<p>I didn’t see this happening at my kids’ schools. They were taught different ways to approach the material, different sorts of critical theory. If I were better educated and better read, I would list a bunch… no energy to look it all up at the moment. I believe they were taught the origins of those theories. One way or another, they understand the origins.</p>
<p>“I object to the current academic trend of presenting political opinion and politically motivated criticism as “fact,” without presenting historical context and ways to examine the critique, as well”</p>
<p>-- a good example of bad teaching. </p>
<p>-- And a good example of a gross generalization that’s not backed by ANY facts. Or even “facts.”</p>
<p>poet, I would object to that, too, but again, that wasn’t my experience… at all. IMO, you might be overgeneralizing.</p>
<p>Okay. I’m really not that interested in this. People just keep addressing me. If you guys are satisfied with it, it doesn’t matter what I think. And I really don’t have any obligation to provide you with unobtainable examples. I’m not in class and feel the university is in transition anyway. I can’t decide if it is the end of tenure that is killing the humanities or the end of the humanities killing tenure. The loss of both is certainly the end of the academy to a large extent, either way. It will be interesting to see what is going on in 20 years</p>
<p>I am not sure I know any humanities professors who even believe there are facts.</p>
<p>poetgrl: you are representing a point of view that is pretty prevalent and you are intelligent - so it is interesting that you have that point of view. It surprises me.</p>
<p>Tenure is a huge issue. The explosion of graduate programs after the GI bill is interesting to consider. Right now there are tenured professors who would never be tenured today. The obstacles are just too high. It is becoming a very elitist profession in my opinion… just like it used to be before the second world war. That doesn’t have anything to do with liberal bias, though, I don’t think? Maybe it does. The old boys club?</p>
<p>“The end of the humanities.” – Alarmist, much?</p>
<p>I can see that it could be the end of millions of young people pursuing degrees in humanities which don’t lead to any specific jobs. You don’t see that in the third world, and that’s what we’re becoming, so it makes sense. </p>
<p>But that’s an economic reason, not the result of a politicized atmosphere within academia.</p>
<p>Or, the “new boys club” and by boys, I simply mean, the ones who already have the jobs.</p>
<p>It’s immaterial. I am of the opinion that the University which was once a place of higher learning and inquiry has become, increasingly, for whatever reason, a trade school with the arts attached. I think the switch from tenure and faculty run academy to the heavy, administrative, business model, is driving this.</p>
<p>But, I’ve been blasted for that by Katliamom, as well, on another thread.</p>
<p>So, yeah. I just don’t see any really exciting thinking anymore. It seems like it’s all the same warmed over stuff we were talking about in the 80s. YMMV</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I have heard “famous in their fields” tenured humanities professors state essentially the same idea. </p>
<p>You have a whole lot of different ideas going on in your posts, imo. I am hoping SLACFac comes back and responds to some of the points you have made.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, I agree with your last post. I also think it is possible that increased access to college education (and loans) may have changed the college culture from “learning for learning’s sake” to career preparation. The decades (and even centuries) of campuses for wealthy, well-prepared, sometimes intellectuals from boarding schools and so on, who could afford to study poetry or art history with a job waiting for them via family connections, are long gone. And the new meritocracy includes many whose background values do not reflect that sort of elitist aesthetic about education.</p>
<p>Personally, I think it is too bad. I think everyone could benefit from the old-fashioned idea of education, and wish the relatively recent democracy of education would go in the direction of arts and humanities. But those days are long gone.</p>
<p>The Internet is also relevant. More access to information on our own without the mediation of professors.</p>
<p>"I am of the opinion that the University which was once a place of higher learning and inquiry has become, increasingly, for whatever reason, a trade school with the arts attached. I think the switch from tenure and faculty run academy to the heavy, administrative, business model, is driving this.</p>
<p>But, I’ve been blasted for that by Katliamom, as well, on another thread." – That’s because you’re blaming the wrong people for what you perceive as negative changes in academia. </p>
