Why the lack of men majoring in humanities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While some here are criticizing the humanities, remember that most of their teachers—the people responsible for developing their thinking skills for the high paying careers—studied social sciences or humanities fields in undergrad. This is true even of STEMlords.

You're making some broad assumptions here.

Speaking of the decline in the humanities among men (and it's not just men, as fewer women are majoring in the humanities too), out of curiosity I glanced at the current history curriculum at Swarthmore: https://www.swarthmore.edu/history/current-courses

It's intriguing, to say the least. However your feelings on these courses, this would not have been the typical history department course offerings of 1990 or 1995 or 2000 or even 2005, when most of us adults on here would have been in college and browsing the course catalogues. I can also verify it's nothing like what my Ivy history department offered in the late 1990s into the 2000s. There are clear themes dominating the Swarthmore offerings in 2025 and I see why few young males would be interested in majoring in history. You'd have to be a particular type of student, either male or female, to be interested in these courses. You can also openly wonder if these courses are really a serious study of history or just something faddish, it's dominated by identity politics and one can be skeptical of any "rigor" being applied in these courses.

The teachers referred to in your post would have been educated under an older and different approach to studying humanities. Your claim doesn't hold up well.

I was a policy major, and I’d take these classes right now, in a heartbeat:

Digging through the NatSec archive?! Yes, please:

https://catalog.swarthmore.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=30&coid=97909

“Analyz[ing] experiments and schemes for organizing the world, ranging from realized projects like the League of Nations and the World Health Organization to unrealized projects like the European Defense Community”?? YES!!

https://catalog.swarthmore.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=30&coid=99249

Leviathan and the Inquisition = awesome!

https://catalog.swarthmore.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=30&coid=99688

Cities and Social Movements? Classic history course!

https://catalog.swarthmore.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=30&coid=99991

There's only a handful of courses a history minded kid might be interested in. The rest are decidedly niche topics. Rigor is meaningless, someone's endless reading assignment isn't the same as rigor. At end of day, what we do know is that students, not just male but female, have voted with their feet and walked away from humanities majors in substantial numbers. The kind of topics being explored in humanities departments these days must play a role.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While some here are criticizing the humanities, remember that most of their teachers—the people responsible for developing their thinking skills for the high paying careers—studied social sciences or humanities fields in undergrad. This is true even of STEMlords.

You're making some broad assumptions here.

Speaking of the decline in the humanities among men (and it's not just men, as fewer women are majoring in the humanities too), out of curiosity I glanced at the current history curriculum at Swarthmore: https://www.swarthmore.edu/history/current-courses

It's intriguing, to say the least. However your feelings on these courses, this would not have been the typical history department course offerings of 1990 or 1995 or 2000 or even 2005, when most of us adults on here would have been in college and browsing the course catalogues. I can also verify it's nothing like what my Ivy history department offered in the late 1990s into the 2000s. There are clear themes dominating the Swarthmore offerings in 2025 and I see why few young males would be interested in majoring in history. You'd have to be a particular type of student, either male or female, to be interested in these courses. You can also openly wonder if these courses are really a serious study of history or just something faddish, it's dominated by identity politics and one can be skeptical of any "rigor" being applied in these courses.

The teachers referred to in your post would have been educated under an older and different approach to studying humanities. Your claim doesn't hold up well.

I was a policy major, and I’d take these classes right now, in a heartbeat:

Digging through the NatSec archive?! Yes, please:

https://catalog.swarthmore.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=30&coid=97909

“Analyz[ing] experiments and schemes for organizing the world, ranging from realized projects like the League of Nations and the World Health Organization to unrealized projects like the European Defense Community”?? YES!!

https://catalog.swarthmore.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=30&coid=99249

Leviathan and the Inquisition = awesome!

https://catalog.swarthmore.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=30&coid=99688

Cities and Social Movements? Classic history course!

https://catalog.swarthmore.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=30&coid=99991

There's only a handful of courses a history minded kid might be interested in. The rest are decidedly niche topics. Rigor is meaningless, someone's endless reading assignment isn't the same as rigor. At end of day, what we do know is that students, not just male but female, have voted with their feet and walked away from humanities majors in substantial numbers. The kind of topics being explored in humanities departments these days must play a role.

