……
If history majors were useful in large numbers, the field wouldn’t be in structural decline. We’ll get down to 5% or lower in another 10 years
1 Like
History professor here. I’ve been lurking on this discussion, and resisting the urge to comment, but I can speak to the uses of a history major (as well as studying history without majoring in it), and I can tell you this:
- No, high school students do not get enough history. As someone who’s taught a lot of college freshmen, I can say this definitively.
- Yes, all students need history. Why? It’s a mode of inquiry, not a collection of facts. History teaches you to read and and write, engage in research, discern quality sources from poor ones, detect bias, decode language based on context, understand multiple causation, and other broad skills. Doctors use historical methods. So do police officers, architects, lawyers, consultants, many video game designers, museum curators, professionals in nonprofits and public service, policy makers, and politicians (granted, many politicians use it badly). Studying history can even make you a better engineer: Why Study Humanities? What I Tell Engineering Freshmen - Scientific American Blog Network It can also enhance a career in tech: That 'Useless' Liberal Arts Degree Has Become Tech's Hottest Ticket The value in learning history lies in how you use its skills even if you don’t go into K-12 or higher ed teaching and research.
- What can you do with a degree in history? Here: Careers for History Majors | AHA And yes, they can get hired in business fields: https://earlyamericanists.com/2015/05/27/guest-post-incorporating-history-and-the-humanities-into-international-business/, What Employers Want: Thoughts from a History BA in Business | AHA
- So why is the profession in decline? Not because any of the above is incorrect, but rather because there is a trend toward thinking about college as vocational training, and fewer people are willing to consider the connections between historical study and a wide range of professional fields. Also, history is politicized more than the average discipline, and politicians and others of a certain ideological stripe seek actively to discredit it.
- What does this have to do with a thread on liberal arts? The liberal arts ideal seeks to broaden students’ minds by introducing them to a wide range of intellectual approaches and modes of inquiry. History is a habit of mind, a way of knowing. As I tell my intro students (most of whom are taking my intro-level classes to fulfill a general studies requirement), you think better when you have many ways to think. That’s the whole point of a liberal arts curriculum.
9 Likes
Not sure that current academic trends fully capture the long term value to society of various academic pursuits, or the hidden costs or reducing education to a vocational pursuit based on short term cost-benefit calculus. See, for instance, your own example of the value of “things discovered a century ago,” or your own example of the importance of “people in pure math [who] wish their fields don’t become applied.”
3 Likes
Much of what Western Europe knew about Elementary Algebra was the result of clerics and Biblical scholars who spoke Latin, traveling to recently conquered parts of what had been Islamic Spain, poring over texts that had been translated from Ancient Greek. I submit that these people were for all intents and purposes, historians.
5 Likes
The only nit I am picking is that 10% of the population doing this activity is perhaps 9% too much.
What, traveling to Spain?
1 Like
If they are taking loans to the extent of 300k+ for 4 years of traveling to Spain etc, and having the govt write off those loans, to go to spain, then yes, going to Spain – we don’t need more than 1% of the population doing that stuff.
Yes, but who in the Real World is really doing that in order to study history? My nitpick is you deciding what 10% of the country should and should not be doing.
1 Like
Many politicians (and others) intentionally use history misleadingly.
Yes, that is an argument for wider knowledge of history, both facts and methods / modes of inquiry, among the general population, in order to avoid being misled.
1 Like
Absolutely. If the last few years have shown us anything, it’s that more people need a broader and deeper education in history. And another thing – this sort of education must be a very powerful thing if some (ahem, De Santis) are working so hard to suppress it.
2 Likes
There have been several comments about the decline in history majors. While this is technically accurate, I think the time period differs from what many expect. As summarized below, there was a sharp increase in history majors from 2002 to 2008, followed by a sharp decline in history majors from 2012 to 2016. Since 2016, the number of history majors seems to have remained largely unchanged.
As I noted earlier, I suspect the 2001 World Trade Center attack contributed to the increase in history majors in 2002, which is surveys American’s usually mark as the most significant historical event of their lifetime. And the 2008 recession contributed to the change in trajectory, beginning shortly after 2008. The more steep decline in 2012-16 has less clear correlating historical events. It’s also unclear why the decline in history majors seem to have largely stopped after 2016.
The 2012-16 decline in overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences fields, suggesting contributing factors that influenced a wide variety of fields, such as a greater societal emphasis on STEM. However, few if any other majors dropped by much as history in this period. For example, history dropped by 32% during this 2012 to 16 period compared to English dropping by 22% and Philosophy/Religious Studies dropping by 24%. There seems to be somethin unique about history that made the 2012-16 decline steeper than other fields. Maybe fewer major historical events to students than other time periods until 2016 election?
