Will the Humanities Save Us?

[volatile]

I have a degree in languages, and was employed for a good few years in the automotive and manufacturing industries as a translator and multi-lingual purchase agent. How do you think manufacturing plants in the UK would cope if they weren't able to recruit people who could talk to their suppliers in Germany, for example?

I also have a Master's Degree in Critical Theory, and am pursuing a PhD in the History of Art. Whilst I may not be pursuing a cure for cancer, I hope you can at least accept, Tokie, that a country with a rich and vibrant cultural economy is better than one without.

My students, art history undergraduates, go on to find work in the field as museologists, librarians and curators but also as lawyers, civil servants, teachers, journalists, designers, writers, recruitment consultants, politicians, press relations agents... the list is endless.

Now, I agree that we should probably be doing more a society to encourage the uptake of vocational training and elevate the social status afforded to plumbers, builders, plasterers and all the rest, and I'd certainly agree from a pedagogical point of view that there are plenty of teenagers at university studying courses they don't want to be studying, but this is not just true of the "useless" disciplines you cite.

I would hazard a guess that there are as many people doing chemistry or engineering degrees because they (or their parents) thought it would be "useful" for their kids to "learn a trade" who subsequently end up as bus drivers or minstrels than there are people in the Humanities who think it's an easy option (which, of course, it isn't).

For example, how useless can a media studies degree really be in a society in which we now have 24 hour news, a radically shifting media climate, ever-more-pervasive advertising and all the rest? I'd say the production of students who are capable of understanding and negotiating society's relationship with its media institutions is pretty darned important, actually.

 

[korenyx]

What is it about philosophy and physics that make them the best majors for would-be lawyers? I wonder if it's not a kind of thinking, or a readiness for thinking, as opposed to the content of thoughts that are the most useful.


My brother told me that the women in law school who had majored in English or psychology were better at writting briefs. He had majored in business and was better at oral arguments. No suprise to me, his younger sister.

 

[Tokenconservative]

So you could be able to get a degree in teaching a subject but not in the actual subject?

It would make more sense to have a postgrduate qualification in the teaching, once you have demonstrated adequate mastery of the subject, with a degree. Maybe we could call it a "Postgraduate Certificate in Education".

The GIs didn't need to know what happened to the British in 1925, their commanders needed to know what happened to the Iraqis, and thus why they would react badly to something that might otherwise seem innocuous.

IIRC, the US DoD is now employing anthropologists.

If history graduates can't get jobs, then very few people would take history. If they can get jobs, and consider a history degree not to be beneficial, then they wouldn't bother putting this on their CVs.

My guess is that prospective students would all claim to be planning to teach, and then many would "decide that it is not for them", and get other jobs. If they do get a job how do you demonstrate that their degree didn't help them get it?

Depends on the subject. Let's take History as a catchall (because it has so little utility outside the teaching of um...history): yes. You'd have to agree that your aim in studying History in college would be to teach it at some level. If you are not getting a masters in it, then that would by definition mean you'd also have to get a Edu (teacher) cert along with it. If your plan is to teach at post-secondary levels, then clearly you are going to need a Ph.D (yes...sigh...there may be some community colleges that hire those with only a masters or even 4-yr institutions who have a few oldsters hanging on who only have a masters..TODAY, teaching anything in the Lib Arts at a 4 yr college requires a Ph.D....generally...sigh).

Not sure what you are talking about. In order to teach in American public schools (sigh...generally....) you have to have gone through a teacher-ed program (sigh...generally). Agreeing at the time you state your major that you will ALSO be taking this course of study would be enough for me.

How MANY anthropologists does the US military employ (and what do you mean "now" This isn't new)? Enough so that everyone who wants to study Anthro will be if not guaranteed, at least have high hopes? And are they employing anthro bachelors, or masters and Ph.Ds? I don't require a link...just take an...educated guess.

Not bother putting it on....sigh. That's the point. And yes, you are right. Used to be ANY college degree was a big plus when seeking employment. Today, if you went back to school and got your computer engineering degree, you'd probably do well not to mention that you got a History degree first. They might want to know why you were so stupid as to do that.