I looked at the course listings and easily found two classes a semester that interest me and are akin to typical History offerings 20 years ago.

My personal opinion is kids are veering away from History and other humanities majors not because of the course listings, but because of the non-stop focus on starting salaries for first jobs right out of college.

That short-term definition of “marketability” and ROI drives kids to majors that read more like vocational training than higher education to me. But hey, differences like these are what make the world go round. To each their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While some here are criticizing the humanities, remember that most of their teachers—the people responsible for developing their thinking skills for the high paying careers—studied social sciences or humanities fields in undergrad. This is true even of STEMlords.

You're making some broad assumptions here.

Speaking of the decline in the humanities among men (and it's not just men, as fewer women are majoring in the humanities too), out of curiosity I glanced at the current history curriculum at Swarthmore: https://www.swarthmore.edu/history/current-courses

It's intriguing, to say the least. However your feelings on these courses, this would not have been the typical history department course offerings of 1990 or 1995 or 2000 or even 2005, when most of us adults on here would have been in college and browsing the course catalogues. I can also verify it's nothing like what my Ivy history department offered in the late 1990s into the 2000s. There are clear themes dominating the Swarthmore offerings in 2025 and I see why few young males would be interested in majoring in history. You'd have to be a particular type of student, either male or female, to be interested in these courses. You can also openly wonder if these courses are really a serious study of history or just something faddish, it's dominated by identity politics and one can be skeptical of any "rigor" being applied in these courses.

The teachers referred to in your post would have been educated under an older and different approach to studying humanities. Your claim doesn't hold up well.

I was a policy major, and I’d take these classes right now, in a heartbeat:

Digging through the NatSec archive?! Yes, please:

https://catalog.swarthmore.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=30&coid=97909

“Analyz[ing] experiments and schemes for organizing the world, ranging from realized projects like the League of Nations and the World Health Organization to unrealized projects like the European Defense Community”?? YES!!

https://catalog.swarthmore.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=30&coid=99249

Leviathan and the Inquisition = awesome!

https://catalog.swarthmore.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=30&coid=99688

Cities and Social Movements? Classic history course!

https://catalog.swarthmore.edu/preview_course_nopop.php?catoid=30&coid=99991

There's only a handful of courses a history minded kid might be interested in. The rest are decidedly niche topics. Rigor is meaningless, someone's endless reading assignment isn't the same as rigor. At end of day, what we do know is that students, not just male but female, have voted with their feet and walked away from humanities majors in substantial numbers. The kind of topics being explored in humanities departments these days must play a role.

I looked at the course listings and easily found two classes a semester that interest me and are akin to typical History offerings 20 years ago.

My personal opinion is kids are veering away from History and other humanities majors not because of the course listings, but because of the non-stop focus on starting salaries for first jobs right out of college.

That short-term definition of “marketability” and ROI drives kids to majors that read more like vocational training than higher education to me. But hey, differences like these are what make the world go round. To each their own.

I agree its sad but it's also a rational response to seeing the massive returns to education. Society is more "meritocratic" now than it was 50 years ago, at least in the sense that you are getting closer to earning your marginal product. I don't think we want to go back to the dark days when your social position at birth basically determined your outcome. The opposite side of that coin is that busting your butt really matters economically.

Have we lost something though? Yes.

[Anonymous]

I've had conversations with men about their education and career trajectory, and more than once they mentioned looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics for incomes based on their chosen path. I have never heard a woman say this.

