Grad School in the Humanities: Just Don't Go (masters degree, high school, master's)

[Empidonax]

Originally Posted by user_id

You are making the same error as before, namely, you are equivocating. The "philosophy" of today is not the "philosophy" of the ancient Greeks, etc. Thinking of philosophy giving "birth" to the sciences is rooted in this equivocation, philosophy (pre-renaissance) didn't give birth to the sciences instead the sciences and modern philosophy split from a common intellectual history.

I'm not claiming that the philosophy of earlier times is the same as the philosophy of today. I'm saying that there is enough of a coherent tradition connecting them to say that they are not completely separate. The philosophy of the ancients was not the philosophy of the medieval period, which was not the philosophy of the Renaissance era, yet there is significant continuity between them. And there is continuity into today's philosophy--many of the questions and procedures have not changed, though some have.

Also, empiricism is a philosophic position, its not "the scientific method".

Empiricism is a philosophical position that forms the core of what we call the modern scientific method. Empirical thinking directly led to the development of modern science in the 18th and 19th centuries. Of course, scientific observation and method (Aristotle, Copernicus, Galileo, Leibniz, Newton, et al.) existed before Locke, Hume, and Berkeley.

As for the humanities outside of philosophy, I didn't mean to suggest they were entirely fabricated by the modern university environment. They have a history, but having a history doesn't mean its a serious discipline. Astrology has a long history too.....yet not very serious. Perhaps if Astrologers only made unfalsifible claims we'd be teaching it in our universities along with English, Women's studies, etc.

Very true, a historical tradition itself does not in and of itself warrant serious study. What is serious and interesting to some is not serious and interesting to others. The study of English and other languages has involved the study of etymologies, grammar, rhetoric, genres, themes, debates, and other things. The study of history has involved attempts to understand the past and heritage of communities, as well as strive for truth about events and their consequences. I think these enterprises are rather serious and worthwhile, but admittedly, the nature of language, discourse, and human affairs does not interest everyone.

"Great scholarship" is judged within an intellectual community, if the entire discipline is suspect then the judgement of the community really doesn't matter. Generating great works of literacy criticism may be useful for gaining status within the literary community, but its otherwise no more useful than an astrological prediction.

It depends on how much you care about astrology or literature. I admit that literature has fallen out of favor as an area of serious study, in large part due to the excesses of literary criticism. But there is and always has been good (well-researched, cogently argued, jargon-free) lit criticism. And literature itself is still great: Dante is still Dante, Cervantes is still Cervantes, in spite of what has been inflicted on them.

An intellectual discipline is not created by merely thinking about some topic and I'm not sure why you think the fact that people throughout history have thought about women legitimatizes the modern field of "Women's studies". What does "Women's studies" bring to the table that isn't found in Philosophy or the sciences? Fields with actual methodologies....... Nothing, its just a discipline centered around particular ideas instead of a particular methodology.

I generally agree with this. But fields like Women's Studies emerged in order to give a platform and voice to traditions that were less visible within history and other disciplines. There is no methodology for Women's Studies and similar fields because they are interdisciplinary--the methodologies vary by scholar, according to the training (history, economics, literature, etc.) of the scholar.

So, as I said, the humanities (of today) are good at generating revenue at US universities and keeping humanities professors employed (who know what many of them they'd do otherwise....) and rather bad at providing a serious education to students.

If you're inclined to dislike the humanities without seriously studying them, then yes, I agree. This stance is similar to other forms of anti-intellectualism that I sometimes see--the belief that math is "useless" in daily life, the belief that much science is driven by corporate imperatives, and the belief that most science is merely so much tinkering around in the lab with rats.

The fact is that, regardless of what you think of modern universities or job trends, all of these fields are worth studying. Languages exist, and are challenging and rewarding to learn. Do you really think it's that easy to learn a second or third language? Literature and history can be very challenging, especially if a person tries to build a coherent understanding of them. Do you really think it's a breeze to read Dante, Shakespeare, or Joyce? The classes people take as requirements in some colleges may be "easy," but again, the problem is with the people, not with the subject matter. And even though I don't "believe" in astrology, even that is a fascinating subject to study in its historical context.

[BigDGeek]

I got a degree in the humanities in the 1990s and after briefly working as a translator, got into IT where I've been ever since. I don't regret my degree, though if I had it to do over again I might have studied mathematics instead of applied linguistics. If I ever win the lottery, I'm going back to school to get a math degree simply because it would be challenging for me.

While it would be nice for my ego to have a graduate degree, I don't need one to excel/progress in my career. So I haven't gotten one. My brother, on the other hand, needed an MBA to progress in his career since that degree is pretty much a requirement to get into middle management in finance. He admits that he didn't need the education; what he needed was those three letters on his resume. Cost him $50k to get them, too.