<p>“You have a whole lot of different ideas going on in your posts, imo.”-- No kidding. I love how earlier in the thread poetgrl argued you don’t have to study humanities, you can just go to the movies, musuems and libraries. Who does she think make movies and runs/patrionizes libraries and museums?Who does she think WILL CONTINUE to make movies, build and maintain libraries and museums if we so denigrate the humanities as to no longer teach them? </p>
<p>Poegrl mourns the supposed end of the humanities while arguing for everything to guarantee their demise.</p>
<p>Katliamom, as the OP points out, only 7% of the degrees conferred are in the humanities. We are now below 10%. You can deride me all you want, but there are places where they once believed all educated people would read Latin forever, too. Now the number of classics departments is vanishingly small. </p>
<p>I’m not all that impressed by sarcasm and derision as an argument or rebuttal. Can you present me with a growing humanities department? In more than one university?</p>
<p>I didn’t argue that. You are not a very close reader or very facile. I’ve noticed this about you before. I am saddened by the thing that passes as a humanities education these days. You do nothing to convince me that I’m wrong. I haven’t heard of anything all that new or interesting or insightful that wasn’t already published decades ago. The academy is stale. There is nothing you couldn’t get at a library today. Nothing breathtakingly original going on that requires a classroom at all.</p>
<p>For one, I’ve never heard of a humanities department. The concept of the humanities encompasses many different fields, and yes, some are disappearing (for example, as you pointed out, Latin) others are relatively new (for example, there was no such thing as the history of science when I was an undergrad.) </p>
<p>If, as you claim, universities are becoming trade schools, let me assure you it’s not because of humanities professors or their departments. After all, they don’t want to go the way of the do-do bird and they want to remain relevant. They’re not disappearing on their own. They’re disappearing due to economic reasons beyond academia: new interests, and lack of jobs for people with humanities degrees. </p>
<p>You imply, but offer no proof, that it’s because of the politicization of the academia. I’m among those who disagree, I see that line of thinking in line of anti-intellectual arguments propagated by the likes of Fox News, and unsupported by facts.</p>
<p>Well I don’t watch television news. But I understand from my friends who call it faux news that this is a conservative channel? Again, I know this game. </p>
<p>Carry on</p>
<p>Yeah, a humanities department would be history or English. If I said name a growing science department, nobody would say “I’ve never heard of a science department .” Just part of why these conversations go nowhere. </p>
<p>But, yes, as usual, it’s been a pleasure</p>
<p>Yes Fox News. Or, Faux News, in some circumstances or circles. </p>
<p>Now - back to the humanities. You claim they’re declining because academia is too politicized. </p>
<p>And I once again ask for proof. Like many fact-oriented types might.</p>
<p>Poetgrl, these conversations go nowhere because you make a statement, then won’t back it up. And so the conversation ends! And some of your statements are rather extreme, like ALL THOSE humanities professors you know about who blamed the US for 9/11 !</p>
<p>Settle down.</p>
<p>What evidence are you looking for? The last time we argued it was because I think colleges pay administrators too much. I presented plenty of evidence. </p>
<p>You think that it’s fine the way it is, I disagree. I’m not going to search for evidence of this. I know plenty of humanities graduates and we are all quite successful. Do you think that there’s a reason we aren’t hiring these graduates now? Because we think the education is the same quality it once was? </p>
<p>It’s not. And this is why I wonder if it is the end of tenure that is killing the humanities? The brightest are leaving the academy. And those who stay to contract teach are not as brilliant as those who taught us.</p>
<p>I agree with everything you wrote here. Because here you left out all the bordering-on-the-extreme comments about humanities declining because they’re too PC and politicized, and that anyway, they don’t need to be taught because of libraries and movies and what not. THAT’s the part I had a problem with. </p>
<p>I also know successful humanities majors. I am one. Wife of one. Mother of one. My children received superb college education, in science and the humanities, for which I, and they, are grateful. We don’t see the decline in humanities majors as anything more sinister than a reaction to the economic realities facing today’s grads.</p>
<p>Well if YOU don’t see it that way, then clearly that is evidence based. You don’t play by your own rules. You consider your anecdotes as evidence and mine as needing outside cites? Borderline extreme? Really? </p>
<p>But, hey, if you agree with my last post, now it must be right. Whew.</p>