Number of History Bachelor’s Degree Completions
2001 – 25k
2002 – 26k
2004 – 28k
2006 – 30k
2008 – 35k
2010 – 35k
2012 – 34k
2014 – 28k
2016 – 24k
2017 – 23k
2018 – 23k
2019 – 23k
2020 – 23k
1 Like
I agree with this, and wonder if it doesn’t get us closer to the heart of the issue? Why is it that many of those who pursue vocational STEM training are so uncomfortable with the idea that there is value in educational approaches (and modes of thinking) which are different than their own? What is it about the liberal arts approach they they find so threatening? It almost seems as if some lack the capacity to realize that others could possibly view the world differently than they do.
6 Likes
It seems to me that, after 450+ posts, we still don’t have a definition of “liberal arts” that can be used to determine whether a major or subject (besides those that are traditionally considered “liberal arts”) is “liberal arts”.
Now we have a new term, “vocational STEM”. What is it? What does it include? Is it just another term for engineering? Would you care to define it?
Whether or not they satisfy you personally, there have have been a number of excellent descriptions and definitions of the liberal arts concept throughout the thread, most recently by @shelby_balik above, including her last sentence:
Perhaps your narrow definitional approach is clouding your ability to understand and/or accept the concept?
I believe the phrase I used was “vocational STEM training.” I believe that, like with the liberal arts approach, you have a good idea of what I mean whether or not you accept it.
1 Like
Lots of fields, besides those that are traditionally and historically “liberal arts”, involve “many ways to think”. So, if that’s a definition of “liberal arts”, wouldn’t it be too broad for your taste? Why couldn’t it be articulated better?
So what is “vocational STEM training”?
Maybe it’s easier to think in terms of a liberal arts education as opposed to individual liberal arts courses. At many of the larger Ivy League “universities” there is a capacity or a potential for turning just about anything into a subject that makes you imagine or think about the world in a different way. I think CS and some of the interstices of Engineering and Design are good examples of this. But if all you’re doing is job training, then - no. This is where I thought @brantly was originally going with this until she stopped posting.
1 Like
I will provide some personal perspective. I was a comparative religion major undergrad much to the horror of my father. I explained that the classes would teach me to argue persuasively, communicate in both written and verbal form, digest and analyze complex information and serve as a platform from which I could learn about human history, motivations, experience, etc. In this regard I think a liberal arts undergrad experience served me well.
It provided an academic foundation that translated into an opportunity to participate in a competitive analyst training program on WS. I undeniably needed to learn a variety of career specific subjects in order to “survive” the two years before going back to complete an MBA in finance. This was accomplished by in house classes, mentorships and long hours.
The MBA experience immersed me in specific subject matter that I believe I was able to effectively leverage given my undergrad “soft skill” experience juxtaposed against my two years surrounded by real world finance. I learned an awful lot in grad school and the vast majority has proven to be very practical throughout my career.
My point being none of these approaches or experiences were independently fully effective but each one served to augment and build upon the other. Many of these posts seem to want to frame the discussion as better vs worse but in my experience a varied approach worked well.
7 Likes
I am coming to this “discussion” very late, but I am not sure why dissing History as a major has any legitimate basis. As someone much smarter than most of us said a bit over 100 years ago:
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana
History is not memorizing dates of events. It is putting context to what happened to gain an understanding of WHY things happened.
And by the way, I assume, without verification, that History is offered as a major in more than LACs? I am, of course, sarcastic, but I don’t understand what the reason is for slamming History as a major. I would be super proud if my kids did this major, and I would feel MUCH better about the future of this world. It would give them and others an understanding of what has happened in the past, how it happened, and apply that to the current and future. What could be better?
Stated another way, past is prologue, and that, in a few words, is why History is essential at any educational institution.
And more generally, learning and understanding the “liberal arts” can take you places and give you ideas you never dreamed of. It did for me.
4 Likes
Nope. When it comes to the inclusion of different approaches to learning, the broader the better.
I didn’t say it couldn’t be. But I’m not the one who is dissatisfied with the way it is defined or understood. You are. At some point I think that may have more to do with your discomfort regarding concept. I think we all basically understand the approach, but some of us are hesitant to accept its validity because it doesn’t fit neatly in our preferred method of learning.
Earlier in the thread you wrote:
Histories are told, and taught, in many different versions all around the world. Not only conscious and unconscious biases are inevitable, but histories are often written, or at least heavily influenced, by the victors or those in power. Does that contribute to at least some students, who would otherwise be interested in studying history, gravitating toward STEM, where truths are often more easily verifiable? The same may apply to some social sciences where different, even opposite, conclusions can often be drawn because of their heavy reliance on statistics, which can be manipulated to tell different stories.
While I disagree with some if it, I think this is a pretty good description of the discomfort that many have regarding the liberal arts approach. It is just too wishy-washy. Too amorphous. Too ill-defined. Too complicated. Too contradictory. Too subjective. In contrast, in vocational STEM fields, “truths are more easily attainable.”
If you need “easily attainable truths,” then vocational STEM training is a much better choice than Liberal Arts.
Vocational training in a STEM field. 
2 Likes