I am a woman and majored in communications. When I was divorcing and broke I went back to school for an MBA to make money. I just don't think women are as inclined to make decisions based on financial outcomes as men are, because our perceived worth isn't (currently) based on our earning power, whereas with men that's pretty much it. And in fact, women still mostly want to be with men who make more than they do, so might even be disinclined (even if subconsciously) to seek out high-earning career paths.

Not PC but this is my take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While some here are criticizing the humanities, remember that most of their teachers—the people responsible for developing their thinking skills for the high paying careers—studied social sciences or humanities fields in undergrad. This is true even of STEMlords.

You're making some broad assumptions here.

Speaking of the decline in the humanities among men (and it's not just men, as fewer women are majoring in the humanities too), out of curiosity I glanced at the current history curriculum at Swarthmore: https://www.swarthmore.edu/history/current-courses

It's intriguing, to say the least. However your feelings on these courses, this would not have been the typical history department course offerings of 1990 or 1995 or 2000 or even 2005, when most of us adults on here would have been in college and browsing the course catalogues. I can also verify it's nothing like what my Ivy history department offered in the late 1990s into the 2000s. There are clear themes dominating the Swarthmore offerings in 2025 and I see why few young males would be interested in majoring in history. You'd have to be a particular type of student, either male or female, to be interested in these courses. You can also openly wonder if these courses are really a serious study of history or just something faddish, it's dominated by identity politics and one can be skeptical of any "rigor" being applied in these courses.

The teachers referred to in your post would have been educated under an older and different approach to studying humanities. Your claim doesn't hold up well.

Compare Swarthmore's course offerings in philosophy: https://www.swarthmore.edu/philosophy/course-offerings

There's only one course, over the next two years, that might seem 'faddish' or 'woke': 'Critical Philosophy of Race' -- though that course could well be rigorous and even-handed. (Rigorous and even-handed 'Philosophy of Race' courses have been taught in mainstream philosophy departments for more than 30 years.) All the other topics are exactly what students would have studied doing a philosophy major 50 or 100 years ago.

Maybe that's a reason to prefer history to philosophy at Swarthmore; I'm not adjudicating which approach is better. But the list gives clear counter-evidence to the claim that humanities departments are offering mostly identity politics or other 'unserious' courses of study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While some here are criticizing the humanities, remember that most of their teachers—the people responsible for developing their thinking skills for the high paying careers—studied social sciences or humanities fields in undergrad. This is true even of STEMlords.

You're making some broad assumptions here.

Speaking of the decline in the humanities among men (and it's not just men, as fewer women are majoring in the humanities too), out of curiosity I glanced at the current history curriculum at Swarthmore: https://www.swarthmore.edu/history/current-courses

It's intriguing, to say the least. However your feelings on these courses, this would not have been the typical history department course offerings of 1990 or 1995 or 2000 or even 2005, when most of us adults on here would have been in college and browsing the course catalogues. I can also verify it's nothing like what my Ivy history department offered in the late 1990s into the 2000s. There are clear themes dominating the Swarthmore offerings in 2025 and I see why few young males would be interested in majoring in history. You'd have to be a particular type of student, either male or female, to be interested in these courses. You can also openly wonder if these courses are really a serious study of history or just something faddish, it's dominated by identity politics and one can be skeptical of any "rigor" being applied in these courses.

The teachers referred to in your post would have been educated under an older and different approach to studying humanities. Your claim doesn't hold up well.

Compare Swarthmore's course offerings in philosophy: https://www.swarthmore.edu/philosophy/course-offerings

There's only one course, over the next two years, that might seem 'faddish' or 'woke': 'Critical Philosophy of Race' -- though that course could well be rigorous and even-handed. (Rigorous and even-handed 'Philosophy of Race' courses have been taught in mainstream philosophy departments for more than 30 years.) All the other topics are exactly what students would have studied doing a philosophy major 50 or 100 years ago.

Maybe that's a reason to prefer history to philosophy at Swarthmore; I'm not adjudicating which approach is better. But the list gives clear counter-evidence to the claim that humanities departments are offering mostly identity politics or other 'unserious' courses of study.

