Colleges firing humanities professors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The world does not need more history, philosophy, literature, religious studies students. Students who are going into these fields have not been advised properly.

Everyone is learning humanities. Including STEM students. Look at their course work, more than 60% in humanities.

You dont need a major in history. Who would need history majors? History teachers/professors, yes. That is a tiny portion of the population. The numbers graduating in that major are multiples of those actually needed.

How do we know? The market is a good mechanism for what skills are valuable. If you paid attention in humanities courses, you would have learned about it.

- STEM professional

This is short-sighted thinking, and also written by someone who doesn't understand how college finances work. At many universities, the number of majors per department is not as useful a number as the number of students taught per professor. So, you'll have lots of people who need to take classes in math, statistics, foreign languages, history, literature, world religions, philosophy, etc., but they won't necessarily major in them. Universities need these faculty.
The market is not always a good indicator--it's a short term indicator. It can take years of education to fully train people who become experts in the Middle East or East Asia. If you want to save historically important art or literature, you also need to train students for a long time.
Humans are not just robots, there are a lot of factors that lead to a full and meaningful life. Maybe you and your family personally don't appreciate the arts, design, history, religion, or foreign cultures, but a lot of people do, and investing in people who can create and preserve these aspects of humanity is worthwhile for those who can appreciate their importance.

I love history, studying foreign cultures, religion, philosophy and nearly 20% of my book collection is biographies. They are all important and make life interesting and meaningful.

The flaw in your thinking is that we need a huge portion of our students to be majoring in them. As I mentioned, more than 60% of course work even for a STEM degree is in these fields. We dont need 25% of the population majoring in these to "who can create and preserve these aspects of humanity". The numbers a fraction of what is currently being output in universities.

You are dead wrong about the market. It might be wrong in the short term, but it is always right in the long term. Market gets somethings wrong in the short term, we see this again and again. But 100% right in long term. No exception. None. Show me one case where something has been wrong say 30 years in market price. Name one single thing.

The market is saying history and other such majors are not worth the money being spent. If you major in these, you are just hoping something clicks or the Government is going to wipe out your debt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The world does not need more history, philosophy, literature, religious studies students. Students who are going into these fields have not been advised properly.

Everyone is learning humanities. Including STEM students. Look at their course work, more than 60% in humanities.

You dont need a major in history. Who would need history majors? History teachers/professors, yes. That is a tiny portion of the population. The numbers graduating in that major are multiples of those actually needed.

How do we know? The market is a good mechanism for what skills are valuable. If you paid attention in humanities courses, you would have learned about it.

- STEM professional

This is short-sighted thinking, and also written by someone who doesn't understand how college finances work. At many universities, the number of majors per department is not as useful a number as the number of students taught per professor. So, you'll have lots of people who need to take classes in math, statistics, foreign languages, history, literature, world religions, philosophy, etc., but they won't necessarily major in them. Universities need these faculty.
The market is not always a good indicator--it's a short term indicator. It can take years of education to fully train people who become experts in the Middle East or East Asia. If you want to save historically important art or literature, you also need to train students for a long time.
Humans are not just robots, there are a lot of factors that lead to a full and meaningful life. Maybe you and your family personally don't appreciate the arts, design, history, religion, or foreign cultures, but a lot of people do, and investing in people who can create and preserve these aspects of humanity is worthwhile for those who can appreciate their importance.

Very well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The world does not need more history, philosophy, literature, religious studies students. Students who are going into these fields have not been advised properly.

Everyone is learning humanities. Including STEM students. Look at their course work, more than 60% in humanities.

You dont need a major in history. Who would need history majors? History teachers/professors, yes. That is a tiny portion of the population. The numbers graduating in that major are multiples of those actually needed.

How do we know? The market is a good mechanism for what skills are valuable. If you paid attention in humanities courses, you would have learned about it.