By the way...that's PRECISELY what I encountered in the early-90s, (before the boom) when I was seeking a job (before I figgered out I'd rather make ME rich, than someone else). I had been working in computers since the late 70s, but had an English degree. I actually had interviewers on more than one occasion cock their heads and ask in incredulous tones, "why do you have THAT!?"

Tokie

 

[Stone Island]

The state ought not teach subjects which are useless.
Philosophy (or history, or anthropology) is useless.
The state ought not teach philosophy.

Contra,

Philosophy isn't useless. A philosophy degree is very useful for preparing one to earn a law degree. If philosophy is useful for this, it may also may be useful for other things. Tokie needs to show us that a B.A. in philosophy is completely useless for everything except getting a degree in law, or going on to some form a higher education.

Of course, Tokie is begging more than one question. One doesn't merely earn a degree in philosophy, one earns a liberal arts degree with a major or concentration in philosophy. Philosophy is but one subject of many that one studies and, generally, a liberal arts degree is about a broad exposure to a number of subjects.

 

[Jeff Corey]

It's the "liberal" part of liberal arts that he objects to. Neocon arts are more his style.

 

[Tokenconservative]

The state ought not teach subjects which are useless.
Philosophy (or history, or anthropology) is useless.
The state ought not teach philosophy.

Contra,

Philosophy isn't useless. A philosophy degree is very useful for preparing one to earn a law degree. If philosophy is useful for this, it may also may be useful for other things. Tokie needs to show us that a B.A. in philosophy is completely useless for everything except getting a degree in law, or going on to some form a higher education.

Of course, Tokie is begging more than one question. One doesn't merely earn a degree in philosophy, one earns a liberal arts degree with a major or concentration in philosophy. Philosophy is but one subject of many that one studies and, generally, a liberal arts degree is about a broad exposure to a number of subjects.

Where did I say "the state ought not..." Can you provide a link--LIIINNNKKKKKKK!!!--?

Yeah...thot not....

Anyway, regardless of how you parse it and play semantic games: "it's not a Philosophy degree!!! It's a Lib Arts degree emphasizing....!!!" Sheesh.

Okay...and therefore what?

It's Sunday. Get your local news paper's want ads (or goto Craigs List or Jobs.com...makes no diff to me) and tell me how many jobs you see advertised asking for someone with a Philosophy degree (or Liberal Arts with a Philosophy Emphasis!!!) or for those with degrees in 14th Century Andoran Tapestry (oh...sorry..Lib Arts with an EMPHASIS is 14th Cen. Andoran Tapestry...sheesh).

No, actually...speaking of logical fallacies, I do not have to show that something is NOT. You have to show that it IS. And sorry, that's regardless of my original assertion. It's not possible for me to list everyone who is NOT looking to hire someone with a Liberal Arts degree, 14th Century Andoran Tapestry emphasis. It IS possible for YOU, to find those want ads looking specifically for people with Liberal Arts, Philosophy Emphaiss degrees.

I'll wait.

By the way...learn what "begging the question" actually means, before just tossing it out there to "sound" smart.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

It's the "liberal" part of liberal arts that he objects to. Neocon arts are more his style.

This is precisely what I was talking about previously.

If I came in here as someone else and posted this exact same assertion, it would not drag my stalkers out of the woodwork to take these kinds of gratuitous, childish (ooops! First warming since I got back!) shots at me.

Does anyone deny this is gratuitous and childish?

Tokie

 

[Stone Island]

Where did I say "the state ought not..." Can you provide a link--LIIINNNKKKKKKK!!!--?

Yeah...thot not....

Anyway, regardless of how you parse it and play semantic games: "it's not a Philosophy degree!!! It's a Lib Arts degree emphasizing....!!!" Sheesh.

Okay...and therefore what?

It's Sunday. Get your local news paper's want ads (or goto Craigs List or Jobs.com...makes no diff to me) and tell me how many jobs you see advertised asking for someone with a Philosophy degree (or Liberal Arts with a Philosophy Emphasis!!!) or for those with degrees in 14th Century Andoran Tapestry (oh...sorry..Lib Arts with an EMPHASIS is 14th Cen. Andoran Tapestry...sheesh).

