# data[].attributes.body
https://blog.basisindependent.com/fremont/english-and-humanities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Language is a powerful tool, but to wield it effectively, you must have full command of it. In the BASIS.ed network of schools, we take best practices from schools all around the world and apply those practices to our curriculum. One of the best practices we have found is a deep dive into Humanities subjects.

According to information shared at a recent PISA4U event, there are things that all schools who perform well on the OECD's PISA test for schools have in common, including "high cognitive challenge of the traditional disciplines is [ sic] complemented by structures that allow students to participate actively in learning as discovery/invention/problem-solving. Schools use data to drive experimentation and to assess what works, and learn from good practices around the world, crossing borders and cultures to do so."

But why are the subjects of English and Humanities so important, and how do they relate to these recognized indicators of success?

"They're essential for learning," says Mr. Betcher, who teaches both subjects at BASIS Independent Fremont. "We have the space to teach children to think deeply. In English, we are able to sit down and ask questions that don't have answers, and think about how to answer those questions for themselves. For example, what does it mean to be moral, to be a good person? They can think about what they are learning and how it connects to the world they're in."

"These subjects are foundational for everything we need as adults," says Ms. Wagner, Humanities teacher. "In order to learn anything else, students have to be able to read and write. This is one of the most important things they can cover in school. Language is everything."

Humanities, taught to grades 1-4 at BASIS Independent Fremont, is a combination of English language arts and social studies. As students are learning to elevate their reading levels, they are also able to read more complex materials. Social studies provides a variety of opportunities for reading comprehension skills to be honed, and to give context to what students are learning about reading. Reading is best learned by doing.

In a recent first grade Humanities class, Ms. Wagner prompted students to take turns reading from their textbook about a mountain village in China. Between passages, she paused to ask questions about what the class just read to make sure everyone was understanding the material.

"What would they build a new school with, in this mountain community?" she asked, after a paragraph about a new school structure.

"Soil!" said one student.

"Bricks from broken houses?" wondered another.

Instead of giving students the answer right away, Ms. Wagner asked further questions to draw out their critical thinking and challenge their inference skills.

"If they are living on a mountain, what materials could they use that are already there?" she asked.

To wrap up the lesson, students discussed what the main idea of the passage had been, and how they came to that conclusion.

In second grade Humanities, Ms. Villanueva was teaching a lesson about the Pony Express. Using the Pony Express, news of President Lincoln's election took only five days to reach California, a new record at the time.

"How do you find out the news today?" she asked the class.

"The television!"

"The newspaper!" students responded.

"Well, back then, those were not options. You had to wait to learn the news, because it wasn't as convenient as it is today." The class was shocked that it could take so long to find out a piece of important information like the result of a presidential election!

"Humanities is special because we have a wide range of topics to cover throughout the school year," said Ms. Villanueva about her subject. "I love that I can teach reading, writing, social studies, and geography each week. We recently learned about the fifty states in geography before studying the Westward Expansion, so students could be more familiar about where pioneers traveled for our history unit."

Ms. Villanueva also teaches sixth grade English. "My goal for this class is for my students to learn how to discuss literature through analysis and Socratic seminars. Each grading period, we write an end of novel essay and have 1-2 days a week dedicated to sharing our opinions and interpretations of our readings. Although English primarily focuses on becoming a stronger writer, I think it is equally as important to learn how to communicate respectfully amongst peers."

In fourth grade Humanities, Mr. Betcher has been teaching about the Middle Ages and the Crusades. Students have also been reading The Tale of Despereaux.

"These kids are interested in looking at big world events and starting to engage in that same moral conversation. What does it mean to be brave, or different? What are the rules you should follow and what are ones you should question?" he said. "Kids can do more than we give them credit for. They're able to engage in these conversations I didn't get to start until I was older. Students have opinions at these ages that they believe in, though they might not know why, so we can have a conversation about it in these classes."

Mr. Betcher also teaches fifth grade English, where students are talking about themes of the stories they read. They are excited to ask each other "What If" questions and challenge one another. They are reading The Giver, a sharp dystopian novel that provides ample opportunities for these conversations and for learning about themes and patterns in literature.

Humanities and English at BASIS Independent Fremont give our students the skills they need to successfully tackle every other subject taught at our school, and the skills they'll need to succeed the rest of their lives!

Don't miss our next post! Subscribe to our blog and stay tuned for the next post giving you an inside look at BASIS Independent Fremont. Follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter for the latest buzz from BASIS Independent Fremont!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Humanities Turns Our Students Into Creative Communicators

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Language is a powerful tool, but to wield it effectively, you must have full command of it. In the BASIS.ed network of schools, we take best practices from schools all around the world and apply those practices to our curriculum. One of the best practices we have found is a deep dive into Humanities subjects.

# data[].attributes.body
Performing arts should be appreciated by all, but unless an audition is taking place, there should be no grades or unneeded criticism should be given.

# data[].attributes.body
Schools teach the humanities which is great, however, this grades children on their creativity. Art, choir, music, writing, and more are all classes that require some creativity. When a grade is given, it can discourage students from enjoying being creative all together.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Insightful and extremely funny, Sir Ken Robinson, expresses the need for creativity and arts in the lives of children. "All kids have tremendous talents..." he says. I agree. I also believe that we must give children opportunities to express and grow their talents. The question is: Do schools foster creativity?

Sir Robinson contends that "creativity now is as important in education as literacy." We can have all the facts in the world stored in our minds, but without creative comprehension we will not know what to do with all that knowledge.

For example, I have worked at a medical university for six years now and what I have discovered in evaluating the students is that many, although they possess great aptitude for memorizing facts, solving mathematical calculations, and following instructions, they often lack the ability and desire to think strategically. There is an important creative reasoning component that is essential to the practice of medicine and it has almost disappeared entirely. We have future medical doctors simply going through the motions or a checklist in their heads. They are lacking innovation because "they are frightened of being wrong" (Sir Robinson). We can do better by these students by encouraging creative thinking.

Sir Robinson expresses this way better than I do, so watch below as he entertains you with his British accented wit and wisdom on the importance of creativity in schools.

Walter Plume and the Dehydrated Imagination
Get it on Amazon! http://amzn.to/1HURaHD
Walter's summer looks downright boring.

But before his imagination breathes its last breath, Walter stumbles into a mystical land-a land where he has magic! He soon finds himself facing off against the evil Ickabod Von Snot-hook in a battle that will change everything.

Funny, fast-paced, and full of surprises, this book is guaranteed to leave you laughing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Insightful and extremely funny, Sir Ken Robinson, expresses the need for creativity and arts in the lives of children. "All kids have tremendous talents..." he says. I agree. I also believe that we must give children opportunities to express and grow their talents. The question is: Do schools foster creativity?

# data[].attributes.body
Failing a student in art of any form hinders their love for the humanities and also their self confidence in their creative abilities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We've all had them: The student who hurries through the assignment - work sloppy and incomplete. The one who turns in something that looks like it took all of half an hour when they had three days to work on it in class. The kid who skips planning and jumps right into the final project, wasting precious supplies.

"Ugh," we think. "This kid is so...lazy...apathetic...careless..."

It's easy to blame the student, it just not always fair or right. Instead, we need to start by examining our own behavior and practices because the reality is when children don't achieve, more than one person has failed. It's our job to do something about it, not just complain or make excuses.

The best teachers look at failure as the start of a conversation, not just a low mark to be added to the grade book.

They don't place blame. Instead, they problem-solve, asking:

Why did this happen?

How can I teach it in a way that will work?

How can I improve this lesson for the future?

Here are three common mistakes we make when kids fail and what to try instead.