It’s funny that you say this because philosophy is one of the only humanities that is majority male.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While some here are criticizing the humanities, remember that most of their teachers—the people responsible for developing their thinking skills for the high paying careers—studied social sciences or humanities fields in undergrad. This is true even of STEMlords.

You're making some broad assumptions here.

Speaking of the decline in the humanities among men (and it's not just men, as fewer women are majoring in the humanities too), out of curiosity I glanced at the current history curriculum at Swarthmore: https://www.swarthmore.edu/history/current-courses

It's intriguing, to say the least. However your feelings on these courses, this would not have been the typical history department course offerings of 1990 or 1995 or 2000 or even 2005, when most of us adults on here would have been in college and browsing the course catalogues. I can also verify it's nothing like what my Ivy history department offered in the late 1990s into the 2000s. There are clear themes dominating the Swarthmore offerings in 2025 and I see why few young males would be interested in majoring in history. You'd have to be a particular type of student, either male or female, to be interested in these courses. You can also openly wonder if these courses are really a serious study of history or just something faddish, it's dominated by identity politics and one can be skeptical of any "rigor" being applied in these courses.

The teachers referred to in your post would have been educated under an older and different approach to studying humanities. Your claim doesn't hold up well.

Compare Swarthmore's course offerings in philosophy: https://www.swarthmore.edu/philosophy/course-offerings

There's only one course, over the next two years, that might seem 'faddish' or 'woke': 'Critical Philosophy of Race' -- though that course could well be rigorous and even-handed. (Rigorous and even-handed 'Philosophy of Race' courses have been taught in mainstream philosophy departments for more than 30 years.) All the other topics are exactly what students would have studied doing a philosophy major 50 or 100 years ago.

Maybe that's a reason to prefer history to philosophy at Swarthmore; I'm not adjudicating which approach is better. But the list gives clear counter-evidence to the claim that humanities departments are offering mostly identity politics or other 'unserious' courses of study.

It’s funny that you say this because philosophy is one of the only humanities that is majority male.

You're right, of course, that there's no lack of male philosophy majors. From that perspective, my comment was off-point. But the discussion seemed to be degenerating into general humanities-bashing, and I wanted to counter that. Philosophy is often attacked as especially 'woke,' yet Swarthmore's philosophy offerings are strikingly un- or even anti-'woke' (without being ideological in the other direction either).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While some here are criticizing the humanities, remember that most of their teachers—the people responsible for developing their thinking skills for the high paying careers—studied social sciences or humanities fields in undergrad. This is true even of STEMlords.

You're making some broad assumptions here.

Speaking of the decline in the humanities among men (and it's not just men, as fewer women are majoring in the humanities too), out of curiosity I glanced at the current history curriculum at Swarthmore: https://www.swarthmore.edu/history/current-courses

It's intriguing, to say the least. However your feelings on these courses, this would not have been the typical history department course offerings of 1990 or 1995 or 2000 or even 2005, when most of us adults on here would have been in college and browsing the course catalogues. I can also verify it's nothing like what my Ivy history department offered in the late 1990s into the 2000s. There are clear themes dominating the Swarthmore offerings in 2025 and I see why few young males would be interested in majoring in history. You'd have to be a particular type of student, either male or female, to be interested in these courses. You can also openly wonder if these courses are really a serious study of history or just something faddish, it's dominated by identity politics and one can be skeptical of any "rigor" being applied in these courses.

The teachers referred to in your post would have been educated under an older and different approach to studying humanities. Your claim doesn't hold up well.

Compare Swarthmore's course offerings in philosophy: https://www.swarthmore.edu/philosophy/course-offerings

There's only one course, over the next two years, that might seem 'faddish' or 'woke': 'Critical Philosophy of Race' -- though that course could well be rigorous and even-handed. (Rigorous and even-handed 'Philosophy of Race' courses have been taught in mainstream philosophy departments for more than 30 years.) All the other topics are exactly what students would have studied doing a philosophy major 50 or 100 years ago.