- STEM professional

This is short-sighted thinking, and also written by someone who doesn't understand how college finances work. At many universities, the number of majors per department is not as useful a number as the number of students taught per professor. So, you'll have lots of people who need to take classes in math, statistics, foreign languages, history, literature, world religions, philosophy, etc., but they won't necessarily major in them. Universities need these faculty.
The market is not always a good indicator--it's a short term indicator. It can take years of education to fully train people who become experts in the Middle East or East Asia. If you want to save historically important art or literature, you also need to train students for a long time.
Humans are not just robots, there are a lot of factors that lead to a full and meaningful life. Maybe you and your family personally don't appreciate the arts, design, history, religion, or foreign cultures, but a lot of people do, and investing in people who can create and preserve these aspects of humanity is worthwhile for those who can appreciate their importance.

I love history, studying foreign cultures, religion, philosophy and nearly 20% of my book collection is biographies. They are all important and make life interesting and meaningful.

The flaw in your thinking is that we need a huge portion of our students to be majoring in them. As I mentioned, more than 60% of course work even for a STEM degree is in these fields. We dont need 25% of the population majoring in these to "who can create and preserve these aspects of humanity". The numbers a fraction of what is currently being output in universities.

You are dead wrong about the market. It might be wrong in the short term, but it is always right in the long term. Market gets somethings wrong in the short term, we see this again and again. But 100% right in long term. No exception. None. Show me one case where something has been wrong say 30 years in market price. Name one single thing.

The market is saying history and other such majors are not worth the money being spent. If you major in these, you are just hoping something clicks or the Government is going to wipe out your debt.

Please read carefully. That is not the argument I made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a college fair this week. Ivys and public schools had long lines. Many small private colleges without name recognition had nobody showing interest. I'm not sure how they will survive but they will probably need to start by cutting programs that don't make money.

100% correct.

Families cannot pay outrageous costs of attendance for a four year humanities degree without decent employment prospects.

More colleges will follow the Bridgewater College lead which dropped tuition from $40k to $15k. The game of a high rack rate, with a low net rate after merit is no longer working.

That will only apply to T100 and below. There will always be umc willing to pay $250k+ for a liberal arts degree in T75 and above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The world does not need more history, philosophy, literature, religious studies students. Students who are going into these fields have not been advised properly.

Everyone is learning humanities. Including STEM students. Look at their course work, more than 60% in humanities.

You dont need a major in history. Who would need history majors? History teachers/professors, yes. That is a tiny portion of the population. The numbers graduating in that major are multiples of those actually needed.

How do we know? The market is a good mechanism for what skills are valuable. If you paid attention in humanities courses, you would have learned about it.

- STEM professional

This is short-sighted thinking, and also written by someone who doesn't understand how college finances work. At many universities, the number of majors per department is not as useful a number as the number of students taught per professor. So, you'll have lots of people who need to take classes in math, statistics, foreign languages, history, literature, world religions, philosophy, etc., but they won't necessarily major in them. Universities need these faculty.
The market is not always a good indicator--it's a short term indicator. It can take years of education to fully train people who become experts in the Middle East or East Asia. If you want to save historically important art or literature, you also need to train students for a long time.
Humans are not just robots, there are a lot of factors that lead to a full and meaningful life. Maybe you and your family personally don't appreciate the arts, design, history, religion, or foreign cultures, but a lot of people do, and investing in people who can create and preserve these aspects of humanity is worthwhile for those who can appreciate their importance.

I love history, studying foreign cultures, religion, philosophy and nearly 20% of my book collection is biographies. They are all important and make life interesting and meaningful.

The flaw in your thinking is that we need a huge portion of our students to be majoring in them. As I mentioned, more than 60% of course work even for a STEM degree is in these fields. We dont need 25% of the population majoring in these to "who can create and preserve these aspects of humanity". The numbers a fraction of what is currently being output in universities.

You are dead wrong about the market. It might be wrong in the short term, but it is always right in the long term. Market gets somethings wrong in the short term, we see this again and again. But 100% right in long term. No exception. None. Show me one case where something has been wrong say 30 years in market price. Name one single thing.

The market is saying history and other such majors are not worth the money being spent. If you major in these, you are just hoping something clicks or the Government is going to wipe out your debt.