1. Instead of blaming the student, find out what went wrong.

What looks like laziness can be a lack of understanding, or purposefully putting minimal effort in to save face. It could also be that your lesson needs retooling. If a student's work doesn't meet your goals for the lesson, sit down with them and figure out what went wrong together. Better yet, catch misunderstandings before work is finished by monitoring work in progress and addressing issues as they develop.

2. Instead of using grades to punish, start a conversation.

Many teachers are guilty of using grades as a form of punishment. Work is late, sloppy, or hurried? Points off! That will show them! The problem with this approach is that it does nothing to fix what caused the issue in the first place, it will almost always make things worse and it's just unprofessional. So, ask your kids what's going on and work with them to improve. Instead of taking off points, ask them to re-do it, saying, "I know you can do this!"

3. Instead of taking it personally, work to build relationships.

Student-teacher relationships play a large part in the success or failure of students. When you see a student challenged by a class you teach, especially if it's behavior-related, get to know them ASAP. Try asking them one question per class about their likes and interests. Find something they care about - or better yet - something you have in common, and build on it.

The Takeaway

When kids fail in art, don't blame them, act to solve the problem instead. Try to build a relationship by getting to know your students. Ask them what's going on when work isn't up to snuff and work together to come up with a plan to improve. Reteach when kids don't understand content. Trying these strategies will not only make your students successful, it will make your job easier and maybe even bring you some joy. The bottom line is this: if you find yourself in a classroom full of horrible, lazy children who don't try on their assignments, then you need a new approach or a new job.

If you're interested in learning more about running a more creative, student-centered classroom, be sure to join me at the Summer 2016 Art Ed Now Online Conference where I'll be presenting Ideas First: Teaching for Creativity at All Levels. Walk away with tools to revitalize your curriculum and an understanding of why kids need to use their own ideas in everything they do.
How do you approach failing grades in your classroom? What's your philosophy?
Magazine articles and podcasts are opinions of professional education contributors and do not necessarily represent the position of the Art of Education University (AOEU) or its academic offerings. Contributors use terms in the way they are most often talked about in the scope of their educational experiences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Whose Problem Is It When Students Fail Art? - The Art of Education University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We've all had them: The student who hurries through the assignment - work sloppy and incomplete. The one who turns in something that looks like it took all of half an hour when they had three days to work on it in class.

# data[].attributes.body
Many life skills can be learned from the humanities. Learning about different kinds of people and different ways to think about life is something that every student can benefit from.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Humanities are the instructors of enchantment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As we head into 2020, we're running the best, most insightful and most essential Worklife stories from 2019. Read all of the year's biggest hits here.
At university, when I told people I was studying for a history degree, the response was almost always the same: "You want to be a teacher?". No, a journalist. "Oh. But you're not majoring in communications?"

In the days when a university education was the purview of a privileged few, perhaps there wasn't the assumption that a degree had to be a springboard directly into a career. Those days are long gone.

Today, a degree is all but a necessity for the job market, one that more than halves your chances of being unemployed. Still, that alone is no guarantee of a job - and yet we're paying more and more for one. In the US, room, board and tuition at a private university costs an average of $48,510 a year; in the UK, tuition fees alone are £9,250 ($12,000) per year for home students; in Singapore, four years at a private university can cost up to SGD$69,336 (US$51,000).

Learning for the sake of learning is a beautiful thing. But given those costs, it's no wonder that most of us need our degrees to pay off in a more concrete way. Broadly, they already do: in the US, for example, a bachelor's degree holder earns $461 more each week than someone who never attended a university.

You might also like:
* The faster way to learn a new language
* How to teach a distracted generation
* The exam that brings a whole country to a standstill

But most of us want to maximise that investment - and that can lead to a plug-and-play type of approach to higher education. Want to be a journalist? Study journalism, we're told. A lawyer? Pursue pre-law. Not totally sure? Go into Stem (science, technology, engineering and maths) - that way, you can become an engineer or IT specialist. And no matter what you do, forget the liberal arts - non-vocational degrees that include natural and social sciences, mathematics and the humanities, such as history, philosophy and languages.

This has been echoed by statements and policies around the world. In the US, politicians from Senator Marco Rubio to former President Barack Obama have made the humanities a punch line. (Obama later apologised). In China, the government has unveiled plans to turn 42 universities into "world class" institutions of science and technology. In the UK, government focus on Stem has led to a nearly 20% drop in students taking A-levels in English and a 15% decline in the arts.

But there's a problem with this approach. And it's not just that we're losing out on crucial ways to understand and improve both the world and ourselves - including enhancing personal wellbeing, sparking innovation and helping create tolerance, among other values.

It's also that our assumptions about the market value of certain degrees - and the "worthlessness" of others - might be off. At best, that could be making some students unnecessarily stressed. At worst? Pushing people onto paths that set them up for less fulfilling lives. It also perpetuates the stereotype of liberal arts graduates, in particular, as an elite caste - something that can discourage underprivileged students, and anyone else who needs an immediate return on their university investment, from pursuing potentially rewarding disciplines. (Though, of course, this is hardly the only diversity problem such disciplines have).
Soft skills, critical thinking
George Anders is convinced we have the humanities in particular all wrong. When he was a technology reporter for Forbes from 2012 to 2016, he says Silicon Valley "was consumed with this idea that there was no education but Stem education".

But when he talked to hiring managers at the biggest tech companies, he found a different reality. "Uber was picking up psychology majors to deal with unhappy riders and drivers. Opentable was hiring English majors to bring data to restauranteurs to get them excited about what data could do for their restaurants," he says.

"I realised that the ability to communicate and get along with people, and understand what's on other people's minds, and do full-strength critical thinking - all of these things were valued and appreciated by everyone as important job skills, except the media." This realisation led him to write his appropriately-titled book You Can Do Anything: The Surprising Power of a "Useless" Liberal Arts Education.

Take a look at the skills employers say they're after. LinkedIn's research on the most sought-after job skills by employers for 2019 found that the three most-wanted "soft skills" were creativity, persuasion and collaboration, while one of the five top "hard skills" was people management. A full 56% of UK employers surveyed said their staff lacked essential teamwork skills and 46% thought it was a problem that their employees struggled with handling feelings, whether theirs or others'. It's not just UK employers: one 2017 study found that the fastest-growing jobs in the US in the last 30 years have almost all specifically required a high level of social skills.

Or take it directly from two top executives at tech giant Microsoft who wrote recently: "As computers behave more like humans, the social sciences and humanities will become even more important. Languages, art, history, economics, ethics, philosophy, psychology and human development courses can teach critical, philosophical and ethics-based skills that will be instrumental in the development and management of AI solutions.

Of course, it goes without saying that you can be an excellent communicator and critical thinker without a liberal arts degree. And any good university education, not just one in English or psychology, should sharpen these abilities further. "Any degree will give you very important generic skills like being able to write, being able to present an argument, research, problem-solve, teamwork, becoming familiar with technology," says Dublin-based educational consultant and career coach Anne Mangan.

But few courses of study are quite as heavy on reading, writing, speaking and critical thinking as the liberal arts, in particular the humanities - whether that's by debating other students in a seminar, writing a thesis paper or analysing poetry.

When asked to drill the most job market-ready skills of a humanities graduate down to three, Anders doesn't hesitate. "Creativity, curiosity and empathy," he says. "Empathy is usually the biggest one. That doesn't just mean feeling sorry for people with problems. It means an ability to understand the needs and wants of a diverse group of people.

"Think of people who oversee clinical drug tests. You need to get doctors, nurses, regulators all on the same page. You have to have the ability to think about what's going to get this 72-year-old woman to feel comfortable being tracked long term, what do we have to do so this researcher takes this study seriously. That's an empathy job."

But in general, say Anders and others, the benefit of a humanities degree is the emphasis it puts on teaching students to think, critique and persuade - often in the grey areas where there isn't much data available or you need to work out what to believe.

