Colleges Rescind Acceptance Offers

[garibaldi]

<br />The study of the humanities can, like you imply, be just about creating art or exploring themes which are of particular interest to only a few. But English, film studies, theatre, history, and other fields all have the task of transmitting and reinterpreting the soul and, dare I say, <i>morality</i> of our day to day lives. <br />

<br /><br /><br />

So, I am completely in agreement with this. I think exposure to the humanities is critical and in fact should begin very early in life. But here's a question: do you need a PhD to understand humanity/society/morality? If you are an engineer or a scientist, it doesn't mean you don't understand literature or have a very poor understanding of history or the way society works or dont know how to write powerful prose. Yes, you do need a PhD to understand the nuances, identify patterns, etc but then your focus is very sharp. You will be studying a particular dance form/dialect/community in great detail. To have such a sharp focus is indeed a great luxury, and as you mentioned of particular interest to only a few.

Also, I think we need to make a distinction between students and artists. Artists, do not all have a PhD under their belt. They are masters of their art, which comes from practicing it, not just studying it.

An argument that I find persuasive for having more doctoral students in the sciences is that these are a) technical fields, and that for society to function as we know it today, there is indeed a greater demand for them. Whether we like it or not, a small decline in the # of PhD students in the humanities field is not going to have a big impact ( a decline in the # of artists, writers, musicians, linguists, philosophers, yes.. but not PhD holders)

I think the biggest value of a doctoral degree in humanties is that they make you better thinkers. But 'better' thinkers is highly subjective (as opposed to the technical training that people in the sciences receive). Therefore, the bar does need to be higher for humanities students, as in fact it is. So kudos to you all for making that bar!

[Kathiza]

So, I am completely in agreement with this. I think exposure to the humanities is critical and in fact should begin very early in life. But here's a question: do you need a PhD to understand humanity/society/morality?

I have no experience with the US system of education, but what is very important in my country and what they taught us in our very first year at the university was (and I hope not too much gets lost in translation): There is a huge difference between everyday/general knowledge or common sense (therese a very fitting word in German for those who understand: "Hausverstand" or "Alltagswissen) and scientific knowledge. Everyone of us does possess the first one. So no, you don't need a PhD to understand a little bit about basic psychology, to know how to act in a communicative way, to be able to read literature etc. When there are new studies presenting data related to social sciences, people always say "Well, I don't need a study for this, I knew this beforehand." - And that's not a valid claim. That's the difference between everyday knowledge and scientific knowledge. Everyday knowledge is not secured by empirical data, it's highly subjective, it's based on hearsay, on feelings, on personal experiences. And that's not a valid base for real, scientific knowledge, which is objective, based within a theoretical framework, and supported by empirical data. Everyone can say "I knew beforehand that this commercial is not going to work, I didn't wanna buy the product at all after having seen it on TV." But does that mean that this is the same for everybody else? Not it doesn't. Such a statement is subjective and has it's validity within your personal world. But not within a scientific context. You cannot (!) know how other people would react upon this commercial.

And of course the commercial is only an example (I'm not even specializing in marketing, so it may even be a bad one *g*) - and can be substituted with almost any phenomenon within the social (and probably other) sciences.

[garibaldi]

<br />When there are new studies presenting data related to social sciences, people always say ....

Kathiza, you are basically explaining why the social sciences are called social 'sciences'. I wasn't referring to them in my post. I was referring to humanities programs - history, etc. I really do think the bar has to be higher for these subjective disciplines.

And just btw, not everyone possesses common sense or an appreciation for culture, liberal arts, language, history, etc! Again, I strongly feel that we need more emphasis on these disciplines right from primary school to undergrad, but not necessarily at the PhD level. To study these at that level, you really need to be the top brass, which I hope is the way things currently stand.

[qbtacoma]

<br /><br /><br />

So, I am completely in agreement with this. I think exposure to the humanities is critical and in fact should begin very early in life. But here's a question: do you need a PhD to understand humanity/society/morality? If you are an engineer or a scientist, it doesn't mean you don't understand literature or have a very poor understanding of history or the way society works or dont know how to write powerful prose. Yes, you do need a PhD to understand the nuances, identify patterns, etc but then your focus is very sharp. You will be studying a particular dance form/dialect/community in great detail. To have such a sharp focus is indeed a great luxury, and as you mentioned of particular interest to only a few.