Here's a big and complicated example. I had just started as an assistant professor in history with a focus on Middle East Studies when 9/11 happened. I was one of very, very people people the gov't could tap who could speak Arabic, knew a lot about the region, and a lot about Islam. I did not want to work for the US govt because I believed strongly at time, as did all of my colleagues who knew anything about the region, that starting a war in Iraq over crimes committed by Saudi citizens encamped in Pakistan was going to be disastrous. It was an unmitigated disaster, and remains so to this day and will likely remain so for at least another two generations--well beyond "30 years." A big part of the ruinous strategy was the incompetence of officers and decision makers in the region who had no education, training, or background or understanding of Iraq, or its people, governance, structure, economy, history, culture, beliefs, practices, values, etc. You can't just overnight prepare dozens of PhDs and experts in the humanities and social sciences to prepare for this sort of event. All the engineers in the world can't engineer their way out of this kind of complex political and humanitarian situation that undoubtedly has economic repercussions on the price of oil, relations with Saudi and Iran, and relatedly our reliance upon China and Russia.

[Anonymous]

I have long believed that the college market was in a bubble that would burst. This is why I haven't funded our 529s at the level suggested-- I hear 120k per kid, and I don't believe the market will hold at prices that high into the next decade. I'm in a position to pay cash for basically any college without much angst, so the only reason to fund a 529 is the tax advantages. I don't believe the tax advantages outweigh the risk of the market popping and college prices coming back down to earth.

I think many colleges are going to go broke, or consolidate with other colleges if they are lucky. Laying off professors is only the beginning, and it won't only affect liberal arts. People now understand that college isn't that great for social mobility for people who have too many class "tells," and they would be much more economically mobile in a high paying trade jobs like electrician, welder, high end carpentry, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the hate against liberal arts is not a bug but a feature of a system that more and more seems to be capitalizing on people’s fears so the status quo isn’t challenged. And I say this as someone who works in a science based/“practical” field.

? the status quo would've been keeping liberal arts degrees.

Sorry my post wasn’t clear. I mean the status quo in society in general, not in colleges. The status quo as in not having the non-1 % challenge working conditions, the state of politics, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have long believed that the college market was in a bubble that would burst. This is why I haven't funded our 529s at the level suggested-- I hear 120k per kid, and I don't believe the market will hold at prices that high into the next decade. I'm in a position to pay cash for basically any college without much angst, so the only reason to fund a 529 is the tax advantages. I don't believe the tax advantages outweigh the risk of the market popping and college prices coming back down to earth.

I think many colleges are going to go broke, or consolidate with other colleges if they are lucky. Laying off professors is only the beginning, and it won't only affect liberal arts. People now understand that college isn't that great for social mobility for people who have too many class "tells," and they would be much more economically mobile in a high paying trade jobs like electrician, welder, high end carpentry, etc.

As of right now, having a college degree still does make sense. I think people are starting to realize that it does not make sense to go into debt for a brand name school. I think state schools will become even more competitive. And speaking of state schools, many are so expensive because of lack of funding at the state level. I also wonder if online classes from legit schools (vs. diploma mills) will become more popular. You take out room and board and it becomes more feasible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have long believed that the college market was in a bubble that would burst. This is why I haven't funded our 529s at the level suggested-- I hear 120k per kid, and I don't believe the market will hold at prices that high into the next decade. I'm in a position to pay cash for basically any college without much angst, so the only reason to fund a 529 is the tax advantages. I don't believe the tax advantages outweigh the risk of the market popping and college prices coming back down to earth.

Sounds like you need to talk with a tax advisor and a wealth management professional because there are a lot of things you can do with a 529 now even if your kid doesn't go to college or tuition prices drop, but you can't go in the other direction and recapture the lost tax savings from cashing out investments outside of the 529 to pay for college if your prediction doesn't come true.

[Anonymous]

It’s a school no one has heard of with a 50k COA that has a budget deficit. Of course they are cutting positions

“Steinmayer, who became president in July 2019, said leadership had recently managed to reduce a $7.5 million budget gap to $2.5 million despite the complications of the Covid pandemic. Instead of building slowly back to pre-Covid enrollment levels, though, a school that was finding its footing “hit a cliff,” she said, referring to a dramatic drop in enrollment seen as demographic in nature – that there aren’t as many traditional-age students seeking bachelor’s degrees, particularly in New England.“

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we could lose a few thousand more humanities professors without undermining the economy. And I say that as someone who studied history at university and has done well.