It's small wonder, therefore, that humanities graduates go on to a variety of fields. The biggest group of US humanities graduates, 15%, go on to management positions. That's followed by 14% who are in in office and administrative positions, 13% who are in sales and another 12% who are in education, mostly teaching. Another 10% are in business and finance.

And while there's often an assumption that the careers humanities graduates pursue just aren't as good as the jobs snapped up by, say, engineers or medics, that isn't the case. In Australia, for example, three of the 10 fastest-growing occupations are sales assistants, clerks, and advertising, public relations and sales managers - all of which might look familiar as fields that humanities graduates tend to pursue.

Star performers

Steve Ells, Chipotle founder, art history, University of Colorado at Boulder

George Soros, hedge fund manager, philosophy, London School of Economics

Alexa Hirschfeld, Paperless Post co-founder, classics, Harvard University

Andrea Jung, former Avon CEO, English language and literature, Princeton

JK Rowling, author, French and classics, University of Exeter

Larry Sanger, Wikipedia founder, philosophy, Reed College (plus a Ph.D in philosophy, Ohio State University)

Andrew Mason, Groupon founder, music, Northwestern University

Peter D Hancock, CEO of AIG, politics/philosophy/economics, Oxford

Jodi Kantor, Pulitzer prize-winning journalist, history, Columbia University

Stewart Butterfield, Flickr co-founder, philosophy, University of Victoria

Caterina Fake, Flickr co-founder, English, Vassar College

Carolyn McCall, CEO of ITV and former CEO of Easyjet, history and politics, University of Kent, Canterbury (plus master's degree in politics, University of London)

Chad Hurley, YouTube founder, fine art, Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Meanwhile, Glassdoor's 2019 research found that eight of the top 10 best jobs in the UK were managerial positions - people-oriented roles that require communication skills and emotional intelligence. (It defined "best" by combining earning potential, overall job satisfaction rating and number of job openings.) And many of them were outside Stem-based industries. The third best job was marketing manager; fourth, product manager; fifth, sales manager. An engineering role doesn't appear on the list until the 18th slot - below positions in communications, HR and project management.

One recent study of 1,700 people from 30 countries, meanwhile, found that the majority of those in leadership positions had either a social sciences or humanities degree. That was especially true of leaders under 45 years of age; leaders over 45 were more likely to have studied Stem.
Be career-ready
This isn't to say that a liberal arts degree is the easy road. "A lot of the people I talked to were five or 10 years into their career, and there was a sense that the first year was bumpy, and it took a while to find their footing," Anders says. "But as things played out, it did tend to work."

For some graduates, the initial challenge was not knowing what they wanted to do with their lives. For others, it was not having acquired as many technical skills with their degree as, say, their IT trainee peers and having to play catch-up after.

But pursuing a more vocational degree can come with its own risks too. Not every teenager knows exactly what they want to do with their lives, and our career aspirations often change over time. One UK report found that more than one-third of Brits have changed careers in their lifetime. LinkedIn found that 40% of professionals are interested in making a "career pivot" - and younger people are interested most of all. Focusing on broadly applicable skills like critical thinking no longer seems like such a moon shot when you consider how many different jobs and industries they can be applied to (though for a young person figuring out their career path, it's true that flexibility also can feel overwhelming).

Specialised technical skills are important in the job market too. But there are a number of ways to acquire them. "I'm very pro-internships and apprenticeships. We've seen that that can directly correlate to you having a more grounded skill base in the workplace," says career development coach Christina Georgalla.

"I even advocate that post-university, if you're not sure, take a year out and instead of going travelling, actually trial doing different internships. Even if it's the same field but in TV, say, broadcasting versus producing versus presenting, so you can see the difference."

But what about the other perceived pitfalls - like a higher unemployment rate and lower salaries?

Why broader matters
It's true that the humanities come with a higher risk of unemployment. But it's worth noting that the risk is slighter than you'd imagine. For young people (aged 25-34) in the US, the unemployment rate of those with a humanities degree is 4%. An engineering or business degree comes with an unemployment rate of a little more than 3%. That single additional percentage point is one extra person per 100, such a small amount it's often within the margin of error of many surveys.

Salaries aren't so straightforward either. Yes, in the UK, the top earnings are pulled in by those who study medicine or dentistry, economics or maths; in the US, engineering, physical sciences or business. Some of the most popular humanities, such as history or English, are in the bottom half of the group.

But there's more to the story - including that for some jobs, it seems that it's actually better to start with a broader degree, rather than a professional one.

Take law. In the US, an undergraduate student who took the seemingly most direct route to becoming a lawyer, judge or magistrate - majoring in a pre-law or legal studies degree - can expect to earn an average of $94,000 a year. But those who majored in philosophy or religious studies make an average of $110,000. Graduates who studied area, ethnic and civilisations studies earn $124,000, US history majors earn $143,000 and those who studied foreign languages earn $148,000, a stunning $54,000 a year above their pre-law counterparts.

There are similar examples in other industries too. Take managers in the marketing, advertising and PR industries: those who majored in advertising and PR earn about $64,000 a year - but those who studied liberal arts make $84,000.

And even while overall salary disparities do remain, it may not be the degree itself. Humanities graduates in particular are more likely to be female. We all know about the gender pay gap, and notable wage disparities persist in the humanities: US men who major in the humanities have median earnings of $60,000, for example, while women make $48,000. Since more than six in 10 humanities majors are women, the gender pay gap, not the degree, may be to blame.

We also know that as more women move into a field, the field's overall earnings go down. Given that, is it any wonder that English majors, seven in 10 of whom are women, tend to make less than engineers, eight in 10 of whom are men?

Do what you love
This is a big part of why there is one major takeaway, says Mangan. Whatever a student pursues in university, it must be something that they aren't just good at, but they really enjoy.

"In most areas that I can see, the employer just wants to know that you've been to college and you've done well. That's why I think doing something that really interests you is essential - because that's when you're going to do well," she says.

No matter what, making a degree or career path decision based on average salaries isn't a good move. "Financial success is not a good reason. It tends to be a very poor reason," Mangan says. "Be successful at something and money will follow, as opposed to the other way around. Focus on doing the stuff that you love that you'll be so enthusiastic about, people will want to give you a job. Then go and develop within that job."

This speaks to a broader point: the whole question of whether a student should choose Stem versus the humanities, or a vocational course versus a liberal arts degree, might be misguided to begin with. It's not as if most of us have an equal amount of passion and aptitude for, say, accounting and art history. Plenty of people know what they love most. They just don't know if they should pursue it. And the headlines most of us see don't help.

This is part of why parents and teachers often need to take a step back, Mangan says. "There is only one expert. I'm the expert on me, you're the expert on you, they're the expert on themselves," she says. "And nobody, I really mean nobody, can tell them how to do what they should be doing."

Even, it seems, if that means pursuing a "useless" degree - like one in liberal arts.

--
Amanda Ruggeri is a senior journalist and editor at BBC.com. You can follow her on Twitter at @amanda_ruggeri.
To comment on this story or anything else you have seen on BBC Capital, please head over to our Facebook page or message us on Twitter.
If you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter called "If You Only Read 6 Things This Week". A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Capital and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why 'worthless' humanities degrees may set you up for life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why bother with degrees like History or English? Here's why the liberal arts could leave you better prepared for employment than you think.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Part of the liberal arts, the humanities promote critical thinking, analysis, and creativity.

Unlike the social sciences, the humanities focus more on qualitative analysis.

Popular humanities majors include English, foreign languages, and history.

A humanities degree can prepare you for careers in writing, teaching, and advertising.

Humanities students learn about the rise and fall of empires, ancient and modern languages, and poetry of the Romantic era. As a core part of a liberal arts education, the humanities investigate literature, the past, culture, and human values. While learning about these topics, humanities majors also strengthen their research, writing, and critical thinking skills.

