Interest in the Humanities Decline

[Midpack]

Still, I hope that we can keep a balance in our system, and that the direct connection of income to education subsidy is not so complete as to harm the schools that were formerly considered to be "tops" in quality of education... ie, the US News Ratings.

Several of the above supporters of humanities have seemingly suggested that schools are de-emphasizing humanities/liberal arts for reasons of their own (not sure what that would be).

I alluded to this earlier, now I'll be more direct.

Are schools de-emphasizing humanities for their own reasons, or is it because students/parents/society are more interested in degrees that seem to lead to higher incomes?

I suspect the latter.

But I agree that education should expose students to science & technology AND liberal arts. I have known plenty of engineers and plenty of artists who could have benefited from a broader education.

 

[Midpack]

Where would our nation be without intellectuals like Martin Luther King, William F. Buckley and Dubois who challenged convention and the status quo along with precipitating social and economic justice? Theirs is a dying breed of intellectuals who were willing to take risks and fight for matters of freedom, justice, transparency and equality.

So intellectuals only come from liberal arts? Sounds like the flip side of an elitist coin?

 

[ziggy29]

Are schools de-emphasizing humanities ... because students/parents/society are more interested in degrees that seem to lead to higher incomes?

Yes, I'm pretty sure it's this. Few people can afford a college education for its own sake any more, and employers are increasingly using their leverage (right now employers have almost all the leverage) to demand a very narrow but deep "training" -- paid for by others, of course -- as a prerequisite to being hired. That doesn't leave much room for philosophy, history, literature or music appreciation.

 

[eytonxav]

I believe in the pre-great recession years, the big employers were more receptive to hiring liberal arts grads in entry level jobs and providing OJT. That path seems to have vanished since, as large companies want to hire specialists with experience, except for perhaps a few areas like engineering and healthcare where they take you right out of college. Even those with PhDs in some of the sciences are paid like clerks now a days, lawyers too.

This is a bad trend in my opinion, and, unfortunately, I don't think the youngsters of today will have the same opportunities I had, unless they pursue a more technical or specific type of education or trade. Although I was an engineering grad, I saw many around me in my early career that had liberal arts degrees and they proved to be very competent and had great careers, even in some technical disciplines. As for me, I enjoyed the liberal arts content I received during my 4 years of college and feel it contributed positively to my career.

 

[ziggy29]

I believe in the pre-great recession years, the big employers were more receptive to hiring liberal arts grads in entry level jobs and providing OJT. That path seems to have vanished since, as large companies want to hire specialists with experience, except for perhaps a few areas like engineering and healthcare where they take you right out of college. Even those with PhDs in some of the sciences are paid like clerks now a days, lawyers too.

This is a bad trend in my opinion, and, unfortunately, I don't think the youngsters of today will have the same opportunities I had, unless they pursue a more technical or specific type of education or trade. Although I was an engineering grad, I saw many around me in my early career that had liberal arts degrees and they proved to be very competent and had great careers, even in some technical disciplines. As for me, I enjoyed the liberal arts content I received during my 4 years of college and feel it contributed positively to my career.

Agreed. Part of the problem is that OJT requires that employers (a) pay someone while they are not yet productive and (b) have enough staff to devote the time of a more senior employee to train and mentor the new hire. That has pretty much gone the way of the dodo. Today's workforces don't have the staffing redundancy required to allow OJT to take place to a significant degree. More often than not the only OJT people get today is a couple of days in front of a computer watching training modules.

 

[Midpack]

I believe in the pre-great recession years, the big employers were more receptive to hiring liberal arts grads in entry level jobs and providing OJT. That path seems to have vanished since, as large companies want to hire specialists with experience, except for perhaps a few areas like engineering and healthcare where they take you right out of college. Even those with PhDs in some of the sciences are paid like clerks now a days, lawyers too.

This is a bad trend in my opinion, and, unfortunately, I don't think the youngsters of today will have the same opportunities I had, unless they pursue a more technical or specific type of education or trade. Although I was an engineering grad, I saw many around me in my early career that had liberal arts degrees and they proved to be very competent and had great careers, even in some technical disciplines. As for me, I enjoyed the liberal arts content I received during my 4 years of college and feel it contributed positively to my career.