No, actually...speaking of logical fallacies, I do not have to show that something is NOT. You have to show that it IS. And sorry, that's regardless of my original assertion. It's not possible for me to list everyone who is NOT looking to hire someone with a Liberal Arts degree, 14th Century Andoran Tapestry emphasis. It IS possible for YOU, to find those want ads looking specifically for people with Liberal Arts, Philosophy Emphaiss degrees.

I'll wait.

By the way...learn what "begging the question" actually means, before just tossing it out there to "sound" smart.

Tokie

Why don't you restate the argument to your satisfaction, then?

Being a lawyer is a job, is it not?

A liberal arts degree is about a wide exposure to the Western Tradition, and, in addition, it is about becoming a life-time learner (as opposed to a vocational degree that teaches a specific skill set). I wonder how many computer science B.S.s went away for summer vacation and came back to discover that punch cards were no longer in use?

 

[Tokenconservative]

Why don't you restate the argument to your satisfaction, then?

Being a lawyer is a job, is it not?

A liberal arts degree is about a wide exposure to the Western Tradition, and, in addition, it is about becoming a life-time learner (as opposed to a vocational degree that teaches a specific skill set). I wonder how many computer science B.S.s went away for summer vacation and came back to discover that punch cards were no longer in use?

The state(s...at their discretion) should cease subsidizing higher education pursuits at the 4-year level that are unlikely to lead directly to employment.

You keep conflating the issue. Can you identify one--just one--person (today) who has ONLY a 4-year Philosophy degree and who is a licensed attrorney anywhere in the US?

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

A liberal arts degree is about a wide exposure to the Western Tradition, and, in addition, it is about becoming a life-time learner (as opposed to a vocational degree that teaches a specific skill set). I wonder how many computer science B.S.s went away for summer vacation and came back to discover that punch cards were no longer in use?

Not sure what you mean by "a Liberal Arts degree" Is there such a thing? I don't know, maybe there is. If so, include it. But I was talking about specific degrees w/in the broader scope of the Liberal Arts: History, English (sigh...literature, not the language...God this is tiresome) or any other languge's LITERATURE (sigh), a general "Music" or "Art" degree, Philosphy, any of the "soft" sciences and any hard science in a 4-year degree plan that does not include teacher education.

These are all specialized. You dont get a degree in 14th Century Andoran Tapestries and get the "wide exposure" you are talking about. You'd get a wider exposure to more theory and different ideas in a Business program.

Now, run around shouting about all the people with masters and Ph.Ds in these disciplines who are professors or some such somewhere.

If you don't, I'll really be disappointed.

Tokie

 

[Stone Island]

The state(s...at their discretion) should cease subsidizing higher education pursuits at the 4-year level that are unlikely to lead directly to employment.

How directly is directly enough? How should the State determine that it was the degree itself that led directly to employment?

People who major in English don't only take English classes. In fact, there are all sorts of diversification requirements such that a broad education is gained. People, at least in the liberal arts, only begin to really specialize at the graduate level.

As the data presented earlier demonstrated, people who get these kinds of degrees do find work, even if they don't go on to law school or graduate school.

Well, according to wikipedia (We're as Wrong as the Encyclopedia Britannica!), 7 states don't require a law degree to sit for the Bar.

 

[Tokenconservative]

How directly is directly enough? How should the State determine that it was the degree itself that led directly to employment?

People who major in English don't only take English classes. In fact, there are all sorts of diversification requirements such that a broad education is gained. People, at least in the liberal arts, only begin to really specialize at the graduate level.

As the data presented earlier demonstrated, people who get these kinds of degrees do find work, even if they don't go on to law school or graduate school.

Well, according to wikipedia (We're as Wrong as the Encyclopedia Britannica!), 7 states don't require a law degree to sit for the Bar.

Sigh...once again, you are being purposely obtuse. I have an English degree. At no time while I was obtaining it did anyone in the program, when I said I was taking English 307, or whatever, require me to explain that this was not an English LANGUAGE course.

Why do you keep doing this?