But what are the humanities? And what kinds of jobs can you get with a humanities degree?

What Is "Humanities" Exactly?

The humanities entail the study of the human world and society from a critical perspective. This field includes popular majors like English, history, and philosophy. In these disciplines, students investigate humanity itself (hence the name), applying critical methods to help them understand literature, art, and the past, as well as human morality, culture, and values.

Each humanities discipline relies on unique interpretation methods. Historians use the historical method, which can be further divided into branches like cultural history, quantitative history, and oral history.

Meanwhile, English and foreign languages use textual criticism to interpret sources, and philosophy applies conceptual analysis and experimental approaches.

How Do Colleges Define Humanities?

Most universities break down the humanities into different majors and group them together in a humanities division within a College of Arts and Sciences.

Here are some examples of humanities majors you could pursue:

Some colleges combine artistic majors with the humanities, meaning visual and performing arts majors like music, painting, and dance would fall under the "arts and humanities" umbrella.

Certain humanities disciplines may even straddle the boundary between humanities and social sciences. For example, many universities consider history and linguistics social sciences rather than humanities subjects. But how exactly do these two fields differ?
svetikd / E+ / Getty Images
Humanities vs. Social Science: How Do They Differ?

The humanities and social sciences are two components that make up the liberal arts (along with the arts and natural sciences). Although both disciplines investigate the human world and society, each relies on different methods and poses different types of questions.

Whereas English and philosophy majors critically analyze literature and ethics, economics and anthropology majors study society using more quantitative approaches. Unlike social science majors, humanities majors rarely use mathematical or statistical data in their analyses. Rather, they make interpretive and theoretical arguments about their subjects.

That said, some fields blur the line between the humanities and social sciences. History, for example, is a core humanities discipline that often relies on quantitative research and methods normally used in sociology and political science.

The humanities also boast a longer history than the social sciences. While social science disciplines date back to the 19th century, the humanities were studied long before then by the ancient Greeks and other classical-era scholars.

During the Renaissance, the studia humanitatis ("studies of humanity") became an integral part of the European education system. With a focus on classics, philosophy, history, and rhetoric, the humanities aimed to transform students into educated citizens.

What Are the Most Popular Humanities Majors?

Well over 100,000 students earn a bachelor's degree in a humanities subject each year.

According to the National Center for Education Statistics, more than 40,000 English language and literature majors graduated in 2018. That same year, 17,000 students majored in a foreign language, and just under 10,000 students earned a degree in philosophy and religious studies. General liberal arts and humanities degrees accounted for another 44,000 majors.

Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce ranks all majors by their popularity. After business and education, humanities and the liberal arts make up the third most popular area of specialization for college students.

Within the humanities, most students major in English, history, religious studies, art history, philosophy, a foreign language, or area/ethnic studies. Many also pursue a general humanities or liberal arts major.

The Role of the Humanities in Higher Education

The liberal arts consist of the humanities, arts, social sciences, and natural sciences. The humanities focus on critically interpreting culture and humanity and teach valuable skills, making them a central component of most colleges' general education requirements.

Humanities Classes as General Education Requirements

Colleges require general education courses in part thanks to Renaissance-era humanists who promoted the humanities. These people argued for a well-rounded, balanced curriculum that fostered critical thinking and other key intellectual skills.

Today, colleges use gen ed requirements to introduce students to a variety of disciplines and strengthen their analytical and problem-solving skills.

Most U.S. universities require multiple humanities courses in their gen ed curriculum. UCLA's gen ed requirements include classes in literary and cultural analysis, philosophical and linguistic analysis, and historical analysis.

In comparison, Williams College requires at least three courses each in the humanities, social sciences, and science/math, as well as two writing-intensive courses that often come from the humanities.

The 5 Essential Skills Gained From Humanities Courses

Humanities courses teach students about far more than just the French Revolution and William Shakespeare's plays. Students gain valuable skills from humanities courses, such as the ability to communicate effectively, work independently and in teams, and interpret information.

The following transferable skills have been shown to aid humanities majors on the job market:

Creativity

Humanities classes promote creativity, teaching students to think in complex, nuanced ways and set aside assumptions. Being able to propose innovative solutions or come up with new ways for communicating ideas can help professionals in all types of fields, including business and STEM, which heavily emphasize creative problem-solving.

Employers in many industries prioritize candidates with the above humanities skills. According to a 2019 report by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), a majority of employers experienced trouble finding job candidates with strong critical thinking, interpersonal, and communication skills.

Additionally, around 75% of employers believe these essential "soft" skills can help employees progress into leadership roles.

Lynn Pasquerella, president of the Association of American Colleges & Universities, claims that a humanities major teaches these exact skills.

"I was a philosophy major," Pasquerella told SHRM. "We composed arguments about issues, responded to objections, developed a capacity to imagine what it's like to be in the shoes of someone different, to listen critically, and to consider points of view that might call into question your fundamental beliefs."
kundoy / Moment / Getty Images
The Professional Value of a Humanities Degree

Research from Georgetown shows that at the start of their careers, humanities degree-holders earn around $29,000 per year, or slightly below the median salary for all college majors ($33,000). This median income for humanities majors increases to $52,000 for graduates with five or more years of work experience.

These wages may look low compared with other majors, but they're not set in stone.

One way humanities majors can increase their earning potential is by obtaining a graduate degree. These days, over 40% of humanities majors pursue advanced training. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences reports that a graduate degree in any field can increase a humanities major's earnings by as much as $20,000 per year.

What Jobs Can You Get in the Humanities?

Unlike graduates with career-focused degrees, humanities majors do not graduate and apply for a job as a humanist. That said, many humanities majors pursue careers in fields that are closely related to their major.

English majors, for instance, often establish careers in writing or editing, while foreign-language majors may choose to put their language skills to the test as an interpreter or translator.

Archivists and museum workers tend to have humanities backgrounds as well, though some positions may require a graduate degree. If you wish to work as a historian for an archive, government agency, or research organization, you'll most likely need at least a master's degree.

On PayScale's 2019 College Salary Report, some of the highest-paying jobs for humanities majors include communications director, content marketing manager, instructional designer, and technical writer, with mid-career salaries of over $65,000 per year. Each of these positions closely aligns with the skills you gain in a humanities degree program.

Median Humanities Salaries

Technical Writers: $72,850

Historians: $63,680

Writers and Authors: $63,200

Human Resources Specialists: $61,920

High School Teachers: $61,660

Editors: $61,370

Public Relations Specialists: $61,150

Interpreters and Translators: $51,830

Archivists, Curators, and Museum Workers: $49,850

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Additional Career Paths for Humanities Degree-Holders

The versatility of a humanities degree prepares graduates to work in a number of fields, such as education, business, government, library science, and law.

One popular career for humanities majors is teaching, as several secondary school subjects draw directly from the humanities. For example, English majors may work as language arts and literature teachers, whereas history majors can teach social studies, world history, or civics. Note that you'll likely need to complete additional educational requirements to obtain a teaching license.

Public relations, advertising, and communications are also common paths for humanities majors since these fields require strong persuasive, analytical, and communication skills. What's more, several of these fields offer six-figure salaries at the managerial level. Advertising managers and public relations managers can each earn over $115,000 a year.

A background in the humanities can even provide a solid foundation for law school. A 2018 study found that English, history, philosophy, and the general arts and humanities were among the top 10 majors for law students.

The tech industry, too, likes to hire humanities majors. In their 2018 book on the future of artificial intelligence (AI), Microsoft president Brad Smith and former executive vice president of AI and research Harry Shum argue, "Languages, art, history, economics, ethics, philosophy, psychology, and human development courses can teach critical, philosophical, and ethics-based skills that will be instrumental in the development and management of AI solutions."

