I left the humanities as a career path decades ago. The various themes the author describes were already tuning up then. Yet I still do believe that a couple years of a general liberal arts education (things like history, literature, economics, political science or civics, rhetoric, nonfiction writing,, a 2nd language) could be useful as an underpinning to any career, no matter how technical. And might also make for more engaged citizens. I work at the intersection of tech, entrepreneurship, and cultural inquiry. My BA has served me well. But I’m unclear if a BA in 2025 is characterized by the rigour and spirit of broad curiousity that was required by my department.
Completely agree with you. Both in principle and by my own experiences.
However, there is not a chance in 'ell a BA in 2025 s characterized by the rigour and spirit of broad curiousity, and tolerance, that was required in yours and mine time.
I started reading this article with low expectations. “Humanities” does not sound interesting to me. But, I will give anything published by The Line a chance. I was quickly sucked in and engaged by Simon’s writing. This was a very interesting read and good food for thought!
I attended McGill from 1962 to 1966. I was white, a refugee, and our family was desperately poor. This motivated me to learn. I had friends who were also refugees and also poor, and some of them succeeded spectacularly. Perhaps university was for affluent white Canadians, but nobody told us that.
We studied science (physics and mathematics and chemistry) and engineering. Those were the hard subjects, especially physics, and we wanted the challenges. The Canadian-born rich kids transferred to subjects such as sociology and literature, which apparently left them ample time to protest and to socialize. By contrast, we wanted a real education for our bucks.
I read a lot of literature on my own. It seemed to me a waste to spend my precious educational time on learning something that I could do for myself. Perhaps I didn't get the critical insights, but after all, those books were meant by the authors to be read without the intermediation of scholarly interpreters. I thought, perhaps arrogantly, that I could get much of the meat on my own. By contrast, there would have been no way that I could have taught myself physics, and the scientific method, on my own. I needed university for that.
I'm really glad that I followed the path that I did.
"But, do students want thrilling intellectual experiences? Or hard skills and well-paying jobs?"
Whether you're studying humanities or STEM, take a course in formal logic (it's usually a 2nd yr Philosophy course) and you learn to spot/avoid bifurcation fallacies (or false dichotomies if you prefer Greek roots ...)
If I'd followed my strengths in high school, I should've studied humanities in university. Instead, I took my (still strong) math and science skills and took the more lucrative path of engineering. There's something to the argument that demand for the humanities has suffered because the credential is less marketable. Most university students are solidly middle class, and they're doing post-secondary education as the foundation of a career. They're not wealthy, and don't have the luxury of spending 4 years on a degree that may not deliver a significant return for the investment of time and money. The value of that credential has further been eroded by the right wing critique that the humanities have been sidetracked into a channel for progressive political activism, where students are rewarded for their piety rather than scholarly achievement.
On the other hand, I see a lot of value in the humanities for an intellectual education. Graduates can come away with broader perspectives and more insight into society, culture, and humanity. Unlike my engineering classmates, I took history courses for my non-technical electives instead of business courses. Whenever I retire (or stop working full time), my intention is to return to university and pursue a degree in history for the sheer enjoyment of it. If there's still a very progressive bent to the faculty and presentation of the subject matter, I suppose that could be annoying. On the other hand, maybe those professors deserve to have a mature student with the experience of a full career in engineering and management challenging that and giving them a hard time. Should be fun!
Having a classical education, allowing for a greater appreciation and understanding of humanity and science, is a luxury most cannot afford. The focus on a vocation is natural, but many would choose to study the humanities later, if time, access and finances allowed.
That said, we are entering a dark age. The hijacking of science has paralleled the equally important fall of the humanities. Lay priests of the pseudosciences point to their bibles of statistics and modelling, works that they cannot understand, preaching, to their innumerate audience, that this is the path forward.
No blame to be shared by politicians, ROI maximizers in the business sector and people, like you, who claim that understanding of "humanity and science... is a luxury [that] most cannot afford"?
I guess we agree that "the indoctrination camp of the university humanities department " should not survive, as it has done enormous damage to the society already.
Let us hope that the "Philosophical inquiry by the curious will survive, as it has for thousands of years, in all corners of the Earth.", because it has to survive the likes of Trump, MAGA, Putin, and his KGB (changes of name are irrelevant), Trudeau, Carney, Laurentians, CBC, MSM, Chinese Communist Party, and other demagogues and dictators.
