The Decline/Rethinking of The Humanities Major

[lettiriggi]

Ok. As mentioned, I was referring to colleges I’m familiar with, and I don’t know much about Caltech’s requirements. My guess is few have similar sorts of requirements, but I could be wrong.

[roycroftmom]

Agreed. I am not suggesting everyone read everything. But some sample of exposure to great literature in the 4 years of high school might form a foundation for further study of humanities in college.

[lettiriggi]

@confusedaboutFA

Grinding through 25 books in a year just breeds misery.

I wonder if that’s a common sentiment these days. It doesn’t strike me as extremely excessive, if we’re talking about AP level students who are presumably ready for college level work.

A high school year is what, 180 days or so? That’s 36 weeks. I honestly can’t remember how many books I read in AP Lit. But I do remember writing papers every week, or two weeks at the most, always on a different book. So we must have read at leat 18 books that year. And we read a lot of books other years, maybe not quite as many. I remember at least three Shakespeare plays a year; it may have been five.

By the way, thanks, @confusedaboutFA, for bringing the discussion back to the humanities!

[lettiriggi]

That does sound a bit brutal. I’d probably have agreed with your son.

An opposite approach is a Shakespeare course I took. We read only five plays over a semester, but delved very deeply into each one, including the language, the historical context (both Shakespeare’s own and the time setting of the play), character analysis, and much more. It was fun, and a nice respite from my technical classes.

[roycroftmom]

Just to circle back, this subthread began as a result of a Harvard dean stating that entering students were sometimes unprepared to read 17, 18 and 19th century literature, which presumably resulted from not being exposed to such literature in high school. It is hard to foster interest in the humanities in college if it was previously neglected in K-12.

[ucbalumnus]

@1NJParent

How about Columbia, a school with a core curriculum? Its STEM requirement is just a course called “Frontiers of Science”:
Frontiers of Science | The Core Curriculum

Columbia requires two additional science courses, but they can be of the physics for poets type.

https://bulletin.columbia.edu/columbia-college/core-curriculum/science-requirement/

[ucbalumnus]

@lettiriggi

But none of the colleges I’m familiar with require upper level coursework in any distribution credits, just a variety of disciplines. In fact, it’s often assumed students will be taking introductory, or “for non-majors” versions of the subjects outside their own areas of interest/preparation.

UCB engineering requires 6 humanities or social science courses, at least 2 of which must be upper division.

Humanities and Social Sciences - Berkeley Engineering

UCB L&S requires 6 upper division units (usually needs 2 courses) outside of one’s major department. But they do not have to be that “different” – a physics major can use math courses, and an English major can use comparative literature or rhetoric courses.
https://lsadvising.berkeley.edu/degree-requirements#uc

[lettiriggi]

Ok, thanks. I stand corrected. I should have known about UCB, as I do have some familiarity with that school.

[neela1]

Princeton:

Humanities and Social Science Courses

All students in the B.S.E. program must complete at least seven courses in the humanities and social sciences during their eight terms of study. Humanities and social science courses are defined as courses that fulfill the following University distribution areas: Culture and Difference (CD) Epistemology and Cognition (EC); Ethical Thought and Moral Values (EM); Historical Analysis (HA); Literature and the Arts (LA); and Social Analysis (SA).

This is apart from a writing seminar in the first year.

Requirements for a BA:

• Quantitative and Computational Reasoning (QCR)—one course
• Science and Engineering (SEL/SEN)—two courses. At least one course must be a science and engineering course with laboratory (SEL). Students may elect a second laboratory science course, or a non-laboratory science course (SEN).

I would say that the BA requirements in Math/Science are weak.

[lettiriggi]

Ok, though at least based on what you quoted, Princeton doesn’t seem to be requiring upper division versions of those courses. No need to respond if they in fact do; I retract my clearly erroneous assumption.

Anyway, I hope my comment doesn’t derail the thread again, leading to a bunch of posts about distribution requirements at various schools. We had gotten back onto an interesting discussion about humanities that I hope will continue.

[neela1]

To re-rail the thread, let me offer this quote, sometimes attributed to Einstein:

" Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results"

and ask, what could be changed?
Before that question can be answered, let me also say that the problem is poorly defined.