Although professionals with a humanities degree must think creatively about how to apply their abilities to different industries, soft skills like research, communication, and critical thinking are guaranteed to appeal to employers in every sector.

Should You Get a Humanities Degree?

Humanities majors study great works of literature, complicated philosophical questions, and ancient civilizations. While earning a humanities degree, students also develop critical thinking, communication, and analytical skills.

One report states that 87% of humanities majors are satisfied with their jobs, a figure that rises to 90% for those with an advanced degree. Humanities majors also boast a relatively low 4.3% unemployment rate.

Furthermore, 60% of humanities majors work in managerial or supervisory roles, meaning that most humanities graduates will eventually progress into leadership positions, earning them more money in the long run.

Clearly, for many students, a humanities degree can really pay off. But as is the case with any major, you must be willing to work hard and take risks if you hope to be successful.

Additional Humanities Resources
Feature Image: Hiroshi Higuchi / The Image Bank / Getty Images

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The humanities focus on critically interpreting culture and humanity and teach valuable skills, making them a central component of most colleges'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Setting the Stage for Empathy in a STEM World

We are at a moment in time when the need to understand and empathize with each other has arguably never been greater.

Yet our schools seem focused on individual educational outcomes like employment rather than a collective pursuit of a civil society.

A recent report, Humanities Education in California: Access, Enrollment, and Achievement, tells us it's time to shift our focus a bit.

The humanities teach us about the human experience-our thoughts, our emotions, our interactions. They are subjects like history, English language arts, philosophy, foreign languages, and the arts: subjects that teach critical thinking, the power of curiosity and the joy of discovery.

Our children need the lessons of the humanities-of our history and our cultures-to help understand and value what we have in common, rather than what divides us.

We need to ensure that all students, not just those in more affluent communities, have a whole-child education, rich in the benefits of the humanities alongside the arts and STEM.

At California Humanities, we are exploring California's gaps in humanities education, and how to bring the humanities to more students. Anecdotally, we have sensed that humanities education has eroded over time, often left behind in the pursuit of STEM pressures and accountability measures. We wanted to know what is really happening, so we commissioned data analysis and research from SRI Education to look at the access and equity gaps in humanities education.

The findings are sobering. Students in more affluent schools have greater access to rigorous humanities courses than students do in higher-poverty schools. They also are enrolled in advanced courses more frequently than their peers in higher-poverty schools.

These disparities may contribute to achievement gaps on K-12 assessments of English and history, where wealthier and White and Asian students consistently outperform their poorer and Black and Hispanic/Latino peers.

A Closer Look at Key Findings

Not only does California trail most other states in academic performance, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), but there is a significant gap between low and high-poverty schools.
Access to Advanced Humanities Courses
California high schools offer a diverse set of advanced history/social science courses, but students in more affluent schools have greater access to most courses than their peers in higher poverty schools. Fewer high-poverty high schools offer advanced courses focused on the history and theory of the visual and performing arts than low-poverty schools.

Enrollment in Advanced Humanities Courses
Enrollment in humanities courses is comparable across the four poverty quartiles, except for foreign language courses. But there's a difference: students in more affluent schools are more likely to be enrolled in advanced humanities courses than students in high-poverty schools.

Statewide, male and female students enroll in humanities disciplines at similar rates; however, female students make up the majority of students enrolled in advanced humanities courses in all four disciplines.

Student Achievement

According to the report, student achievement in the humanities leaves plenty of room for improvement.

Less than half of California students are on track to graduate ready for credit-bearing humanities courses in college based on their scores on the state's 2016 English assessment.

Fewer than half of California students met proficiency standards on state-wide history exams, and some student subgroups performed only half as well as others.

Overall, California's students score at or above the national average on Advanced Placement exams in the humanities. However, California's White and Asian students score about an entire point higher than Black and Hispanic/Latino students on AP English and history exams.

Turning the Tide

What can we do to turn the tide and ensure that every child has access to a humanities-rich education?

The good news is there are lots of ways to increase access to the humanities, but it will take the engagement of parents in local communities. Here are some questions to ask to help schools and school districts take a closer look at access and equity in the humanities.

Assessing Access and Equity

Do all of the students in our school have access to a strong humanities curriculum? If not, why? This is a good question to ask your principal.

Are humanities courses used to help close achievement gaps? This is a good question to ask at your LCAP and site council meetings.

How are the humanities used to address school climate? This is a good question to ask educators and administrators at your school.

What should my child be learning in English language arts, history/social studies, the arts, and languages? This is a good question to ask your teacher and to have as a topic for a school wide parent meeting.

How is our school providing civic literacy? This is a good question to ask your teachers and principal.

How is the board of education working to ensure all students have access to a robust humanities curriculum? This is a good question to ask at a school board meeting.

With more education decisions made locally and the adoption of Common Core State Standards that value the humanities, we have the opportunity to ensure that every student has an education that includes the arts and humanities alongside (not instead of) STEM subjects. We need young people who are both data-focused and humanists, and parents and educators who understand that our democracy needs them to provide a robust civic education.

Julie Fry is President and CEO of California Humanities, a nonprofit partner of the National Endowment for the Humanities. California Humanities promotes the humanities - focused on ideas, conversation and learning - as relevant, meaningful ways to understand the human condition and connect us to each other in order to help strengthen California. California Humanities has provided grants and programs across the state since 1975. To learn more visit www.calhum.org, or follow them on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We are at a moment in time when the need to understand and empathize with each other has arguably never been greater. Yet our schools seem focused on individual educational outcomes like employment rather than a collective pursuit of a civil society.

# data[].attributes.body
STEM and Humanities both have a place in today's society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
If the academy truly desires greater representation in its ranks, it would provide robust postdoctoral support and dismantle the exploitative adjunct system.

Our case worker at the welfare office sat behind a Plexiglas wall. A slot near the desk and a circle of smaller holes at eye level allowed for the exchange of paperwork and small voices. On the other side of the glass, the woman was equipped with a computer, pens, and a bottle of hand sanitizer which she pumped vigorously several times upon sitting down. "We don't get the same desk every day," she explained.

Mom sat next to me twisting the strap of her purse around her palm as the case worker explained the application process.

"How old are you?" she asked me.

"Eighteen."

"In school full-time?"

"Part-time."

It was 2002. I had finished most of my high school classes the previous semester and planned to leave for university in the fall. I was going to study creative writing in Montreal, eight hours from home by car. It was as far as I could reasonably get without a plane ticket, and I still believed then that education alone would take me the rest of the way toward a better life.

"They told my mom on the phone I had to come since I'm not working?" I explained.

She shrugged. She was just following the rules, and exuding good cheer with all the sincerity of a decorative pillow embroidered with Live, Laugh, Love.

"What are your plans for work?" the woman asked me, her lacquered fingertips hovering just above the keyboard.

I leaned toward the glass. "I want to be an English professor."

She swallowed a smile as if I proposed something childish like "movie star," even if "English professor" was more practical, I thought, than my true ambition: writer. She blinked at me, and for a moment I worried that my entire future was dependent upon that woman typing the chosen occupation into her government form, as if my having the intention carefully articulated in my own mind wasn't enough.

Finally, I realized she wasn't interested in my career goals, but my survival. "I was waiting tables at a restaurant before," I said quickly. "Maybe I could get something like that again."

The humiliation was pointless in the end. The paltry amount of funds the worker approved to top-up what my mom received in child support and the wages of her part-time jobs - cleaning motel rooms during the day and working retail at the mall across the street from the motel a few evenings each week - wasn't even worth the time it took to complete the monthly paperwork.