Good article, I only question this framed as an emerging issue. In 1975, after high school, my father and I talked about not pursuing business but a more classical education. He said you can always learn accounting. I did a rounded degree with most studies in Classics, English and Anthropology, both physical and social as it was in the day. I also, as a male, attended some early Women's Studies classes. Those were quite interesting in the mid 70's. I am a capitalist at my heart and although I took Economics 101 my views on the necessity for a profit motive were not shared by the professor or the TA. So my lifelong disdain for economists was born of my education. Same was true in the Social Anthropology courses where much of the tutorial "discussion" was about the movement forward in resolution of the class conflict in Britain. I was perhaps a tad aggressive, continually reminding everyone that Britain needed a bailout from the IMF. The final exam that year was take home multiple choice. Early new education. A friend's girlfriend, same course different TA, and I did the exam together. Same answers. She got an A, I got a D. I finished my degree with the experience that what I considered to be a Classical Education, operating much as described in this piece, were in fact in the English and Classics department. The rest was unabashed Marxism. Good for some but not why I went to university.
Thank you Simon. While I often grumbled about my humanities electives they did, in hindsight, provide me with meaningful ways to evaluate and try and understand multiple alternative perspectives throughout my life thus far.
An education in the humanities, contrary to what appears to have been suggested by the author and subscribed to by a few commentators in this forum, is actually very practical.
My own humanities degree allowed me to learn foreign languages (which proved most helpful when searching for work), understand foreign perspectives and differing religious traditions, and to learn about the world beyond my own birthplace (in Western Canada).
Whether it makes sense to study literary criticism with a view to finding work is less clear to me, but I think learning that or other supposedly esoteric disciplines aid in the development of analytical skills that are crucial to most high-end careers, whether in the sciences or "the humanities".
Coming from a science background, I only got the minimum of the social sciences and arts in school. Time just didn't allow me to do this. Over a lifetime however I have had more time to read.
Some of us may have the luxury of binging on the humanities in school but most will acquire it in dribs and drabs. To that end, the internet gives us a chance for continuing education at a much reduced cost and with more customization. For the schools and professors however it creates a tenuous living, I would assume.
In the same way that Amazon wiped out small business internet education may end the humanities in community colleges and universities.
Good choice for a column. Very useful and timely information. At least for me, who has grown deeply scornful of some aspects of today's higher education. This leaves me less negative about the future of humanities at the University level and about the quality of those students who attend these courses.
I left the humanities as a career path decades ago. The various themes the author describes were already tuning up then. Yet I still do believe that a couple years of a general liberal arts education (things like history, literature, economics, political science or civics, rhetoric, nonfiction writing,, a 2nd language) could be useful as an underpinning to any career, no matter how technical. And might also make for more engaged citizens. I work at the intersection of tech, entrepreneurship, and cultural inquiry. My BA has served me well. But I’m unclear if a BA in 2025 is characterized by the rigour and spirit of broad curiousity that was required by my department.
Completely agree with you. Both in principle and by my own experiences.
However, there is not a chance in 'ell a BA in 2025 s characterized by the rigour and spirit of broad curiousity, and tolerance, that was required in yours and mine time.
I started reading this article with low expectations. “Humanities” does not sound interesting to me. But, I will give anything published by The Line a chance. I was quickly sucked in and engaged by Simon’s writing. This was a very interesting read and good food for thought!
I attended McGill from 1962 to 1966. I was white, a refugee, and our family was desperately poor. This motivated me to learn. I had friends who were also refugees and also poor, and some of them succeeded spectacularly. Perhaps university was for affluent white Canadians, but nobody told us that.
We studied science (physics and mathematics and chemistry) and engineering. Those were the hard subjects, especially physics, and we wanted the challenges. The Canadian-born rich kids transferred to subjects such as sociology and literature, which apparently left them ample time to protest and to socialize. By contrast, we wanted a real education for our bucks.
I read a lot of literature on my own. It seemed to me a waste to spend my precious educational time on learning something that I could do for myself. Perhaps I didn't get the critical insights, but after all, those books were meant by the authors to be read without the intermediation of scholarly interpreters. I thought, perhaps arrogantly, that I could get much of the meat on my own. By contrast, there would have been no way that I could have taught myself physics, and the scientific method, on my own. I needed university for that.
I'm really glad that I followed the path that I did.
"But, do students want thrilling intellectual experiences? Or hard skills and well-paying jobs?"
Whether you're studying humanities or STEM, take a course in formal logic (it's usually a 2nd yr Philosophy course) and you learn to spot/avoid bifurcation fallacies (or false dichotomies if you prefer Greek roots ...)
If I'd followed my strengths in high school, I should've studied humanities in university. Instead, I took my (still strong) math and science skills and took the more lucrative path of engineering. There's something to the argument that demand for the humanities has suffered because the credential is less marketable. Most university students are solidly middle class, and they're doing post-secondary education as the foundation of a career. They're not wealthy, and don't have the luxury of spending 4 years on a degree that may not deliver a significant return for the investment of time and money. The value of that credential has further been eroded by the right wing critique that the humanities have been sidetracked into a channel for progressive political activism, where students are rewarded for their piety rather than scholarly achievement.
