The public is largely unaware of it, but in the United States within about 20 years it may no longer be possible to major in humanities subjects outside of the elite universities. This is not alarmism but an “if this goes on—” extrapolation of a trend that is well underway. We are going, exactly, backward: about 150 years backward, in fact. In 1869, Matthew Arnold, who was an inspector of schools, published
There's a sniff of elitism in the assumption that universities are the only way to learn the humanities. The world needs plumbers and electricians arguably more than we need yet another well-rounded thinker. I have nothing against thinking, but who says you need 4 years at an expensive school to learn that?
Something was lost when church-going stopped being a central part of the average person's life. Imagine a world where absolutely everyone was exposed to an hour's philosophy/ethics lecture every Sunday, and more for children. Even if you don't "believe", there's something to be said for a society where the tradesman and the "elite" class all sit down together regularly to pay homage to the transcendent.
Well, Thomas, the report you cite has "economic well being" in its title, and that was my point.
We are making it impossible to major in the humanities for economic reasons. It isn't that they don't get jobs--that has been proven false. It's that they are saddled with huge student loans. This never used to be the case.
There's more than a whiff of elitism in the idea that plumbers and electricians don't need or want anything but practical education. We need their services, so it's inconvenient for them to want the same type of privileges that are available to those of a higher social class. It's also inconvenient that my students are well aware that such jobs are physically taxing and wear out your body. The same would be true of waitressing, beauticians are exposed to unhealthy chemicals over a lifetime. Then, when their bodies are ready to rest, conservatives and libertarians want to raise the retirement age and force them to keep working anyway. But, hey the people with more money and more educational opportunity need their services.
Outside of what remains of blue collar work, "four years at an expensive school" is necessary--a college degree enables hiring and promotion. My students know this as well. They have four years in which to acquire a liberal education that they will never have such time for and guidance with in the rest of their lives. Exactly where do you think they are going to "learn to think' on their own? From the Internet? Yes, there are good podcasts, newsletters, free courses online--for those with the leisure for them, and who is that in this overworked society?
Let them become engineers? No doubt that's what Marie Antoinette would say today. Making everyone take only STEM subjects is a combination of ignorance and hypocrisy. You have to have an unusual degree of analytical ability to do the math and science to be an engineer, or a doctor. I used to have any number of advisees who torpedoed their GPA's in math and science courses before they finally gave up. It is not an answer to the problem of mass education and employment.
The churches have lost their moral authority. Who wants to listen to a sermon on morality when it comes from, on the one hand, clergy who have systematically abused children, and, on the other, Christian nationalists who want to establish a theocracy with the help of Donald Trump? Not exactly a place for learning to think.
I think many if not most people value liberal education's expanded perspective. Our society is increasingly denying it to them for reasons that are, at best, blind, and, at worst, selfish and corrupt.
Thank you this excellent commentary, Michael. You sent me off to my 4K shelf (Arnold, Ruskin, et al.). Don't you think there is need for a collection of essays on "Culture and Anarchy Today"? It has been thirty years since the late Steven Marcus wrote an essay of that title. I plan to share your latest with several friends.
Thank you so much, as always, Tom. Your appreciation is always deeply meaningful to me. 4K was that Vic course in 19th Century Thought, wasn't it, the one that Norrie used to teach? There should be a "Norrie trivia" contest. I don't know how far the humanities are in crisis in Canadian universities--it doesn't look so good here.
I haven't been in Canada for almost a decade now, but I think the Humanities are more secure there. Canada gave us Trivial Pursuit (first marketed in 1981), while America produced "Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know" (1987). The inventors of Trivial Pursuit appealed to people's curiosity, the sort of curiosity that Arnold calls "a desire after things of the mind simpl y for their own sakes and for the pleasure of seeing them as they are." The inventor of Cultural Literacy, E.D. Hirsch, Jr., listed 5000 facts that a culturally literate Amercan must know. There is no appeal to curiosity here. Rather, it's the world of Gradgrind in Dickens's "Hard Times": "Teach these boys and girls nothing but the Facts."