I have returned to this memory several times in the past two decades. Sometimes the case worker's pinched face and the clickety-clack of her fingernails on the keyboard have spurred me to work harder, to "hustle" as so many of my fellow millennials say. At other times, when motivation ebbs, I recall her skeptical expression as if she knew all along how things would turn out: I earned a doctorate in literature (as well as two other graduate degrees) but I'll never be an English professor. My failure to land the dream job didn't come down to talent or desire, but economics. The journey from graduation to the tenure track is long, and I couldn't afford the fare.

A 2018 report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives noted that 53.6 per cent of all university teaching positions were on contract in the 2016-2017 academic year, the same year I completed my PhD at Western University. I applied for every related teaching contract in my area and received none, though you'll still hear tenured professors speak of part-time university teaching, and full-time college employment, as the old stand-by for those who can't reach the tenure track. This is false. English and creative writing doctoral graduates compete for a seat at the proverbial table in endless rounds of musical chairs. The music stopped playing years ago, and there just aren't enough seats for everyone.

Beyond the dire employment numbers, there are other compounding forces that keep early-career scholars from lower-income backgrounds out of the ivory tower. As in my case, these forces are set in motion long before the acceptance letter from the graduate chair arrives. I funded my undergraduate studies with a hefty loan from the Ontario Student Assistance Program - a loan which came due six months after full-time enrollment in my PhD program ended. This looming deadline kept me on track to finish my dissertation before my funding ran out, but without a postdoctoral scholarship or part-time teaching opportunities lined up, and no parental home to return to, I had to take a full-time office job to begin making loan payments (and pay the cost of living, of course). The position was entry level because the private sector still largely fails to recognize doctoral research and teaching in the humanities as "work experience."

While universities have made great strides in bolstering inclusion on campus, the issue of class (which intersects with a range of other oppressed identities) still remains absent from the diversity conversation. If the academy truly desires greater representation in its ranks, it would provide robust postdoctoral support and dismantle the exploitative adjunct system. Instead, higher education remains hostile to those of us from a lower-income background because it continues to operate under the presumption that one has infinite resources (such as parental or spousal support) to invest years in the optimistic labour of postdoctoral life. Perhaps if I had struggled longer to collect a string of teaching gigs - four months in Newfoundland, say, and another four in northern Manitoba - while still writing and publishing, someday I might have received the full-time job I had hoped to attain. Call me a pessimist.

When I entered graduate school, the best advice I received was to avoid accruing further student debt and to treat the program like a contract job that wouldn't renew. In other words, I was to finish my dissertation as soon as possible. I was fortunate to have an excellent supervisor that helped me meet my timeline and, crucially, my non-academic work goals, but many candidates don't receive that support. Some professors still train their students at the speed of a medieval apprenticeship while encouraging more novitiates to enter through the gates. Meanwhile, measurable financial support after graduation, in the form of teaching or research contracts, remains nearly non-existent (though I do get semi-annual emails from my alma mater asking for a donation.)

Liberal arts apologists rightly claim that a humanities education sharpens students' critical faculties. Academia must turn this skepticism toward its own myths. The arts professoriate isn't just an endangered profession, it's nearly extinct. While doctoral studies provide a unique opportunity for serious study, we must ask if a doctorate with no future is really worth the loss of crucial earning and career-building years in which one could contribute to a pension or other retirement savings, and repay debt? Perhaps these are just the questions of an elder millennial staring down the next three decades of his career and a mortgage, but these concerns will only become more urgent for the following generation, and the economic risks of pursuing a PhD even more stark.

I've made it out the other side to a financially stable life by taking a well-paying, if boring, public sector job for which I'm now very overqualified. I'm not sharing my story as an invitation to a pity party, or because my story is unique, but, rather, because it's so common. Higher education still runs on the misplaced belief that more studies, regardless of the field, will lead to a richer life.

This month, graduate programs will be mailing out their letters of offer to prospective doctoral candidates. Students from lower-income backgrounds shouldn't accept. Graduate education in the humanities remains a luxury only the wealthy can truly afford.
Kevin Shaw is an Ottawa-based writer and editor.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The humanities still have a class problem - University Affairs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
If the academy truly desires greater representation in its ranks, it would provide robust postdoctoral support and dismantle the exploitative adjunct system. Our case worker at the welfare office sat behind a Plexiglas wall. A slot near the desk and a circle of smaller holes at eye level allowed for the exchange of paperwork and small voices.

# data[].attributes.body
This article expresses a strong dislike for the humanities. It explains that the humanities are not necessary for life. Realistically, some of the humanities are for our entertainment and enjoyment. Others are more needed in our daily lives. Everyone has a culture, religious opinion, and philosophy. These are crucial parts of who we are.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We talk about “skills,” “relevance,” “engagement,” and “values,” but deep down we know the ideas behind the words are hollow.

# data[].attributes.body
It's important to be interested in what you're studying!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This post may contain affiliate links. Which means if you make a purchase using these links I may recieve a commission at no extra charge to you. Thanks for support Miss Millennia Magazine! Read my full disclosure.

Your major defines you in college. As much as some try to defy the stereotype, the subject that you choose to study doesn't just consume your course list. It consumes your identity. If you study political science, you're argumentative and self-righteous. Psychology majors are trying to figure out themselves. Engineering majors are smart but have no social skills. However, at least people recognize that this isn't the whole story; they know that these are merely stereotypes.

The same cannot be said about the most pervasive college myth of today: that humanities majors are wasting their time.

The economy is not doing stellar. Millennials are projected to be the first generation to do worse than our parents since we earn 20% less than baby boomers did when they were our age. It's no wonder that our mentors are pressuring us to pick a major that has career stability. STEM skills are in high demand right now, whereas career prospects for many humanities majors are limited.

If you're anything like me, these pressures were constantly on your mind throughout college. I was lucky enough to be good at STEM subjects, but unfortunate enough that my passion lied in liberal arts. Looking back, I wish that I hadn't stressed so much about rejecting the STEM path. Yes, adjusting to life after college can be a little bumpy, but it would've been that way regardless. Trust me, if you're pursuing a liberal arts major and get a little queasy at the thought of graduation, you'll be okay. That's because...

You Clearly Don't Want to Work in a STEM Field Anyway

Look, the vast thing about being a STEM major is that they provide you with a pretty set career path. Majoring in Chemistry? You can be a chemist, a lab researcher, a doctor, etc. How about Computer Science? You could work in IT, software development, or cyber security. And Engineering majors have it the easiest of all. Majoring in civil engineering qualifies you to become a civil engineer, structural engineering leads to becoming a structural engineer, and chemical engineering majors usually become chemical engineers. Sensing some repetition here?

This is great if you want to become one of those things. It provides you with an excellent pathway toward achieving your goals. However, if you don't want to be an engineer, why would you major in engineering? If you don't want to work with numbers every day, why would you major in math? People who hate on humanities often see college as a place to prepare for the workforce, and nothing more. Well, why would you prepare for a workforce you don't want to be a part of?

You Can Still Get a Job

First of all, you don't have to have a STEM degree to get a job in many well-known rising fields: software development, medicine, and even green energy. So, in the worst-case scenario, you graduate with your medieval art history degree and fear that the only place that will hire you is McDonald's. However, you'll still be able to get a job in tech or healthcare without a specialized four-year degree. Your future is not doomed.

Second, even humanities majors have successful careers! The soft skills that they developed are most valued by employers. Skills like critical thinking, effective communication, and thorough researching are versatile tickets to many jobs. Soft skills are harder to teach, so if you don't display them right out of the gate, potential employers don't want to waste their time.

Consider that there aren't even majors for many jobs. It's not as if being an event planner, an administrative assistant, or an entrepreneur requires a degree, but all of these positions can certainly benefit from a humanities background.

Furthermore, several traditional humanities fields have major-relevant positions that are growing. Psychology, social work, and criminal justice all have jobs that are growing. Do your research, and you'll be able to find a job in your field. It might not be what you pictured, but you can find work doing some aspect of what you love.

