
In Tough Times, the Humanities Must Justify Their Worth - robg
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/books/25human.html?%2334;%20February%2025,%202009=&_r=1&sq=&st=cse&scp=1&%2334;Patricia%20Cohen=&pagewanted=all
======
tjic
Speaking as someone who double-majored in computer science and a humanity
(history) at a top-tier university, I think that the humanity degree should be
firmly classified as entertainment, or enrichment.

If you're rich, and have $40 (or $140k) and four years of your life to devote
to it, then, by all means, go get a humanities degree.

I think that it's just as useful and enriching as spending $140k and four
years learning to become an expert windsurfer, or skateboarder, or glass
blower.

However, for anyone who doesn't consider $140k and 4 years "discretionary
entertainment budget", then a humanities degree is a huge waste.

People justify humanities degrees as teaching you "how to think" or "how to
write".

Hogwash.

Most engineers that I know think far, far, far better than most humanities
majors. The humanities only rarely require critical thinking. Further, they
don't even train you, in any real sense, how to reason by analogy or how to
write well. At most, they filter the folks who already know how to do these
things.

Having attended an Ivy League school and seen both types of education, I would
not recommend the humanities to anyone other than idle children with trust
funds.

~~~
logjam
Odd. My experience is just the opposite.

I think you might have been more content at a trade school, not University.
They have different goals. Pressure to dumb down the University to serve as
simply a cog feeder for business has always been there.

I have a degree in biochemistry, formal and informal training in computer
science, a minor in English, fluency in a foreign language I learned at
university...and then this silly professional degree.

My science and professional degree == the critical thinking skills I frankly
could have obtained, free of charge, learning automotive repair at my local
community college.

Humanities work == understanding and appreciation for how different people(s)
think, exposure to the "why" rather than just the "how", development of a
yearning to create, deep appreciation for the things that make life just a bit
more than our checking accounts: reverence for nature, beauty, compassion,
truth.

And yeah, an ability to think far more critically about things a little
heavier than syntax errors, an ability to weigh evidence, work with these
nebulous, imperfect, non-Platonic things called _people_ , and make correct,
critical decisions that incorporate science, ethics, economics - choosing
harder rights over easier wrongs.

To paraphrase a fellow Dead Poet, there's a _hell_ of a lot of 6 inch pipe to
lay out there. It will pay well. You'll revel in the comforting, solid duality
of pipe and wrench.

You may come to that end pipe cap wondering if that was all.

~~~
Ravenlock
I'm with logjam on this one. I double-majored in Computer Science and Theatre,
and while I do now use my Computer Science degree to make money, I don't
believe I learned almost anything in my computer science classes that I
couldn't have learned - and mightn't have learned better - either (a) on the
job somewhere out of high school or (b) on my own through books and online
resources.

The creative and teamwork experiences I got on the theatre side of things,
however, are absolutely tangibly valuable to me now in my day-to-day dealings
with coworkers (current and potential). Did a humanities degree "teach me how
to think"? No. Did it provide me with several different ways of thinking, and
help me appreciate better how different my natural thought processes might be
from those of other people? Absolutely. I'm sorry, but there are in fact a lot
of very narrow, closed off, fit-the-stereotype maladjusted computer
professionals out there, and yes, they're unpleasant to work with. Becoming
more socialized is a perfectly valid thing to expect out of an education, and
a humanities degree certainly puts focus there that doesn't exist in more
technical degrees.

Of course, the fact that my particular theatre program was filled with
enthusiastic, smart, engaging professors who encouraged lively participation,
debate and creativity while the computer science program was nearly lifeless
has probably colored my perceptions, but I imagine that paradigm is not
limited to the university I attended.

------
philwelch
"The humanities" are really something of a grab bag when it comes to
categorizing fields of study. When it comes to categorizing the different
departments of a university into colleges or whatnot, things like
"engineering" and "science" clearly share some type of methodology or
otherwise easily fit together. But "humanities" ranges from downright useful
stuff like foreign language and history to things like philosophy and English
(which can be studied fruitfully but most universities fall short due to some
bad fundamental approach like postmodernism) to crap like "ethnic studies" and
"women's studies" (identity politics: the department).

~~~
ionfish
Do you really think that the study of philosophy in "most universities fall[s]
short due to some bad fundamental approach like postmodernism"? I am dubious
about this, especially if we drop the 'like'. A couple of (hopefully)
enlightening links:

[http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/10/the_myth_of_th...](http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/10/the_myth_of_the.html)

<http://el-prod.baylor.edu/certain_doubts/?p=453>

~~~
philwelch
I used the "like" because most folks only know postmodernism. I actually did
my first degree in philosophy and while postmodernism was nowhere to be found,
there's enough continental philosophy around to waste everyone's time. My
school was very analytic, but from talking to other philosophy students
online, analytic philosophy isn't all that popular or well-known among
undergrads. I think analytic philosophy is great, though of somewhat more
limited interest since it's less amenable to bullshit, grand abstractions, and
other bad philosophy. It's also a bit arcane and technical at times.

DeRose is a good analytic philosopher and I always enjoy reading him, so
thanks for the link.