How is “decline” defined in the context of the humanities?
And if the decline has to be reversed, what is the change that should be seen?
Is the goal more students studying humanities as a major? Is it more students taking humanities courses? Is it more students improving their critical thinking skills, however they go about it? These are all different goals.

[cquin85]

Alright, here you go:

@notahomemaker

I don’t think English is taught as well overall. The book selections are dated and/or contain wrong guesses about what they think Gen Z wants to read. No one has to learn any vocabulary. There’s still a snobbery towards audiobooks (schools accept them now, but people still debate whether the audio “counts” as having read a book). Phones and computers make it more difficult to focus on reading books. Etc.

@elf1

An English major is not really taught to write and communicate these days, but rather taught about how to do literary criticism or think about literature. Only academia pays for that skill,

@elf1

That kind of course persists - the kind of thing that would have been perceiving as cutting-edge theory back in the 90s, but it viewed as suspect and less useful by today’s undergraduates.

I would argue graduate whose expertise is in writing about slippage and friction will not have the same kind of in-demand communication skills that a journalism major would (except perhaps in less prestigious but more widely read genres). Not that journalism has great prospects these days either.

@shawbridge

My limited experience with humanities courses (a couple of literature courses and a couple of philosophy courses) is that they did not do a very good job of teaching writing. My lit courses were a book a week with a few papers. In the first one, the professor told me I was a good writer (I was not). No real work on how to improve the writing. The philosophy courses did reward crisp thinking but again I don’t believe I get any help on writing. … To the extent that English classes really help people break down and improve writing (like my committee member did), they will become good writers. I don’t get a sense that they are getting that.

There are few zingers as well on Linda’s thread covering the same topic. Here’s one from a participant in this thread:

If the humanities were turning out critical thinkers with superb writing skills, companies would be eager to hire them. It appears that is not occuring.

I think that will suffice, yes?

[cquin85]

@simba9

The quotes you posted were me saying that employers generally don’t value humanities degrees as much as they value STEM degrees, and that we shouldn’t give people false illusion that it’s otherwise. Nothing you posted showed me saying that students should go for the majors that maximize income. From what I’ve seen, none of the regulars on CC, including me, is going to tell a student to do the latter if it leads to a career they don’t like.

@simba9

Nobody is saying that.

Just to review the context of who said what, and why they said it, this is the “that” post content to which you were responding:

@Excel_Dad

it’s interesting when the only framework through which people can understand or talk about value in a college degree is money and maximum earning potential.

Just one point here and then I’d like to end our discussion because we’re getting nowhere. If you were not saying “that”, as you protested you were not, and this isn’t about money, then what are we talking about? Certainly people on your side of the floor don’t think one needs to be a software engineer to self-actualize. Right? It has to be about money. If it’s not about money, then this entire discussion is about nothing. You can’t seriously think that kids who major in history wind up on welfare. So assuming they do achieve employment and just make less money than you would prefer your children to make, which is a reasonable assumption, then what is the problem with which we’re struggling here?

Said more succintly, if you’re not talking about money, then you’re talking about nothing other than your own personal preferences, which, like mine, nobody cares about.

[Excel_Dad]

@cquin85

Just one point here and then I’d like to end our discussion because we’re getting nowhere. If you were not saying “that”, as you protested you were not, and this isn’t about money, then what are we talking about? Certainly people on your side of the floor don’t think one needs to be a software engineer to self-actualize. Right? It has to be about money. If it’s not about money, then this entire discussion is about nothing. You can’t seriously think that kids who major in history wind up on welfare. So assuming they do achieve employment and just make less money than you would prefer your children to make, which is a reasonable assumption, then what is the problem with which we’re struggling here?

Said more succintly, if you’re not talking about money, then you’re talking about nothing other than your own personal preferences, which, like mine, nobody cares about.

Bingo. There’s nothing left. It’s either (1) an analysis about $$, or (2) a claim that the courses are without value on any scale (one’s personal opinion).