You Pursued Your Passion!

You showed a bravery that not everyone is capable of. Facing an uncertain future isn't something that everyone can handle. But you recognized that college doesn't just have to be for vocational purposes. You can find yourself, set your priorities straight, and figure out what it is you want to do. Because let's be honest, most of us didn't know at 18 when we were picking our first major anyway.

The self-confidence required to pursue your passion when others are advising you otherwise is exactly the quality that successful entrepreneurs have. Starting your own business requires a high degree of risk-taking, and to ever make that a rational decision, you've got to believe that you have what it takes to be successful. And turning your passion into a business has never been easier-e-commerce has turned selling your art directly into a viable possibility so that artists can keep the 50 percent that is usually reserved for curators. Others have turned to self-publishing, whether it's novels, poetry, or even music. Turning your passion into a business is easier than it's ever been.

There are several reasons to select a liberal arts major, but the most important one is that you are interested in what you're studying. If you're going to spend all that time and money, you might as well enjoy the ride, right? What's more, you're not graduating empty-handed; soft skills are nothing to scoff. Humanities majors might not have a particular path in front of them, but that doesn't mean that they're on the wrong one.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Humanities Majors Shouldn't Feel Guilty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This post may contain affiliate links. Which means if you make a purchase using these links I may recieve a commission at no extra charge to you. Thanks for support Miss Millennia Magazine! Read my full disclosure. Your major defines you in college.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An end-of-year test does not reflect our abilities

Minimal contact hours, crushingly long reading lists and relentless essay-writing. That's a humanities degree for you. Given all the stick the sciences give us for our late starts and days off, we're really a busy bunch seldom to be caught without some reading or writing deadline approaching.

As we often have to point out to the more obnoxious scientists, our degrees couldn't be more different and the humanities are no less relevant than science just because we don't have thirty contact hours a week. So why, given these differences, do we all face the same method of examination at the end of the year?

We'll all sit in a hot, sweaty exam hall in front of an unseen exam paper which could test us on any part of the last year's work. Within a certain amount of time we'll regurgitate whatever our brains were able to absorb during those late, takeaway-fuelled revision sessions at the library. The resulting work will give us our mark for the module, or at the very least a large part of it. They really matter. So what skills are we being examined on exactly?

Time management, undoubtedly. But, while in theory it should be possible for anyone to write enough in the time-frame, any student with a resilient writing-hand has a distinct advantage - avoiding that throbbing, searing pain which could stall even the world's greatest writer. Writing skill itself is certainly important as well. But writing skills without time to plan, edit, mull-over or even reference - all of which a "real-life" historian, politician or sociologist will do.

Other than that, it's all about working memory capacity and the ability to recall information under pressure. Someone who can recite a page of History notes, including statistics, historical interpretations and quotes, all while the clock is ticking and your degree classification counts on the next couple of hours, will patently do better than someone who simply can't.

The powers that be would probably mention at this point that all of this is simply a means-to-an-end. At least by revising hard and going over the whole course they're ensuring students come out with a good general knowledge of the subject they're being tested on. But, as Mr Hector quite aptly argues in The History Boys: "Knowledge is not general, it is specific". He may have been referring to general studies, but his words also ring true of humanities degrees. No historian has ever been acclaimed for their ability to regurgitate a series of vague factors within a two hour timeframe in a hot room full of fellow students and that one person with the sniffling nose - and the same goes for sociologists, politicians and geographers.

I went to a school where the A Level History format was so exam-orientated that it took people with a natural love for History and made them hate it and it's desperately sad to see the same thing happening at university too. Why can't we be trusted to run away with our own essay questions, honing in on a specific part of the course and examining it in greater detail? This way we'd develop a true interest in the course and make an actual contribution to our disciplines. It would let truly talented students, not well-composed, strong-handed memory-robots, shine.

Marking our modules based solely on an end-of-year essay or research project would acknowledge the obvious differences between our degrees and others. We study expansive subjects. Subjects where there is no single answer to any question and where our opinions and outlooks are the basis of our entire degree. It's time university departments stop pretending an end-of-year exam does any of this justice. They disregard the skills we spend the entire year perfecting: analysis, research, writing and arguing in favour of hastily scribbled, poorly considered 'essays' which we would be embarrassed to put our name to in any scenario other than an exam.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The system is unfair: Humanities students shouldn't sit exams

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An end-of-year test does not reflect our abilities Minimal contact hours, crushingly long reading lists and relentless essay-writing. That's a humanities degree for you. Given all the stick the sciences give us for our late starts and days off, we're really a busy bunch seldom to be caught without some reading or writing deadline approaching.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You've heard the case 1,000,000 times: The humanities are dying. With Justin Stover's recent essay in American Affairs, " There Is No Case for the Humanities," you can make that 1,000,001.

But in this essay there's something different: Stover, who teaches at the University of Oxford and the University of Edinburgh, doesn't try to overstate the humanities. He argues that the humanities are "no more or less relevant now than they've ever been." It's just that now, as universities become corporate boot camps churning out productive science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) students, the humanities can no longer compete under the new rules. To try to do so is to engage in self-defeat. "The justification for the humanities only makes sense within a humanistic framework," Stover writes. "Outside of it, there is simply no case."

Many a scholar will have a hard time admitting this point, but, beyond the academy, there's not a single skill set that would be enhanced by reading Virgil. A mechanic or surgeon who reads Virgil will be neither a better mechanic or surgeon-nor a better human being. He'll just be a mechanic or surgeon who enjoys Virgil. When it comes to being relevant to a larger purpose beyond ourselves, there is no case to be made for reading Virgil.

Unfortunately, we persist in making our cases in response to the standard attacks. Conventional critiques of the humanities-critiques that many of us in the humanities concede-condemn over-specialization, over-production, and too little teaching. Stover demurs, insisting that such realities are the necessary outcomes when humanities scholars hunker down and do what we do: Pursue intellectual and aesthetic pleasure and, when the opportunity arises, share it with students.

It's true that much of the scholarship that professors in the humanities produce is micro-focused and barely relevant to larger social concerns. It is also true that we churn out and recycle material into an endless stream of edited volumes, obscure journals, and esoteric book series. We would do well to more readily admit these claims. But these critiques are effectively worthless because ameliorating them by broadening our scope, publishing less, and teaching more classes wouldn't help make a positive case for the humanities. It would only make professors more like high school teachers.

The dangerous outcome of taking these critiques to heart is that we end up defensively making vain attempts to be relevant. Efforts to justify our work in a university culture that deems us most useful as fodder for advertising bromides are destined to seem strained and disingenuous.

To wit: We say that exposure to the humanities leads to a more meaningful life, a deeper appreciation of the truth, better critical thinking skills, or a predilection for deeper empathy. These assertions might be true in some cases-but they're not necessarily true. The pursuit of other interests could just as likely produce these beneficial results. Plus, an education in the humanities could make a person selfish, confused, totally biased, and even miserable. (Having taught in the humanities for almost 20 years, you can take my word on this point.)

Stover ultimately rests his "non-case" for the humanities on two important observations. The first is that humanists comprise a sort of "class" that does what it does because we enjoy the arts and want others to enjoy the arts too. We're not interested in being relevant so much as we are interested in being emulated or having our work consumed for pleasure.

"Humanists," Stover writes, "are doing what they have always done, trying to bring students into a class loosely defined around a broad constellation of judgment and tastes." I think this is exactly right. When I teach undergraduates Thoreau and Emerson, I want them to enjoy Thoreau and Emerson. I want to influence them to explore the world of ideas because doing so is an inherently pleasurable (and financially cheap) thing to do. I guess you could say that I want them to emulate me.