Not that all continental philosophy is crap (existentialism seems interesting
and worthwhile) but a lot of it is, and in many circles, a low opinion of
Hegel gets you a lot of credit.

------
gaius
_There’s a lot more to a liberal education than improving the economy. I think
that is one of the worst mistakes that policy makers often make not being able
to see beyond that_

If all you have to offer is intangible benefits, then you are welcome to all
the intangible support from the taxpayer you want!

~~~
MikeMacMan
How about fluency in a foreign language? Is that an intangible? How about the
ability to write a lengthy, well-cited, well-reasoned paper in English? Is
that an intangible skill?

~~~
Kadin
Those are fine and exceptionally useful skills in combination with others, but
on their own do not offer many opportunities. Someone whose only skill is
fluency in a foreign language is limited to working as a translator; someone
whose only skill is writing is pretty much limited to working as,
unsurprisingly, a writer. I'm not saying that either field is unimportant but
they're extremely competitive fields with a high ratio of qualified candidates
to good-paying jobs.

In contrast, someone with a scientific or engineering degree _and_ fluency in
a foreign language or the ability to write well, has a very good chance of
never being out of demand.

The problem isn't with liberal arts skills, it's with students who pursue them
to the exclusion of -- rather than in addition to -- more practical curricula
that are actually desired by employers.

~~~
davidw
Someone who only knows how to code is a lot less valuable than someone who can
program and also has knowledge of the big, wide real world.

~~~
Retric
There is a lot of evidence that this is not the case.

People that only know how to program Video Card Drivers can make a fair amount
of money. So, people who know how to program and also know about the big, wide
real world don't make that much more on average.

It can probably marginaly increase their income, but once you make 90k there
is not much room for meaningful improvement on average.

------
biohacker42
_...a traditional liberal arts education is, by definition, not intended to
prepare students for a specific vocation. Rather, the critical thinking, civic
and historical knowledge and ethical reasoning..._

It strikes me as obvious that critical thinking ability is best trained with
math.

Civic and historical knowledge can be learned much like any specific skill
can.

So it wood seem the humanities are a very round about way of teaching critical
thinking. But I think the last paragraph strikes at a core truth rarely spoken
out loud:

 _That may be unfortunate but inevitable, Mr. Kronman said. The essence of a
humanities education — reading the great literary and philosophical works and
coming “to grips with the question of what living is for” — may become “a
great luxury that many cannot afford.”_

Within the above paragraph is the hard truth that a humanities education is
most often a way to show off class and breeding. Class and breeding are highly
correlated with wealth.

~~~
evgen
> It strikes me as obvious that critical thinking ability is best trained with
> math.

Writing a cogent and convincing argument is not a problem that can be solved
with linear algebra. Ethics is not the differential equations of competing
interests. That you would consider a good math education to be a core
component of critical thinking appears to serve as an example proof of why
engineers are poorly trained in critical thinking skills.

~~~
biohacker42
Proving a mathematical theorem is the kind of absolute proof no amount of
cogent and convincing arguing will ever touch.

Ethics is a set of rules, critically occupied with filtering out simple
egoistic urges from greater human goals.

I think you're confusing critical thinking with empathy and emotional insight.

To understand humans, you have to understand our emotions and that requires
empathy. Combine empathy with critical thinking and you can have insights
about our emotional lives.

Engineers are not poorly trained in critical thinking skills, quite the
opposite.

Some engineers are very empathic people. A few seem to posses a distinct lack
of empathy and little intuition as to how other feel. But those individuals
are rare and not confined to engineering.

Convincing arguments depend on who you're trying to convince, know your
audience. The same argument won't convince engineers and astrologists.

Any good engineer has excellent communication skills, they wouldn't be a good
engineer otherwise. And cogent convincing arguments are an intimate part of
every engineer's life.

The study of math, physics, logic, will greatly improve your ability to come
up with convincing arguments.

~~~
evgen
> The study of math, physics, logic, will greatly improve your ability to come
> up with convincing arguments.

As will the study of history, philosophy, rhetoric, and psychology. Let's be
honest here. Physics has no place in that list, logic is a subset of math, and
a strong case could be made that math is just applied philosophy/epistemology
(and the reverse is also true.) There is a reason that math is considered a
liberal art and not an engineering discipline...

There is a difference between real "higher math" and the applied math that
engineering students learn as a part of their vocational training. The former
is useful for enhancing critical thinking, the latter is not.

------
yummyfajitas
From the article: _The essence of a humanities education — reading the great
literary and philosophical works and coming “to grips with the question of
what living is for” — may become “a great luxury that many cannot afford.”_

Good Will Hunting rebuts this quite well:

 _You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at
the public library._

A humanities _education_ is not a luxury that no one can afford. A humanities
_degree_ is.

------
ahoyhere
A "liberal" education was meant to teach you the tools you needed to grant
yourself a free existence... including rhetoric (to both identify and fight
against, and use for yourself), critical thinking, analysis, history (things
to do and not to do), persuasion, philosophy (self-understanding), and so on.

EDIT: These are incredibly valuable, far more than any kind of job-training
education. BUT, that's assuming that's what you actually get. Based on my
knowledge of universities... that's not what you get.

~~~
biohacker42
My computer science degree required I get a passing grade in a public speaking
class.