Maybe that's a reason to prefer history to philosophy at Swarthmore; I'm not adjudicating which approach is better. But the list gives clear counter-evidence to the claim that humanities departments are offering mostly identity politics or other 'unserious' courses of study.

It’s funny that you say this because philosophy is one of the only humanities that is majority male.

You're right, of course, that there's no lack of male philosophy majors. From that perspective, my comment was off-point. But the discussion seemed to be degenerating into general humanities-bashing, and I wanted to counter that. Philosophy is often attacked as especially 'woke,' yet Swarthmore's philosophy offerings are strikingly un- or even anti-'woke' (without being ideological in the other direction either).

I would not agree with you. I suspect you're being defensive. The Swarthmore list of classes is more "woke" than not with its clear deemphasis on a strong grounding in traditional historical topics. It's spread thinly across many disciplines save one, which does have some depth, and that's black/African.

The English major a few pages back gave an excellent overview of how many males would view the situation of humanities, how the courses are created, taught, the topics covered, the classroom discusses the professors allow, and why it would play a role in the large decline in men studying humanities in college. There's nothing new or speculative about it, it's a topic that's being talked about in many places.

If you consider yourself a progressive person and who signed up for the 1619 outlook, doubtlessly you'll find comfort in the Swarthmore offerings and will want to insist that the real reason for the decline in history majors is solely due to the cost of higher education. But most American men, as data has borne out, veer center to conservative. This is not a curriculum for someone with centrist or conservative outlook and who's more interested in a pragmatic study of popular history topics like the Civil War, US history from the colonial days, 19th century Britain, Europe in the age of empires, the great wars, etc. Swarthmore isn't offering enough of the traditional subjects to merit a major if those are your interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While some here are criticizing the humanities, remember that most of their teachers—the people responsible for developing their thinking skills for the high paying careers—studied social sciences or humanities fields in undergrad. This is true even of STEMlords.

You're making some broad assumptions here.

Speaking of the decline in the humanities among men (and it's not just men, as fewer women are majoring in the humanities too), out of curiosity I glanced at the current history curriculum at Swarthmore: https://www.swarthmore.edu/history/current-courses

It's intriguing, to say the least. However your feelings on these courses, this would not have been the typical history department course offerings of 1990 or 1995 or 2000 or even 2005, when most of us adults on here would have been in college and browsing the course catalogues. I can also verify it's nothing like what my Ivy history department offered in the late 1990s into the 2000s. There are clear themes dominating the Swarthmore offerings in 2025 and I see why few young males would be interested in majoring in history. You'd have to be a particular type of student, either male or female, to be interested in these courses. You can also openly wonder if these courses are really a serious study of history or just something faddish, it's dominated by identity politics and one can be skeptical of any "rigor" being applied in these courses.

The teachers referred to in your post would have been educated under an older and different approach to studying humanities. Your claim doesn't hold up well.

Compare Swarthmore's course offerings in philosophy: https://www.swarthmore.edu/philosophy/course-offerings

There's only one course, over the next two years, that might seem 'faddish' or 'woke': 'Critical Philosophy of Race' -- though that course could well be rigorous and even-handed. (Rigorous and even-handed 'Philosophy of Race' courses have been taught in mainstream philosophy departments for more than 30 years.) All the other topics are exactly what students would have studied doing a philosophy major 50 or 100 years ago.

Maybe that's a reason to prefer history to philosophy at Swarthmore; I'm not adjudicating which approach is better. But the list gives clear counter-evidence to the claim that humanities departments are offering mostly identity politics or other 'unserious' courses of study.

It’s funny that you say this because philosophy is one of the only humanities that is majority male.