Worth remembering that half of all humanities majors regret their choice (https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/2021-report-economic-well-being-us-households-202205.pdf#page=76), compared to only 1/4 of engineering majors.
There's a sniff of elitism in the assumption that universities are the only way to learn the humanities. The world needs plumbers and electricians arguably more than we need yet another well-rounded thinker. I have nothing against thinking, but who says you need 4 years at an expensive school to learn that?
Something was lost when church-going stopped being a central part of the average person's life. Imagine a world where absolutely everyone was exposed to an hour's philosophy/ethics lecture every Sunday, and more for children. Even if you don't "believe", there's something to be said for a society where the tradesman and the "elite" class all sit down together regularly to pay homage to the transcendent.
Well, Thomas, the report you cite has "economic well being" in its title, and that was my point.
We are making it impossible to major in the humanities for economic reasons. It isn't that they don't get jobs--that has been proven false. It's that they are saddled with huge student loans. This never used to be the case.
There's more than a whiff of elitism in the idea that plumbers and electricians don't need or want anything but practical education. We need their services, so it's inconvenient for them to want the same type of privileges that are available to those of a higher social class. It's also inconvenient that my students are well aware that such jobs are physically taxing and wear out your body. The same would be true of waitressing, beauticians are exposed to unhealthy chemicals over a lifetime. Then, when their bodies are ready to rest, conservatives and libertarians want to raise the retirement age and force them to keep working anyway. But, hey the people with more money and more educational opportunity need their services.
Outside of what remains of blue collar work, "four years at an expensive school" is necessary--a college degree enables hiring and promotion. My students know this as well. They have four years in which to acquire a liberal education that they will never have such time for and guidance with in the rest of their lives. Exactly where do you think they are going to "learn to think' on their own? From the Internet? Yes, there are good podcasts, newsletters, free courses online--for those with the leisure for them, and who is that in this overworked society?
Let them become engineers? No doubt that's what Marie Antoinette would say today. Making everyone take only STEM subjects is a combination of ignorance and hypocrisy. You have to have an unusual degree of analytical ability to do the math and science to be an engineer, or a doctor. I used to have any number of advisees who torpedoed their GPA's in math and science courses before they finally gave up. It is not an answer to the problem of mass education and employment.
The churches have lost their moral authority. Who wants to listen to a sermon on morality when it comes from, on the one hand, clergy who have systematically abused children, and, on the other, Christian nationalists who want to establish a theocracy with the help of Donald Trump? Not exactly a place for learning to think.
I think many if not most people value liberal education's expanded perspective. Our society is increasingly denying it to them for reasons that are, at best, blind, and, at worst, selfish and corrupt.
Thank you this excellent commentary, Michael. You sent me off to my 4K shelf (Arnold, Ruskin, et al.). Don't you think there is need for a collection of essays on "Culture and Anarchy Today"? It has been thirty years since the late Steven Marcus wrote an essay of that title. I plan to share your latest with several friends.
Thank you so much, as always, Tom. Your appreciation is always deeply meaningful to me. 4K was that Vic course in 19th Century Thought, wasn't it, the one that Norrie used to teach? There should be a "Norrie trivia" contest. I don't know how far the humanities are in crisis in Canadian universities--it doesn't look so good here.
I haven't been in Canada for almost a decade now, but I think the Humanities are more secure there. Canada gave us Trivial Pursuit (first marketed in 1981), while America produced "Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know" (1987). The inventors of Trivial Pursuit appealed to people's curiosity, the sort of curiosity that Arnold calls "a desire after things of the mind simpl y for their own sakes and for the pleasure of seeing them as they are." The inventor of Cultural Literacy, E.D. Hirsch, Jr., listed 5000 facts that a culturally literate Amercan must know. There is no appeal to curiosity here. Rather, it's the world of Gradgrind in Dickens's "Hard Times": "Teach these boys and girls nothing but the Facts."