I acquired at least 21 credit hours per language in three separate languages in college, and in one language I acquired over 80. Beyond the three I studied in college and English, which is my native language, I speak two more. I got the standard government recruiting letters when I graduated; the CIA wanted to pay me a whopping $28k a year to translate. I turned them down.

[Hamish Forbes]

I'm beginning to change my mind about this question.

From a pragmatic point of view, the answer is clear. Graduate study in the humanities is a losing proposition. No jobs, no money, negative return on investment, for the most part. Perhaps graduate school is a comfortable refuge for someone who is trying to postpone entering the workforce. In any case, a person's life doesn't need to be run necessarily as though it were a business. That's OK with me.

As to the intrinsic worth -- questionable in many cases. I think that the various disciplines can be arranged hierarchically, with philosophy at the top due to its rigor, and the grievance disciplines like women's studies and African-American studies at the bottom. History would be second, after philosophy, as a knowledge of history is arguably useful and worthwhile, and the discipline has at least some approximation to a legitimate methodology. Maybe music would be next. English -- the case would be really shaky.

As to the grievance studies -- not only are they little more than politicized wishful thinking, they damage the student's ability to function in the real world. I have seen several women's studies majors walked to the door of a major corporation that tried very hard to accommodate them, only to find that the walkees were always the belligerent victims of this or that rather than the authors of mistakes like the rest of us. Notoriously, departments of African-American Studies are often academic redoubts for athletes who can't pass in any other discipline (witness the ongoing scandal at UNC).

In my opinion, the study of humanities had far greater value when we had an agreed canon that circumscribed Western culture. Educated people then had a common core of cultural knowledge, and could communicate with each other all the better as a result. That was the value. Unfortunately, the modern approach to the humanities is to denigrate every aspect of the notion of a core, or even the notion that one idea or way of life could be any better than any other. Chaos. Nihilism. Most of the knowledge now transmitted in graduate-level study of the humanities is epistemologically weak and of little use or interest to anyone except specialists in the particular splinter under study (presuming the existence of more than one specialist per splinter). The humanities professorate seem to be trying to commit mass suicide.


Just another opinion . . .

[Empidonax]

Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes

As to the intrinsic worth -- questionable in many cases. I think that the various disciplines can be arranged hierarchically, with philosophy at the top due to its rigor, and the grievance disciplines like women's studies and African-American studies at the bottom. History would be second, after philosophy, as a knowledge of history is arguably useful and worthwhile, and the discipline has at least some approximation to a legitimate methodology. Maybe music would be next. English -- the case would be really shaky.

Have you actually studied all of these fields? Or are you basing your opinion on indirect perceptions?

There is a lot of shoddy philosophy scholarship, and there is some excellent scholarship aligned with other humanities fields. The best approach, I think, is to take everything on a case-by-case basis, but admittedly that requires more effort and work.

In my opinion, the study of humanities had far greater value when we had an agreed canon that circumscribed Western culture. Educated people then had a common core of cultural knowledge, and could communicate with each other all the better as a result. That was the value.

I agree with this to an extent, though the humanities core for the U.S. and England is different for Italy, Spain, and other countries. The canon has always been a bit fluid because of this, and when you consider that China, India, and other ancient places have their own core, the insistence on a static notion of the canon is itself wishful thinking.

Unfortunately, the modern approach to the humanities is to denigrate every aspect of the notion of a core, or even the notion that one idea or way of life could be any better than any other.

Not exactly. Most humanities teachers and scholars recognize a core of some kind. The core for one is not always the same as the core for another, but they usually overlap. A core of study is usually enshrined in a program reading list that the student is responsible for knowing. This is standard practice.

Chaos. Nihilism. Most of the knowledge now transmitted in graduate-level study of the humanities is epistemologically weak and of little use or interest to anyone except specialists in the particular splinter under study (presuming the existence of more than one specialist per splinter). The humanities professorate seem to be trying to commit mass suicide.

Most of the humanities professoriate is quite balanced, actually. The profs at community colleges, unglamorous state schools, and various private schools teach composition, Shakespeare, linguistics, Chinese, art history, and other basics without much fussing around. But I agree that the sensationalism surrounding the humanities--the culture wars, trendy literary theories, arcane authors of questionable merit, classrooms turned into leftist training camps, cultural chaos and nihilism--is very appealing to people who don't actually care to look at the bigger picture.

[Hamish Forbes]

Thanks for your response; I don't really expect that many people will agree with me! Maybe you are right.

I am a retired engineering scientist and applied mathematician with corporate management experience and a little R1 faculty work along the way. Of course I have not studied all of the fields in depth, nor have you. Nobody has in this era of specialization. But I am fairly well read, including a lot of the meta literature about higher education.

