The Humanities Calls Out a Skills Gap

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Jonathan Whatley, Aug 14, 2014.

Loading...
  1. Jonathan Whatley

    Jonathan Whatley Well-Known Member

    A professor of religion at the University of Rochester calls out specific skills associated with the humanities, that many science majors are missing:

    "For our children there is simply too much too learn and too few honest opportunities…" (public Facebook post by Douglas Brooks, August 14, 2014, written in response to Nicholas Kristof's New York Times op-ed "Don’t Dismiss the Humanities")
     
    Jonathan Whatley, Aug 14, 2014
    #1
  2. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    The post would be much more insightful and thought-provoking if he were more clear by what is meant by "humanities", the definition of which changes from school to school and department to department.

    Some definitions include history, philosophy and/or languages. I would agree with every one of his words if that is what he was talking about.

    Some definitions include the social sciences, which I would only somewhat agree with, depending on which field and to what degree. It would be nice if the general population had a strong understanding of how social science research was conducted, since it has such a great influence on how information is presented to us in the media and within political discourse. I'd like to do more reading on this subject myself, since even as a Social Sciences major, I only have a very basic understanding.

    Then again, if he were to speak of art, music and literature, then it gets more sticky for me. I might agree that there is a lot that we can learn from expressions of human creativity- often a lot more than we can learn from reading a history text book, reading a memoir or watching a documentary. However, I am not at all a fan of allowing other people, especially large, well-funded virtually impune social institutions to decide for me what art, music and literature throughout history is worthy of studying. I'm also not in favor of expecting students to spend massive amounts of money to take these courses as degree requirements.

    Lastly, I'm not in favor of formalized education doing what formalized education does invariably: sucking the fun out of everything. If you have ever taken a dry history or mathematics class, you can thank the institutionalized education system for ruining it for you. Math and history are naturally interesting to most of us since human beings are born with pscyhological programming that make us curious and empathetic about each other (<--history) as well as pattern-recognizing problem-solvers (<--math). How can you expect the situation to be any different when it comes to the humanities? From my (limited) experience, it isn't.

    I've taken art classes that, if not for the inconvenient mid-afternoon timing, would have been effective permanent cures for my intermittent insomnia.

    Formalized institutions very often have the need to intentionally make tedious any addition to their curiculum, as if to justify their consideration as academic subjects. Yes, fine, I agree that they are academic subjects, not just extracurriculars. I just don't understand why anyone believes that academic subjects need to be boring.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 14, 2014
    Maniac Craniac, Aug 14, 2014
    #2
  3. Johann

    Johann Well-Known Member

    Maniac: I just don't understand why anyone believes that academic subjects need to be boring.
    Johann: Tell them not to sweat it - it's just an accreditation requirement. :smile:

    Maniac: Then again, if he were to speak of art, music and literature, then it gets more sticky for me.
    Johann: "Humanities" (study of human culture) definitely includes literature, visual and performing arts AFAIK. So I guess it's sticky.


    Maniac (long ago in another post): I haven't written essays since high school.
    Johann: That agrees with what Prof. Brooks says about students not having "written a paper" since freshman requirements.

    I was lucky - my experience was different - at night school mostly, in my 40s to 60s. I wrote lots of papers - and found it was the best way (for me) to learn. As I see it, most students who have not had a significant writing requirement may have missed out on an important educational experience.

    Finally - yes, there are those inept so-called "teachers" who can make any subject boring. But an interested and inquisitive student can take learning into his/her own hands and outwit such a miscreant.

    Johann
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 14, 2014
    Johann, Aug 14, 2014
    #3
  4. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    I hate when people refer to the social sciences as humanities. Some subjects might straddle the two like cultural anthropology and history, but the social sciences are primarily the scientific study of human behavior. By the way, the study of classic literature is very conducive to developing analytical skills, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. Studying music theory helps with developing math skills since music theory is about patterns. Steve Jobs was an advocate for the study of art. It becomes very important in engineering, architecture, and graphic design.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2014
    sanantone, Aug 15, 2014
    #4
  5. Jonathan Whatley

    Jonathan Whatley Well-Known Member

    A defense of putting social sciences under humanities in this case is that Brooks writes about skills that are rooted in the humanities – "being able to read closely, think critically, or write argumentatively" – that are also bread and butter of social science education. I can't imagine he'd say that psychology and sociology graduates regularly leave his school, for instance, with almost no experience writing college papers beyond freshman requirements.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2014
    Jonathan Whatley, Aug 15, 2014
    #5
  6. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    The mistake would be to assume that only the humanities can help students be able to read closely, think critically, or write argumentatively. Instead of trying to classify the social sciences as humanities, it would make more sense to say that both the humanities and social sciences can help with these skills. However, some social sciences are quantitative (economics) or more like the life sciences (physical anthropology). Some of the humanities have hands-on courses (music, theater, and art).
     
    sanantone, Aug 15, 2014
    #6
  7. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    Good point. I honestly thought that my little brother, a smart guy and good student in his own right, lacked all of these skills until he started learning how to code computer software starting 3 years ago. I have never seen his writing, but I have noticed a huge change in his level of verbal articulation and his ability to both conceptualize abstract concepts and develop solutions for real world problems in this time. A change that I assumed with confidence was as a result of his study of IT and computer science.

    I never mentioned this to him, since I couldn't think of a way to say it without sounding like I was insulting him :sly: but he did reveal to me recently that he has also noticed this change in himself and attributed it entirely to learning how to code.
     
    Maniac Craniac, Aug 15, 2014
    #7
  8. Maniac Craniac

    Maniac Craniac Moderator Staff Member

    You know, I used to think that it was the students that were miscreants, until I started working in the school system :boggled:
     
    Maniac Craniac, Aug 15, 2014
    #8
  9. sanantone

    sanantone Well-Known Member

    A good way to judge how majors develop analytical and verbal skills is by looking at LSAT scores...or maybe not. The top scoring majors could just attract smarter students, but it shows that some of the STEM fields aren't lacking in these areas. Among majors where there were at least 450 people taking the test in 2007-2008, physics/math, engineering, and chemistry made it into the top 10. Economics was #2 (#1 among majors with at least 1,900 test takers), and it's the most quantitative social science. Because I have to always take a dig at my own major, criminal justice scored the lowest in both groups. That's really embarrassing because a lot of people major in CJ with the intention of going to law school.
    http://www.potsdam.edu/academics/AAS/Phil/upload/LSAT-Scores-of-Majors.pdf
     
    sanantone, Aug 15, 2014
    #9

Share This Page