When I am talking about an ENGLISH degree that's a general heading for English Lit, or even Writing degrees, not for teaching the LANGUAGE.

Once we get you past this purposeful misrepresentation of what I am saying, then, maybe we can move into an actual discussion of what it is I am actually saying.

Serious question: are you doing this because you really don't understand the distinction (maybe you are not an American?) or because of who it is you are addressing?

Tokie

 

[Stone Island]

Sigh...once again, you are being purposely obtuse. I have an English degree. At no time while I was obtaining it did anyone in the program, when I said I was taking English 307, or whatever, require me to explain that this was not an English LANGUAGE course.

Why do you keep doing this?

When I am talking about an ENGLISH degree that's a general heading for English Lit, or even Writing degrees, not for teaching the LANGUAGE.

Once we get you past this purposeful misrepresentation of what I am saying, then, maybe we can move into an actual discussion of what it is I am actually saying.

Serious question: are you doing this because you really don't understand the distinction (maybe you are not an American?) or because of who it is you are addressing?

Tokie

No, no, I get it. You took English Literature (or whatever). That doesn't really matter. A liberal arts degree is a basic, broad introduction to the liberal arts. Whatever you concentrated in, like a Philosophy and Political Science double major for me, doesn't take away from the fact that in most colleges and universities there is either a core curriculum or diversification requirements.

Again, you are begging the question: how does one determine whether a degree is useful or not? How does the state determine the directness of the usefulness of a degree? A philosophy is indirectly useful for becoming a highly skilled, highly paid lawyer. A philosophy degree may be directly or indirectly useful for any number of other careers, in so far as there are other careers that require the analytical skills that a highly shilled, highly paid lawyer employs.

I have a buddy who is a highly paid, highly skilled engineer and manager at a well known consulting firm who didn't even finish his Bachelor of Arts degree in History at a small, Midwestern Liberal Arts college. They wanted people with good analytical skills who would be lifetime-learners; they taught all the specifics on the job. Did he know anything about banking when he didn't graduate college? No, but now he manages people who write code for large Banks. All with almost a History B.A. (not even specialized!)

I can't believe, at least in the realm of writing code for banks, that a History degree is any more useful than an English Literature degree.

 

[Stone Island]

Also, there are (at least) two kinds of law schools. First, bad ones that teach a vocational skill: how to pass the bar. Second, good ones that teach legal theory. After you graduate you have to learn on your own how to pass the bar.

 

[Tokenconservative]

No, no, I get it. You took English Literature (or whatever). That doesn't really matter. A liberal arts degree is a basic, broad introduction to the liberal arts. Whatever you concentrated in, like a Philosophy and Political Science double major for me, doesn't take away from the fact that in most colleges and universities there is either a core curriculum or diversification requirements.

Again, you are begging the question: how does one determine whether a degree is useful or not? How does the state determine the directness of the usefulness of a degree? A philosophy is indirectly useful for becoming a highly skilled, highly paid lawyer. A philosophy degree may be directly or indirectly useful for any number of other careers, in so far as there are other careers that require the analytical skills that a highly shilled, highly paid lawyer employs.

I have a buddy who is a highly paid, highly skilled engineer and manager at a well known consulting firm who didn't even finish his Bachelor of Arts degree in History at a small, Midwestern Liberal Arts college. They wanted people with good analytical skills who would be lifetime-learners; they taught all the specifics on the job. Did he know anything about banking when he didn't graduate college? No, but now he manages people who write code for large Banks. All with almost a History B.A. (not even specialized!)

I can't believe, at least in the realm of writing code for banks, that a History degree is any more useful than an English Literature degree.

No, I am not begging the question, I am simply a bit frustrated with what (in your case appeared to be) a purposeful attempt to obfuscate and misinterpret what I was saying.

Now that we are on the same page, we can move forward and others, such as Volotile can carry the "Tokie don't think teaching languages is a good idear!!!" cant.

First, the double major is telling. A very good idea. Not many my age did that, however. It's become very common in the last, oh...15 years, anyway.