Whatever beneficial "outcomes"-an ominous buzzword in our world-follow from that enjoyment is gravy on the educational feast. But measurable outcomes are not what I'm after. Scholars in the humanities who seek to be "relevant" end up kowtowing to commerce in ways that are, frankly, embarrassing.

Stover's second and closely related point is that, while society at large may have no need for a class of humanists who love delving into Thoreau and Emerson, the university (if for all the wrong reasons) evidently still does require this rarified class. Stover writes:
The most prestigious universities in the West are still those defined by their humanities legacy, which surrounds them with an aura of cultural standing that their professional purpose no longer justifies. The humanities continue to lend cachet to educational credentials, granting an elite status worth far more than any "marketable skills." That is why every technical institute with higher aspirations has added humanities programs: Accounting or law or engineering can be learned in many places, but courtliness is passed along only in the university, and only through the humanities-and everyone knows it.
The university, if only motivated to do so by fear of cultural shaming or status decline, harbors the humanities to ensure prestige, ersatz or otherwise. If you've ever been to a recent college graduation you will notice that there's a relatively small cadre of professors who, all puffed out and head-capped like flamboyant jesters, take the academic regalia business very seriously. That's usually us, the humanists, the desperate torch-bearers for what a university wants us to think it's all about: Tradition. Our clownish garb reflects our desperation to protect our shrinking patch of turf.

Stover's essay is wonderfully insightful. But the numbers in the United States throw cold water on his final, optimistic claim that the humanities will be able to rest on their prestigious laurels.

As of 2015, only 12 percent of undergraduates at colleges and universities in the U.S. graduated with a degree in the humanities. A 2017 analysis of the changing concentrations of Harvard University sophomores found alarming declines in the humanities. It also found a corresponding rise in STEM disciplines. Between 2008 and 2016, history majors went from 231 to 136; English majors went from 236 to 144; art history majors went from 63 to 36; anthropology majors went from 126 to 43; comparative literature majors went from 48 to 16; and classics majors from 41 to 26. By contrast, applied mathematics went from 101 to 279; electrical engineering went from 0 to 39; computer science from 85 to 386; and statistics from 17 to 173. These numbers mirror national trends. In my own discipline, history, majors have dropped by 25 percent between 2001 and 2016, a figure made especially alarming by the fact that it's a decline from 2.08 percent to 1.54 percent of all undergraduate degrees. In 1970 it was close to 6 percent. At my own university it's around 1 percent.

What do these figures suggest? For one, that Stover's confidence in the status conferred by the humanities may be appropriate for his medieval-era stomping grounds of Oxford and Edinburgh, but not for U.S. universities. When an institution with the prestige of Harvard watches the humanities decline to a statistical sliver within its own ivied walls, and it does so in a country where tradition is measured in decades, it may be time to fess up to the fact that status over here is a fickle beast with little interest in preserving tradition.

Consider the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. To my knowledge, that university's exalted status depends on relentless innovation rather than the preservation of a humanistic tradition. I'd venture that the vast majority of colleges and universities in the U.S. see themselves moving more in the orbit of MIT than Harvard. That is, they place less weight on "the aura of cultural standing" conferred by the humanities and more on the marketable applications of pragmatic, profit-minded research programs.

Stover underplays this element of higher education in the U.S. He acknowledges that, "it is not the humanities that we have lost faith in, but the economic, political, and social order that they have been made to serve." And then he concludes: "perhaps we only demand a case for the humanities because we cannot fathom having to make a case for anything else."

Well, I'm afraid we can. In fact, I'm absolutely certain that almost every high-ranking administrator at every university in the U.S. wakes up every morning prepared to fathom the case that the university is about serving the innovative needs of a globalizing economy-and if gutting the humanities would further that goal, they'd look at the numbers and make the call. If only quietly, it happens all the time. Can you imagine, beyond the university, a swell of popular opinion rushing to defend the department of comparative literature-and those 16 Harvard sophomores!-from oblivion?

With the traditional humanities being squeezed to the margins of university life, all the while banking its survival on nostalgic prestige, it seems appropriate to consider a possible likelihood: college education without Virgil, Shakespeare, Emerson, or Thoreau-or at least a college education where the humanistic pursuits become the equivalent of intramural Frisbee football. If this happens, would this mean the death of the humanities?

I don't think it would.

It's worth recalling that the only feature that Stover, who teaches in Great Britain, thinks will keep the humanities from rotting away is the presence of a class of humanists who thrive within the university as a symbol of its original mission. The hypothesis perhaps makes sense for universities founded in the 13th century. But in the U.S., where most universities are less then a century old, and the notion of class instinctively raises hackles, Stover's argument could backfire.

Indeed, one might turn Stover's point on its head and suggest that the reason the humanities come under such fire (from all sides) is not necessarily that they are irrelevant. Instead it's that, as a group of professors ensconced in an ivory tower, they evoke the notion of a class. As such, they too easily become an easy target marred by the taint of a concept we have no tolerance for on this side of the Atlantic: elitism.

When the book lover opens up a scholarly journal on literature and finds " The Political Procedural: The Novel's Contribution to the Rise of Nonpartisanship and the Abandonment of Reconstruction," or when the history buff goes to a leading history journal and comes across " Beautiful Urbanism: Gender, Landscape, and Contestation in Latino Chicago's Age of Urban Renewal," he might feel a little excluded.

This is not to suggest that these articles aren't fascinating and insightful, but rather to indicate the process whereby general sentiment against the humanities in the U.S. begins to go sour. Combine that process with the kabuki moves we in the humanities must make these days to convince university administrators of our relevance, and you can see why the general public might be OK with our demise within the walls of higher education.

And what about the humanities outside the walls of higher education? This is where I have a little hope. America is often deemed anti-intellectual. I would never totally disagree with this assessment. But I do genuinely wonder to what extent that characterization reflects the dynamic outlined above-one whereby a cadre of humanities scholars uses its position in the university not to anchor the university to its founding mission, but to cultivate a cult of aesthetic and intellectual exploration that keeps those outside the university at bay.

In other words, before we lament the death of the humanities, or write that development off as the result of anti-intellectualism, shouldn't we consider how the humanities thrive-or could thrive-beyond institutions of higher education?

A couple of months ago I wrote about a podcast called Literature and History. What amazed me was the depth of the podcast's content, the accessibility of the presentation, the scholarly emphasis on documentation and cross-referencing, the availability of a written transcript, and the overall thrill of learning for the sake of learning. The podcast, only a couple of years old, has had over a half a million downloads. All in all, it represents an unmitigated success in democratic and institution-free education.

Think about it: no professors, no universities, no classrooms, no tuition, no accountability. Just a hugely ambitious podcaster-who works in the software industry-and a lot of followers who share his passion for the likes of Horace, Catullus, Homer, and Sappho. As a student of the podcast, I can honestly say it exceeds any approach to knowledge that I have experienced in a complete career in higher education.

I said that I was amazed to discover this small world of humanistic exploration. Maybe I shouldn't have been. As such niches of enlightenment emerge in the vast realm of Internet content, as more and more archives enter the public sphere as digitized and freely accessible collections (see here and here), and as the humanities, decoupled from exclusionary institutions, shed the (perhaps undeserved) burden of elitism, Stover-not to mention the rest of us who have a home in the university-might find his argument that there is no case to be made for the humanities to be more true than he ever anticipated.

And, finally, we'll all be free to be as irrelevant as we want to be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Humanities Are Dead. Long Live the Humanities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You've heard the case 1,000,000 times: The humanities are dying. With Justin Stover's recent essay in American Affairs, " There Is No Case for the Humanities," you can make that 1,000,001. But in this essay there's something different: Stover, who teaches at the University of Oxford and the University of Edinburgh, doesn't try to overstate the humanities.

# data[].attributes.body
Many of the humanities are not funded and they are becoming less popular.