You're right, of course, that there's no lack of male philosophy majors. From that perspective, my comment was off-point. But the discussion seemed to be degenerating into general humanities-bashing, and I wanted to counter that. Philosophy is often attacked as especially 'woke,' yet Swarthmore's philosophy offerings are strikingly un- or even anti-'woke' (without being ideological in the other direction either).

I would not agree with you. I suspect you're being defensive. The Swarthmore list of classes is more "woke" than not with its clear deemphasis on a strong grounding in traditional historical topics. It's spread thinly across many disciplines save one, which does have some depth, and that's black/African.

The English major a few pages back gave an excellent overview of how many males would view the situation of humanities, how the courses are created, taught, the topics covered, the classroom discusses the professors allow, and why it would play a role in the large decline in men studying humanities in college. There's nothing new or speculative about it, it's a topic that's being talked about in many places.

If you consider yourself a progressive person and who signed up for the 1619 outlook, doubtlessly you'll find comfort in the Swarthmore offerings and will want to insist that the real reason for the decline in history majors is solely due to the cost of higher education. But most American men, as data has borne out, veer center to conservative. This is not a curriculum for someone with centrist or conservative outlook and who's more interested in a pragmatic study of popular history topics like the Civil War, US history from the colonial days, 19th century Britain, Europe in the age of empires, the great wars, etc. Swarthmore isn't offering enough of the traditional subjects to merit a major if those are your interest.

Huh? In the comment you're criticizing, I'm talking about philosophy. You're talking about history. You're missing my entire point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've had conversations with men about their education and career trajectory, and more than once they mentioned looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics for incomes based on their chosen path. I have never heard a woman say this.

I am a woman and majored in communications. When I was divorcing and broke I went back to school for an MBA to make money. I just don't think women are as inclined to make decisions based on financial outcomes as men are, because our perceived worth isn't (currently) based on our earning power, whereas with men that's pretty much it. And in fact, women still mostly want to be with men who make more than they do, so might even be disinclined (even if subconsciously) to seek out high-earning career paths.

Not PC but this is my take.

Maybe you were surrounded by very different women. I am an immigrant woman and my sisters and I were told very early that we need to be independent and not reliant on a male. It served us well because we majored in fields (combination of STEM and humanities) that helped us earn very well. We were well aware of lucrative fields by the time we were in college. I am thankful that my parents never instilled the kind of sentiment you expressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boys are raised with the social expectation that they need to support their family. (And yes this is related to attracting a mate.) Girls are not. The question for me is why are there so many girls still attracted to the humanities, despite the economics? What aren’t we teaching them?

None of this is to suggest that the humanities should not be taught, even required. But I do think that girls excuse themselves from thinking through the economic implications of majoring in humanities in a way that boys do not. And that’s our fault.

After years of seeing programs promoting STEM and Engineering to girls I was shocked to that my DS's 30 person mathcounts club at MS had 4 girls, 0 of the girls made the team. When we went to State this year, I think there were 2 girls in the top 12.

I have no idea why we have not been able to break through this barrier with girls and STEM topics but the disparity in numbers in my sons Advanced Math class in ES, Algebra 1 in 7th grade, his math competition class, and at Mathcounts points to a continuation of the notion that boys are better at math or belong in math. I have no idea why this continues, I would have expected things to strat balancing out more but it hasn't.

Brain differences. Some women genetically have that type of “male brain” and excel in STEM.

It’s not just a matter of exposing kids to STEM early, nature vs nurture.

It’s like music ability. Some people will never play the piano well, etc. They have zero ear for music.

This isn’t sexist or racist (I’m a woman in STEM, btw). More men are left brained. With CS and engineering there has been a link to autism traits as well.

There is much more going on than people appreciate.

You also find more women in microbiology, immunology, genetics, etc (the less mathematical/engineering type of STEM).