One looks at the job market to determine whether a degree (and here we are talking about a single, 4 -year degree) is useful to that market or not. Given, it's sometimes tough to tell whether a degree WILL be useful in the near future, but in this case, we can be pretty sure that we are not going to go back to 1960s (as an arbitrary "old days" date) in which ANY sheepskin was worth its weight in gold simply by dint of rarity (supply and demand applies to this just as much as it does to widgets).

By the way: just because it is traditional for colleges to "require diversification," that does not necessarily mean that MUST be a good thing. It just means its traditional. I, by the way, agree that a diversification of knowledge is a good thing, as far as it goes. Should it be required of a computer sci. major to know who Monet is, or to have read Miltion...nope. Does them no good at all, and you can bet that computer sci majors in India are not being required to read Omar Khyam....

You keep refering to yourself, but seem to yourself be begging the question via that route. You have TWO degrees, do you not? Poli Sci is not on my list. Many lawyers do Poli Sci, do they not? So someone with a ONLY a Poli Sci degree will probably not be as employable as are you (don't you also have a law degree?), but they will be much more marketable than someone with ONLY a Philosophy degree, though far LESS employable than someone with an engineering, math or hard science degree.

That's just the way it is.

Yes, I know people like the one you note.

How old is he? Was that his first job? I remember having this debate with a newspaper reporter some years ago. She scoffed when I suggested that specialization was the future..told me why, her desk partner had an English degree and look at him, he was a working journalist!

I asked: how long's he been at it (nearly 20 years)...silence on the other end of the phone.

I am talking about TODAY and I am talking about conditions in GENERAL.

Yes, there will always be those who buck the trends...I believe Bill Gates never graduated college (apochraphal? I don't know).

But in GENERAL, my subsidizing a 4-year Philosophy or English (sigh...no, not the LANGUAGE) degree is a waste of money.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Also, there are (at least) two kinds of law schools. First, bad ones that teach a vocational skill: how to pass the bar. Second, good ones that teach legal theory. After you graduate you have to learn on your own how to pass the bar.

That's a completely subjective view, though.

For some lawyers, it's enough to only pass the bar. Not all lawyers can be Flea Bailey, after all, can they?

Tokie

 

[Stone Island]

No, I am not begging the question, I am simply a bit frustrated with what (in your case appeared to be) a purposeful attempt to obfuscate and misinterpret what I was saying.

Now that we are on the same page, we can move forward and others, such as Volotile can carry the "Tokie don't think teaching languages is a good idear!!!" cant.

First, the double major is telling. A very good idea. Not many my age did that, however. It's become very common in the last, oh...15 years, anyway.

One looks at the job market to determine whether a degree (and here we are talking about a single, 4 -year degree) is useful to that market or not. Given, it's sometimes tough to tell whether a degree WILL be useful in the near future, but in this case, we can be pretty sure that we are not going to go back to 1960s (as an arbitrary "old days" date) in which ANY sheepskin was worth its weight in gold simply by dint of rarity (supply and demand applies to this just as much as it does to widgets).

By the way: just because it is traditional for colleges to "require diversification," that does not necessarily mean that MUST be a good thing. It just means its traditional. I, by the way, agree that a diversification of knowledge is a good thing, as far as it goes. Should it be required of a computer sci. major to know who Monet is, or to have read Miltion...nope. Does them no good at all, and you can bet that computer sci majors in India are not being required to read Omar Khyam....

You keep refering to yourself, but seem to yourself be begging the question via that route. You have TWO degrees, do you not? Poli Sci is not on my list. Many lawyers do Poli Sci, do they not? So someone with a ONLY a Poli Sci degree will probably not be as employable as are you (don't you also have a law degree?), but they will be much more marketable than someone with ONLY a Philosophy degree, though far LESS employable than someone with an engineering, math or hard science degree.

That's just the way it is.

Yes, I know people like the one you note.

How old is he? Was that his first job? I remember having this debate with a newspaper reporter some years ago. She scoffed when I suggested that specialization was the future..told me why, her desk partner had an English degree and look at him, he was a working journalist!

I asked: how long's he been at it (nearly 20 years)...silence on the other end of the phone.

I am talking about TODAY and I am talking about conditions in GENERAL.

