociology major, one an engineering major, and the other one a psychology/teaching major. The sociology major was the only one who had a job already lined up. The business major got one about two months ago. The other two are still unemployed, it’s just the nature of the economy right now. The one with a teaching certificate is thinking about doing Teach for America (I think that’s the name of it) just so she can have her living expenses paid. </p>

<p>I want to go on to get a PhD in some area of humanities, but I also keep in mind that jobs will probably be drastically different in 3 years when I graduate undergrad, let alone differences that may there after I’m done with my PhD. So, I have a back-up career that I can use to put food on the table- being a plumber. <em>Shrugs</em></p>

60

<p>^^^^
Oh, okay. I agree pretty much 100% with all of this.</p>