I’ve read countless threads about this subject, and been in endless debates about it (some of them institutional). For the people who are not defending the Humanities, it’s always about money and maximum earning potential or about an ideological stance that the Humanities has no value at all (these are varied). It has to be, because as I’ve noted, the defenders will typically take three positions, each of which is weaker than the last one but each are just as quickly dismissed:

1. If you major in the humanities, you’ll be okay. It doesn’t matter that the unemployment rates are higher (somewhat), or that starting salaries are lower (somewhat, and it depends on the field). The response is not to agree that for some the world is not all about money and that’s okay, but rather the response is “yeah, but you’ll wind up in sales!” and “that job will be hella uncomfortable compared to the STEM jobs one could get”. Even if true (assuming that it is, anyway), they ignore the point that it doesn’t matter to people in those fields. Just doesn’t compute, it seems.

So, you created a weaker position meant to address the $$ concerns:

2. Tell that HUM person to double major. Get a STEM and HUM double major. There’s plenty of space in a 124 credit degree. Why not? This addresses the “you’ll be on welfare” points made to (1). The is of course meant as a comment about HUM majors - a person can major in philosophy and major in math. That should do it, no? Nope. Now instead of arguing that the HUM major will be unemployed and on welfare it’s an income maximization argument. A person would make MORE money going MATH and Fill in Other STEM major.

So, you go even weaker still, suggesting:

3. Don’t even major in the HUM, kid, just take some classes. The weakest position! Surely there’s enough space in the degree for a kid who is interested, so it should be encouraged, yes? Well, nope, because you could even further maximize employment opportunities ignoring HUM but usually at this point what follows are a defensive set of replies scrutinizing how many STEM classes HUM students take, or how distribution requirements look, or why HUM students aren’t taking more STEM classes if curiosity is so important, etc. Literally, this is the position that simply says: “surely you agree it can be valuable to take something in HUM, right?” and the response is not “sure, I think those courses are valuable” but rather defensive in posture.

This is literally what happens in every thread on this subject. Over, and over, and over, again. I wish it weren’t the case, but it is - not just on this thread, but out in the world in general, every time this comes up.

[neela1]

What are the goals implied by the question in the thread? Do you want to understand causes for the decline? Because presumably that is what the discussants were attempting.

Or reverse the decline in some particular way? What is a good outcome for you, or evidence of a reversal of he decline?

And do you think the problems that need fixing are those of substance? or just perception?

[1NJParent]

People have different perspectives on this issue. It isn’t simply some are for and some are against the teaching of the humanities. My own position can be summarized below:

1. All students should take at least the basic courses in the humanities, so they can develop skills that will help them communicate more effectively and to think more deeply about issues/ideas that aren’t easily quantifiable.

2. Colleges should be more selective about who can major in the humanities. There’re greater natural barriers for students to major in STEM than in the humanities. A student who isn’t likely to succeed in the humanities and whose family has to borrow to attend the college isn’t a good candidate for a major in the humanities, for example.

3. The humanities departments should think long and hard about how to adapt and reinvent themselves in the face of unprecedented technological challenges such as ChatGPT (this is actually more relevant to the other thread on this topic but the OP of that thread didn’t wish to discuss this subtopic).

[beebee3]

@1NJParent

• Colleges should be more selective about who can major in the humanities. There’re greater natural barriers for students to major in STEM than in the humanities. A student who isn’t likely to succeed in the humanities and whose family has to borrow to attend the college isn’t a good candidate for a major in the humanities, for example.

I’m genuinely wondering if your position is that some students just shouldn’t go to college? If you don’t want them to take Humanities majors and you think STEM majors have more ‘natural barriers’…where do you see those students?

[beebee3]

I’m also wondering if the decline (and I said this in the other thread as well) has more to do with the general decline in college enrollment more than it does a move towards more STEM majors.

Or, if those leaving the ‘humanities’ are going to other departments (not STEM) that didn’t exist 30 years ago or weren’t as robust areas of study.

[1NJParent]

I do think we send too many students to 4-year colleges, but I don’t want to start another tangent…

[Gator88NE]

@Excel_Dad

you can double major in a STEM field and a HUM field

Yea, that’s not happening at a Public University, too many prerequisite classes are required, and STEM/HUM share very few. It’s just too many credit hours/classes.

It’s much more likely to earn a Major and a minor in another field (that’s outside of our college).