On the other hand, I see a lot of value in the humanities for an intellectual education. Graduates can come away with broader perspectives and more insight into society, culture, and humanity. Unlike my engineering classmates, I took history courses for my non-technical electives instead of business courses. Whenever I retire (or stop working full time), my intention is to return to university and pursue a degree in history for the sheer enjoyment of it. If there's still a very progressive bent to the faculty and presentation of the subject matter, I suppose that could be annoying. On the other hand, maybe those professors deserve to have a mature student with the experience of a full career in engineering and management challenging that and giving them a hard time. Should be fun!
Having a classical education, allowing for a greater appreciation and understanding of humanity and science, is a luxury most cannot afford. The focus on a vocation is natural, but many would choose to study the humanities later, if time, access and finances allowed.
That said, we are entering a dark age. The hijacking of science has paralleled the equally important fall of the humanities. Lay priests of the pseudosciences point to their bibles of statistics and modelling, works that they cannot understand, preaching, to their innumerate audience, that this is the path forward.
The academy owns this descent.
No blame to be shared by politicians, ROI maximizers in the business sector and people, like you, who claim that understanding of "humanity and science... is a luxury [that] most cannot afford"?
Philosophical inquiry by the curious will survive, as it has for thousands of years, in all corners of the Earth.
Whether the indoctrination camp of the university humanities department survives, however, is a different question.
I guess we agree that "the indoctrination camp of the university humanities department " should not survive, as it has done enormous damage to the society already.
Let us hope that the "Philosophical inquiry by the curious will survive, as it has for thousands of years, in all corners of the Earth.", because it has to survive the likes of Trump, MAGA, Putin, and his KGB (changes of name are irrelevant), Trudeau, Carney, Laurentians, CBC, MSM, Chinese Communist Party, and other demagogues and dictators.
Good article, I only question this framed as an emerging issue. In 1975, after high school, my father and I talked about not pursuing business but a more classical education. He said you can always learn accounting. I did a rounded degree with most studies in Classics, English and Anthropology, both physical and social as it was in the day. I also, as a male, attended some early Women's Studies classes. Those were quite interesting in the mid 70's. I am a capitalist at my heart and although I took Economics 101 my views on the necessity for a profit motive were not shared by the professor or the TA. So my lifelong disdain for economists was born of my education. Same was true in the Social Anthropology courses where much of the tutorial "discussion" was about the movement forward in resolution of the class conflict in Britain. I was perhaps a tad aggressive, continually reminding everyone that Britain needed a bailout from the IMF. The final exam that year was take home multiple choice. Early new education. A friend's girlfriend, same course different TA, and I did the exam together. Same answers. She got an A, I got a D. I finished my degree with the experience that what I considered to be a Classical Education, operating much as described in this piece, were in fact in the English and Classics department. The rest was unabashed Marxism. Good for some but not why I went to university.
Thank you Simon. While I often grumbled about my humanities electives they did, in hindsight, provide me with meaningful ways to evaluate and try and understand multiple alternative perspectives throughout my life thus far.
"Social media and the smartphone have turned us into twitchy dopamine fiends incapable of sustained attention." I worry for our grandchildren. :(
An education in the humanities, contrary to what appears to have been suggested by the author and subscribed to by a few commentators in this forum, is actually very practical.
My own humanities degree allowed me to learn foreign languages (which proved most helpful when searching for work), understand foreign perspectives and differing religious traditions, and to learn about the world beyond my own birthplace (in Western Canada).
Whether it makes sense to study literary criticism with a view to finding work is less clear to me, but I think learning that or other supposedly esoteric disciplines aid in the development of analytical skills that are crucial to most high-end careers, whether in the sciences or "the humanities".
Coming from a science background, I only got the minimum of the social sciences and arts in school. Time just didn't allow me to do this. Over a lifetime however I have had more time to read.
Some of us may have the luxury of binging on the humanities in school but most will acquire it in dribs and drabs. To that end, the internet gives us a chance for continuing education at a much reduced cost and with more customization. For the schools and professors however it creates a tenuous living, I would assume.
In the same way that Amazon wiped out small business internet education may end the humanities in community colleges and universities.
The more our universities look and act like the Parthenon in it's day, the better.
Good choice for a column. Very useful and timely information. At least for me, who has grown deeply scornful of some aspects of today's higher education. This leaves me less negative about the future of humanities at the University level and about the quality of those students who attend these courses.
A very enjoyable read
Excellent column.
More, please.