Yes, there will always be those who buck the trends...I believe Bill Gates never graduated college (apochraphal? I don't know).

But in GENERAL, my subsidizing a 4-year Philosophy or English (sigh...no, not the LANGUAGE) degree is a waste of money.

Tokie

My friend who didn't finish his B.A. in History got his job in consulting straight out of college in 1997.

I don't have a law degree.

Political science, especially at the B.A. level, is very, very rarely anything that resembles "science."

You're begging the question (again): are you sure that Monet is not useful to a computer science major? How so? Isn't being a well-rounded human being better than the alternative?

Also, specialization is a double-edged sword; markets move and change. I want employees who can move and change, who aren't caught when their specialization is no longer relevant. We aren't working in factories, we're dealing with a dynamic, information rich environment. Philosophy as a course of study, for example, or the liberal arts generally, develop analytical skills necessary for making sense of a world that won't remain static long enough for you to earn your retirement and put paid to your specialized, vocational education.

Ought the government to be subsidizing any degree, no matter how allegedly useful?

In general, being a well-rounded human being is better than the alternative. In general, one should be a life-time learner as opposed to highly skilled in some static, specialized discipline (how many times should the average worker today expect to change his job/career?). In general, consumers make better choices about alternatives and their pay-offs than government agencies.

 

[Stone Island]

That's a completely subjective view, though.

Subjective? Or just a fact in the world that is in disagreement with your premise and thus necessitates dismissal? They're not one and the same, you know.

You know those lawyers who just want to pass the bar? They're called hacks and their life-time expected earning suffers for it (another verifiable fact).

 

[Tokenconservative]

My friend who didn't finish his B.A. in History got his job in consulting straight out of college in 1997.

I don't have a law degree.

Political science, especially at the B.A. level, is very, very rarely anything that resembles "science."

You're begging the question (again): are you sure that Monet is not useful to a computer science major? How so? Isn't being a well-rounded human being better than the alternative?

Also, specialization is a double-edged sword; markets move and change. I want employees who can move and change, who aren't caught when their specialization is no longer relevant. We aren't working in factories, we're dealing with a dynamic, information rich environment. Philosophy as a course of study, for example, or the liberal arts generally, develop analytical skills necessary for making sense of a world that won't remain static long enough for you to earn your retirement and put paid to your specialized, vocational education.

Ought the government to be subsidizing any degree, no matter how allegedly useful?

In general, being a well-rounded human being is better than the alternative. In general, one should be a life-time learner as opposed to highly skilled in some static, specialized discipline (how many times should the average worker today expect to change his job/career?). In general, consumers make better choices about alternatives and their pay-offs than government agencies.

I'm not begging the queston (tossing these terms around is fun, but you need to know what they mean, too). You are, in fact begging the question.

I did not say that in every case, anyone with one of these degrees will this, that or the other thing I said (sigh)...in GENERAL, this is the case.

I am not a scientist, engineer, etc...I don't even play one on TV, but even I know that we cannot rely upon anecdotal and individual experiences to set policy.

Is that harsh? Yes, I suppose. There're no doubt many brilliant young people who want to study the humanities and who have friends or family eager to give them a 6-figure job whether they graduate or not, and even a few who will get an Art or History, or Philosophy degree who will snag some nice position, maybe because some boss decides he needs someone like that on staff.

Hell, it happened to me once upon a time...guy really needed a sales rate with computer background, hired me instead because he like my record, and had no problem with my lib. arts degree. The business folded 8 months later...possibly because he hired ME instead of someone more technologically-centered.

So yeah, lots of "my friends" have managed to get fine jobs despite the handicap of a lib arts/humanities degree. But again, I challenge you to pick up the want ads and find just ONE ad (outside education...sigh...) where the employer is specifically seeking someone with one of those degrees.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

Subjective? Or just a fact in the world that is in disagreement with your premise and thus necessitates dismissal? They're not one and the same, you know.

You know those lawyers who just want to pass the bar? They're called hacks and their life-time expected earning suffers for it (another verifiable fact).

No, actually, your other posts indicate a very subjective perspective on your part. You keep telling me about individuals and I keep telling you to look at the market.

Tokie