Also, I think we need to make a distinction between students and artists. Artists, do not all have a PhD under their belt. They are masters of their art, which comes from practicing it, not just studying it.

An argument that I find persuasive for having more doctoral students in the sciences is that these are a) technical fields, and that for society to function as we know it today, there is indeed a greater demand for them. Whether we like it or not, a small decline in the # of PhD students in the humanities field is not going to have a big impact ( a decline in the # of artists, writers, musicians, linguists, philosophers, yes.. but not PhD holders)

I think the biggest value of a doctoral degree in humanties is that they make you better thinkers. But 'better' thinkers is highly subjective (as opposed to the technical training that people in the sciences receive). Therefore, the bar does need to be higher for humanities students, as in fact it is. So kudos to you all for making that bar!

A point very well made. You are right in that no one needs a Ph.D (or even a high school diploma) to create meaningful, incisive art or commentary. The highest social value of a humanities Ph.D resides, I feel, mostly in the teaching of one's subject, with research as a necessary activity to support this on every level (e.g. research is needed to teach content, but also to teach others how to research). The secondary value is the research produced (though research-oriented folks should chime in).

The research is important, though, because it contributes to overall social knowledge. Even a Ph.D who cannot find a job in the market later is still a net benefit to society because of the dissertation and the other articles likely produced during the study period.

I don't necessarily see the sharp focus of a humanities Ph.D student as a drawback. The original research is a tool for other teachers and students to utilize in their studies, so even if a particular work is not very well known I think the overall social benefit is still high - the people who most need to know about something now have access to analysis which they did not before. Few reports produced by, say, institutional research in a firm are read by many people, but the value of the research is still high because the people making company policy need to know about it. Now, whether obscure research in the humanities provides as much of a benefit as obscure research in the sciences - that's really up for debate! I can't say I know - it depends.

So, to answer your question: no, a Ph.D isn't necessary to the creation of art or interpretation of culture. What a Ph.D brings to the table is excellent teachers in charge of critical thinking (which you mention above) and also the creation of research which better helps those teachers and others even if not highly cited. Is that, at the end of the day, the same benefit as that produced by funding science Ph.Ds? I honestly don't know.

Here's where I go on a tangent!

The biggest problem in the academic job market right now is that the oversupply of humanities Ph.Ds, while creating the aforementioned net benefit from research, is highly costly for individuals. I do not think that struggling with financial and professional insecurity for years and years is an acceptable outcome for humanities Ph.Ds, but there's only two solutions: dampen the supply by admitting fewer people to grad schools/making grad schools too difficult to bear for most (inhumane!), OR create more university jobs. The second option is too big to discuss here (but it is...expensive), and the first privileges adcomms too much I think in shaping the future of fields - after all, we don't really want to eliminate reasonable competition. Getting into grad school shouldn't guarantee jobs.

A third option to reduce oversupply is also quite difficult due to the nature of people who apply. We're A students. We know we're good, we work hard, and we try harder when confronted with our own failure. That mentality doesn't allow us to quit, especially when a good chunk of us have this perception of academia as the one and only place we are qualified to work. We, as a group, look at grad school as a means to an end - the end being a TT job. Given how painful the end result is, we should probably view grad school as an end in itself and develop other life experiences/skills before going (I'm 23, so clearly I haven't followed my own advice). Basically, people need to both know when to quit and have options in places other than academia. Hopefully the net benefit to society of a group of well-trained thinkers and researchers isn't also detrimental to individuals within the group. We're not there, though.

[awvish]

In re: an earlier point, I submit that by pursuing education (and therefore engaging in conversations like this one), we're all going to have a positive impact on the world regardless of field. As long as we value critical thinking and a concomitant ability to communicate it without alienating those who disagree we can encourage these qualities in other people, and that might be the only effect some of us will ever know that we have.

That's not a small thing at all. To my way of thinking, it is the best long-term way to save the world/benefit humanity/your humanistic phrase of choice here.