Could you expand on why it's a bad trend in your view? Not to argue, but because I can't summon the logic on my own.

While I am sure there are liberal arts majors that would have been successful, they'd be the exception relative to candidates with the conventional credentials. And their chosen field of study would strongly suggest their interests lie elsewhere. Having hired at least a hundred people in my (technical) career, we screened for experience/education/credentials so I never even gave a liberal arts major an opportunity to interview - it seems completely counter-intuitive.

Again for the record, I support a well rounded education beginning with sciences & humanities for all. But it's easy to understand why students have to specialize later in their education.

 

[ziggy29]

Could you expand on why it's a bad trend in your view? Not to argue, but because I can't summon the logic on my own.

I'm not the person you questioned, but I think society is healthier overall when its population has a well-rounded education. We are producing a society of specialists these days because employers are calling all the shots and that's what they are demanding.

 

[eytonxav]

Agreed. Part of the problem is that OJT requires that employers (a) pay someone while they are not yet productive and (b) have enough staff to devote the time of a more senior employee to train and mentor the new hire. That has pretty much gone the way of the dodo. Today's workforces don't have the staffing redundancy required to allow OJT to take place to a significant degree. More often than not the only OJT people get today is a couple of days in front of a computer watching training modules.

Yes, although when I was a department head, even when I hired folks with extensive experience, I felt it would take them at least a year to become accustomed to how our company conducted business and to be effective in their jobs.

 

[eytonxav]

Could you expand on why it's a bad trend in your view? Not to argue, but because I can't summon the logic on my own.

I see this as contributing to unemployment and income inequality. Also, I was in a specialized discipline and have hired many over the years with engineering/law/business/liberal arts degrees and saw little difference in their ability to become productive top performing employees. Also, all required OJT to become productive regardless of their past experience.

 

[ziggy29]

I see this as contributing to unemployment and income inequality. Also, I was in a specialized discipline and have hired many over the years with engineering/law/business/liberal arts degrees and saw little difference in their ability to become productive top performing employees. Also, all required OJT to become productive regardless of their past experience.

Yeah, but once upon a time most employers hired people first and pieces of paper second. These days it's the other way around in many cases.

 

[M Paquette]

Yeah, but once upon a time most employers hired people first and pieces of paper second. These days it's the other way around in many cases.

Yup. I got started in the software racket with a physics degree and a background in naval nuclear power operations. The employer was quite willing to take a chance on me and train as needed. The job posting for my replacement on retirement 3 decades later specified a Masters Degree in Computer Science along with a variety of interesting skills, including programming languages utterly inappropriate and not used in the software I authored. Naturally all those requirements went into the automated resumé screening software the HR people used.

Nobody gets to the interview stage without all the whacky and often not entirely appropriate keywords being satisfied.

 

[HFWR]

Yup. I got started in the software racket with a physics degree and a background in naval nuclear power operations. The employer was quite willing to take a chance on me and train as needed. The job posting for my replacement on retirement 3 decades later specified a Masters Degree in Computer Science along with a variety of interesting skills, including programming languages utterly inappropriate and not used in the software I authored. Naturally all those requirements went into the automated resumé screening software the HR people used.

Nobody gets to the interview stage without all the whacky and often not entirely appropriate keywords being satisfied.

"He has a MA, a BA, and is a BMF besides..."

 

[NW-Bound]

Ah, even in engineering schools here, I observed that math classes for engineering students were dumbed down versions of the material that a math major would learn. Hence, most of my fellow colleagues that I encountered later on failed to appreciate the finer aspects of mathematics, as it applied to engineering of course.

Back when I was in school, an EE had to take classes in thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, material science, etc... Conversely an ME or CE had to take classes in electrical network, electromagnetics, and basic electronics. These poor ME's and CE's had a much tougher time understanding the difference between a NPN and PNP transistor than my dealing with fluid flow boundary. Heh heh heh... I had A's in all my engineering classes, except for thermodynamics. Heh heh heh... Still, I was happier when in post-graduate when I could take all EE classes such as digital signal processing, modern control theory, microwave, communications, optimal control theory, error correcting codes, etc...