I agree with this (I tried desperately to get my daughter interested in CS, but she got a degree in genetics), but I will say that I’ve seen a lot of women who are strong in data science. Lots of women who are good at math don’t want to do pure math or engineering because they don’t find it particularly interesting. DS allows them to use those skills as a tool to research and discover things in domains they find interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've had conversations with men about their education and career trajectory, and more than once they mentioned looking at the Bureau of Labor Statistics for incomes based on their chosen path. I have never heard a woman say this.

I am a woman and majored in communications. When I was divorcing and broke I went back to school for an MBA to make money. I just don't think women are as inclined to make decisions based on financial outcomes as men are, because our perceived worth isn't (currently) based on our earning power, whereas with men that's pretty much it. And in fact, women still mostly want to be with men who make more than they do, so might even be disinclined (even if subconsciously) to seek out high-earning career paths.

Not PC but this is my take.

Maybe you were surrounded by very different women. I am an immigrant woman and my sisters and I were told very early that we need to be independent and not reliant on a male. It served us well because we majored in fields (combination of STEM and humanities) that helped us earn very well. We were well aware of lucrative fields by the time we were in college. I am thankful that my parents never instilled the kind of sentiment you expressed.

It’s interesting; the countries with the closest balance of men vs women in stem tend to be the most sexist countries; India, Pakistan, China, some Middle East countries etc. The countries with the most egalitarian policies (think Scandinavian countries) have some of the biggest gaps. The research showed that in the former countries women were picking these majors for strictly financial reasons. In the Scandinavian countries women were free to choose majors that interested them and they gravitate towards less remunerative non-STEM majors. I’d be curious about what country you immigrated from to see if this tracks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While some here are criticizing the humanities, remember that most of their teachers—the people responsible for developing their thinking skills for the high paying careers—studied social sciences or humanities fields in undergrad. This is true even of STEMlords.

You're making some broad assumptions here.

Speaking of the decline in the humanities among men (and it's not just men, as fewer women are majoring in the humanities too), out of curiosity I glanced at the current history curriculum at Swarthmore: https://www.swarthmore.edu/history/current-courses

It's intriguing, to say the least. However your feelings on these courses, this would not have been the typical history department course offerings of 1990 or 1995 or 2000 or even 2005, when most of us adults on here would have been in college and browsing the course catalogues. I can also verify it's nothing like what my Ivy history department offered in the late 1990s into the 2000s. There are clear themes dominating the Swarthmore offerings in 2025 and I see why few young males would be interested in majoring in history. You'd have to be a particular type of student, either male or female, to be interested in these courses. You can also openly wonder if these courses are really a serious study of history or just something faddish, it's dominated by identity politics and one can be skeptical of any "rigor" being applied in these courses.

The teachers referred to in your post would have been educated under an older and different approach to studying humanities. Your claim doesn't hold up well.

Compare Swarthmore's course offerings in philosophy: https://www.swarthmore.edu/philosophy/course-offerings

There's only one course, over the next two years, that might seem 'faddish' or 'woke': 'Critical Philosophy of Race' -- though that course could well be rigorous and even-handed. (Rigorous and even-handed 'Philosophy of Race' courses have been taught in mainstream philosophy departments for more than 30 years.) All the other topics are exactly what students would have studied doing a philosophy major 50 or 100 years ago.

Maybe that's a reason to prefer history to philosophy at Swarthmore; I'm not adjudicating which approach is better. But the list gives clear counter-evidence to the claim that humanities departments are offering mostly identity politics or other 'unserious' courses of study.

It’s funny that you say this because philosophy is one of the only humanities that is majority male.

It has already been stated that history is majority male. Kind of makes these mental gyrations even more gyrational.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many lawyers make a good living with their humanities degrees.

Correction: Many lawyers make a good living with their law degrees.

Please enlighten us about the path where non-humanities majors get to become lawyers without also having to obtain a law degree!

[Anonymous]

What’s been left out of this is most STEM majors don’t work in their field either. They also become lawyers or get their MBA or whatever — which they never needed their STEM majors for. Or, their work is ultimately unrelated to their major as well.