Regarding the bigger picture -- the study of the humanities as presented today has unfortunately (and I mean that sincerely, as I actually contribute financially to a national organization that encourages study of the humanities) become increasingly irrelevant, unfunded, and unpopulated. In my opinion this is due to the course that many of the disciplines have taken, and is a natural outcome of that course. I think that academic standards in many humanities departments have become exceedingly low in an age when everybody gets a trophy and every idea has the same merit, which is reflected in the marketplace demand for humanities graduates, including at the adanced-degree level.

[Bettafish]

Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes

Thanks for your response; I don't really expect that many people will agree with me! Maybe you are right.

I am a retired engineering scientist and applied mathematician with corporate management experience and a little R1 faculty work along the way. Of course I have not studied all of the fields in depth, nor have you. Nobody has in this era of specialization. But I am fairly well read, including a lot of the meta literature about higher education.

Regarding the bigger picture -- the study of the humanities as presented today has unfortunately (and I mean that sincerely, as I actually contribute financially to a national organization that encourages study of the humanities) become increasingly irrelevant, unfunded, and unpopulated. In my opinion this is due to the course that many of the disciplines have taken, and is a natural outcome of that course. I think that academic standards in many humanities departments have become exceedingly low in an age when everybody gets a trophy and every idea has the same merit, which is reflected in the marketplace demand for humanities graduates, including at the adanced-degree level.

In the past, terminology and information alone were important. Nowadays, everyone can just google.
Many professions will die. I hope young people realize that.

[user_id]

Originally Posted by Empidonax

I'm not claiming that the philosophy of earlier times is the same as the philosophy of today. I'm saying that there is enough of a coherent tradition connecting them to say that they are not completely separate.

What you've said is that the humanities gave birth to science and that is wrong, it is wrong because "the humanities" have changed over the years and before the renaissance the subjects found today in "the humanities" as well as science were all part of the same intellectual enterprise. To say it again, science and philosophy share a common ancestor.....one didn't birth the other.

Originally Posted by Empidonax

Empiricism is a philosophical position that forms the core of what we call the modern scientific method.

No, it does no such thing. Ironically its the opposite, the developments in science motivated Empiricism. After all, Newton finished his primary works before people like Hume were even born.

But this isn't the place to discuss philosophy.

Originally Posted by Empidonax

It depends on how much you care about astrology or literature. I admit that literature has fallen out of favor as an area of serious study, in large part due to the excesses of literary criticism.

How much one cares about a discipline says nothing about its legitimacy. I don't care about Dance, but I recognize it as a legitimate discipline of the arts. I like literature, yet I think all English departments should be closed up immediately.

Originally Posted by Empidonax

The fact is that, regardless of what you think of modern universities or job trends, all of these fields are worth studying. Languages exist, and are challenging and rewarding to learn. Do you really think it's that easy to learn a second or third language?

Telling me your opinion on matters is a "fact" is silly..... You are free to have whatever view you like....and so am I. You think their "worth studying", I think they (excluding philosophy) are worthless disciplines that should be avoided.

And yes, I do think its easy to learn a second language. I mean, c'mon, this sort of thing is common throughout the world....it is only in the US where people are allergic to learning a second language.

As I side note, though Philosophy is a perfectly legitimate discipline....the programs in US colleges tend to be very weak so one should be mindful of that. So its probably a good idea to combine philosophy with something else, an art, Mathematics, Science or be sure to go well beyond the university requirements (take grad courses as an undergrad, etc).

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by loloroj

It used to be that a degree in foreign languages or linguistics would assure you of a job, usually with the State Department or school districts. Not now I guess, we have so many foreign born citizens who know several languages without college or schooling that even those two fields are suspect....

The US gov't still needs language experts, especially in Near Eastern languages. They're still taking graduates with knowledge of Russian and Chinese, too. People with PhD's in these languages can get hired to teach those languages to other gov't employees. Combining a degree in a language with a business degree is one way to go.

I know someone who recently graduated with two MA's in Art and Art History. She's doing fine, designing her own programs and getting hired by universities to put implement them. She also has options to work with museums as guest curator for special exhibits. Getting internships while studying greatly facilitates employability these days. Networking and making potential connections for jobs upon graduation are key. It's still possible to find employment in humanities-related jobs, but an economy that's not expanding isn't going to be able to absorb as many specialists as a strong economy, that's certainly true.

[in_newengland]

Studying the humanities will not usually get you a job. It may be interesting and fulfilling but you'll usually end up suffering in debt and working at some dead end low paying job.

This is nothing new. The humanities are for the rich or well connected. If I was told that even back in the 60s, and people knew that in the 70s and 80s, then why did people start getting degrees in the humanities again? Especially when the economy was getting worse and worse.

Get a degree in something practical and then someday maybe you can take a few courses in the humanities for enjoyment and the rounding out of your education. Young people---pay attention and I hope you are reading threads like this.

[Huckleberry3911948]

if everyone in america has a PhD then the person that cuts your lawn and cleans your toilets and cooks your food will have a doctorate. just like france.
consider a trade instead.