You want more humanities classes? Where's the time? My son who is a recent ME graduate was not taught a thing about electronics anymore. Schools now have to teach more specialized classes that they already have to delete interdisciplinary engineering classes. Those are the times.

 

[ziggy29]

Back when I was in school, an EE had to take classes in thermodynamics, fluid dynamics, material science, etc... Conversely an ME or CE had to take classes in electrical network, electromagnetics, and basic electronics. These poor ME's and CE's had a much tougher time understanding the difference between a NPN and PNP transistors than my dealing with fluid flow boundary. Heh heh heh... I had A's in all my engineering classes, except for thermodynamics. Heh heh heh... Still, I was happier when in post-graduate when I could take all EE classes such as digital signal processing, modern control theory, microwave, communications, etc...

I started college in the Computer Engineering department in 1983. (I later changed to pure computer science run by the Math department when I could never get my core engineering classes.) There was a "core" engineering curriculum that all Engineering majors had to take, with intros to EE, mechanical, chemical, civil, materials and industrial engineering. That was on top of three semesters of calculus and physics.

So I don't know the difference between NPN and PNP, but I know the difference between P and NP.

 

[Marita40]

Literature Ph.D. here, with a very rewarding university academic career. My life has been so deeply enriched by my immersion in literature, history, and the arts in particular. My avocation and vocation have blended to an extraordinary degree. Yes, the humanities are not much valued by Americans (they are valued, to a much higher degree, in Europe) but they have inspired and ennobled many, many of my students throughout my years of teaching. Is it worth it to keep the flame alive? Of course.

 

[NW-Bound]

So, for humanities, it has been a life-long pursuit for me. I have been making a slow progress. To learn the American history, I took my son one summer to visit Youngtown, Jamestown, KittyHawk, so we could experience it together.

It's too tough for me to appreciate fine arts, as in painting, sculptures, architecture. I could appreciate the beauty of a fundamental theorem in real analysis or complex analysis. Would that make up for my other shortcomings?

 

[ziggy29]

So, for humanities, it has been a life-long pursuit for me. I have been making a slow progress. To learn the American history, I took my son one summer to visit Youngtown, Jamestown, KittyHawk, so we could experience it together.

I think of all the iconic American history sites, the only one I've been to is Gettysburg. This was in 1993 when we were visiting my new in-laws in PA, and DW and I went to see it. It was in March and they had just had a snowfall the day before. It was eerily quiet peaceful walking and driving through the site with 3-4" of snow covering the ground and very few other visitors around.

A couple days later we had to fly home to California and I had to change our flight reservations to the afternoon before we were supposed to leave, getting the last two seats on the last flight out of Philly before the "Blizzard of '93" shut down that airport for 3-4 days. We had to spend a night in St. Louis (TWA!) and then about 8 hours waiting in the airport before catching our previously scheduled segment from St. Louis to San Jose. Ah, good times.

 

[NW-Bound]

I have been to Gettysburg, and we have also been to Philadelphia. Yes, we stood in line to see the "cracked bell".

One thing I like to continue to do is to tour the US by RV. We get to spend more time that way to learn about the local history. In reading RV'ers blogs, I stumbled across a woman RV'er blog, whose devotion was to Frank Lloyd Wright's architecture. She had to visit as many of his creations as she could, both public buildings and private homes that were opened for tours.

There's so much in life for one to pursue. How can we learn and know it all?

 

[NW-Bound]

It's too tough for me to appreciate fine arts, as in painting, sculptures, architecture. I could appreciate the beauty of a fundamental theorem in real analysis or complex analysis. Would that make up for my other shortcomings?

Ah, I might just be selling myself short here.

One must be a caveman to not appreciate Michelangelo's work, or that of the Dutch Masters, or the French Impressionists. No, I take that back. Even a caveman would be in awe of Mikey's masterpieces.

It's the others out of mainstream that I have some problems understanding ... I have been to a museum dedicated to Picasso, and I was slowly seeing something there, but it was not easy.