Fewer liberal arts majors and more plumbers, electricians etc would be ok in my book.

So advancement for thee but not for me.

Lovely.

Not everyone deserves or is capable of "advancement". Far too many people go to college now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The world does not need more history, philosophy, literature, religious studies students. Students who are going into these fields have not been advised properly.

Everyone is learning humanities. Including STEM students. Look at their course work, more than 60% in humanities.

You dont need a major in history. Who would need history majors? History teachers/professors, yes. That is a tiny portion of the population. The numbers graduating in that major are multiples of those actually needed.

How do we know? The market is a good mechanism for what skills are valuable. If you paid attention in humanities courses, you would have learned about it.

- STEM professional

The market is not always a good indicator--it's a short term indicator. It can take years of education to fully train people who become experts in the Middle East or East Asia. [Thinking about our Middle East and East Asia policy since at least 1990, I think we wouldn't be any worse off if we had a lot fewer of those useless idiots.]

Humans are not just robots, there are a lot of factors that lead to a full and meaningful life. [Nobody needs to spend $300k on a liberal arts degree or take any liberal arts courses in order to have a "full and meaningful life". All the liberal arts knowledge anyone could possibly want is out there FOR FREE on the internet and in libraries.]

Maybe you and your family personally don't appreciate the arts, design, history, religion, or foreign cultures, but a lot of people do, and investing in people who can create and preserve these aspects of humanity is worthwhile for those who can appreciate their importance. [I don't believe our current academic world is even doing this. Most of what they're doing now is reinterpreting the arts, design, history, religion, and foreign culture in accordance with progressive dogma. This enterprise is wholly unworthy of funding or preservation. People who want to appreciate those things don't need to attend a university to do so.]

[Anonymous]

The "market" said we should boil the e
Earth..

[Anonymous]

Lesley U is a low-tier school (87% acceptance rate) in a saturated market. No-one is going there to study high-level humanities given the other options available nearby.

[Anonymous]

I'd like to encourage us to disambiguate a couple of categories.

1. Humanities vs. not-STEM

"Not STEM" does not equal "humanities," and "humanities" does not equal "distribution requirements."

Traditional humanities disciplines include languages and literatures, history, philosophy, and even art history and musicology. Some folks would also legitimately include political theory, especially but not only pre-modern political theory, and the research side of drama.

Psychology, sociology, and anthropology (for example) are not strictly humanities fields, although they can overlap and intersect with the traditional humanities in very interesting ways. And the methods of the social sciences have been productively informing the study and practice of history, for example, for quite some time.

Architecture, music, studio art, and theatre are also strongly humanities-adjacent in that the humanities inform much of the theory in these areas. But strictly speaking architecture is a professional area of degree study (with major technical elements), and the other fields are fine and performing arts.

2. The cost of a traditional (four-year, residential, young-adult age group) college education vs. the study of the humanities

Grant overhead ( = money that a university skims off for itself as an internal revenue share from major grant awards) is a terrific income stream, especially at R1s, but below that narrow band of institutions it is only part of the financial mix. It is much more expensive to operate STEM fields than most people realize, given the needs for up-to-date facilities and equipment, and even the sheer costs of licensing the necessary technology.

The humanities are cheap. I mean _really_ cheap. Humanities faculty are typically paid less than everyone else (except for the artists) and have some of the heaviest teaching loads. And when they are teaching distribution courses they teach a _lot_ of students. What makes humanities feel expensive is that having distribution requirements in the first place - any requirements - makes college longer. That is why there are so many 3-year bachelor's degrees in other countries and why the distinctive American education makes that same goal take 4 years - the distribution requirements add the time, but they also make the degree a different experience.

Folks who do not want those distribution requirements can find any number of ways to avoid them - dual-enrollment, AP, early college, community-college transfer agreements, colleges and universities with more flexible curricula. College is expensive, make no mistake, but it is not the humanists who are driving up the prices - it is a wide variety of factors.