 

[foxfirev5]

Being a lifelong sales guy I can appreciate a well rounded education. While I work with and appreciate the tech and engineering guys I work with, a little exposure to the world and a well rounded education would help.
Today, while on a hot deal with a new guy I asked a simple yes or no answer to one of our engineers. His email reply was a series of pdf files of prints and diagrams. Basically a data dump of all the crap he had at his disposal. No answer to the simple question.
Yes, a basic education helps. To continue it through college would help more.

 

[Midpack]

Yeah, but once upon a time most employers hired people first and pieces of paper second. These days it's the other way around in many cases.

We/I always screened using "pieces of paper" and then hired the best person. May be picking nits.

But in my discipline at least (Engineering), it was that way in 1976 when I began. How was it done people first and paper second when hiring external candidates? Not being a wisea__, I've never seen it done any other way...

 

[ziggy29]

Working in the tech and computer fields for nearly 26 years, I reflected on what I thought was my most valuable skill. Was it troubleshooting? Nope. Analytical skills? Nope. Programming skills? Nope.

All of those were useful and important in my career development. But the one skill I had, the one I know helped me stand out, the one that many managers valued? The ability to translate "geekspeak" into English so upper management could understand it.

Seriously. The ability to take highly technical concepts and explain them in ways that mostly non-technical executives could understand was a huge asset.

 

[ziggy29]

We always screened using "pieces of paper" and then hired the best person. May be picking nits...

Same idea, but different order. This is still hiring pieces of paper first in that the "right" degree and the "right" certifications are still prerequisites to being considered.

Obviously "human factors" come into play in the hiring process once someone "makes the cut" with HR and the software that screens resumes. But I think my point is that once upon a time, you didn't have processes in place that immediately weeded out 90% of the applicants based on their application and resume details. Someone could be technically "unqualified" but demonstrate an ability to work well and learn quickly. In decades past they could be hired and excel with OJT. Those days are gone.

The closest thing I can think of to this well into the past was when my mom was a supervisor at K-Mart in the late 1970s into the 1980s. They (obviously) didn't have online applications and software to screen applicants, but if someone submitted an application when they had "red flags" based on their appearance or attitude when they submitted the application, that application was folded before it went into the file. And the fold told the hiring manager that you don't want to consider this applicant. In other words, it was the equivalent of today's software screening out someone who only has three years of some obscure or arcane experience when the job requires four years.

 

[HFWR]

An older gent (late 70s+) I've worked with/around who has a PhD and designed transistors at megacorp and helped grad students and doctoral students at the mega-university had to take two years of foreign language in college. Of course, that was back in the olden days... Still speaks semi-fluent German. I grew up in southern Indiana, and until I took two semesters of college-level US history, I didn't know that (a) US citizens of Japanese and German ancestry were imprisoned during WWII, let alone that (b) one of the camps was in Louisville, KY. Thanks to Ken Burns and PBS, I've learned even more about that subject.

 

[ziggy29]

Yup. I got started in the software racket with a physics degree and a background in naval nuclear power operations. The employer was quite willing to take a chance on me and train as needed. The job posting for my replacement on retirement 3 decades later specified a Masters Degree in Computer Science along with a variety of interesting skills, including programming languages utterly inappropriate and not used in the software I authored. Naturally all those requirements went into the automated resumé screening software the HR people used.

Nobody gets to the interview stage without all the whacky and often not entirely appropriate keywords being satisfied.

My dad was a pilot in the Air Force and he left it in 1966 at age 31; he was grounded by high blood pressure, and while today he could have kept flying with medication to control it, in '66 that wasn't an option. And if he couldn't fly, he didn't want to be in the Air Force. So instead of taking a desk job and "putting in his 20", he left after 12 years in the service. (That would likely be a huge mistake today, but at the time it worked out.)

We lived in Nebraska at the time, and I was still in diapers. He took one computer programming course sponsored by Florida State, at the time when only the huge, weak (by modern standards) IBM mainframes and COBOL programs ruled. He was hired by Lockheed to become a programmer and we moved to California, and later he became a project leader as he worked there for 26 years until taking an irresistible early retirement incentive (including an extra five years of service for pension purposes, six months pay and 100% paid health insurance until age 65) in 1992.

That could never happen today, especially in the private sector. None of it, neither the hiring nor the early retirement incentives he received.