Should the "Humanities" subjects exist?

[This+]

Yes because I don't want to starve.

Serious: Philosophy covers logical analysis/application which is important for law. You'll find that quite a few politicians and legal professionals had History as their undergrad major. History teaches you how to structure an argument as well as how to incorporate evidence into a coherent narrative on top of history being just very interesting.

The biggest problem with Humanities is that a lot of the disciplines are funneled into "teaching" majors (only careers with viable pay are related to teaching) as the world is pushing further and further into STEM.

 

[The Man From G.R.I.D.S.]

The issue is that you have too many universities. Not everyone should be going to college, not even most people. Leave it for the top 20,30% of people to test into, and then pay for their education. This includes mandatory research on something useful. You don't write a senior thesis (literature analysis doesn't count), you don't get a degree, and have to pay back all that money. So you better be damn sure you're smart enough to do college and motivated enough to use it.
High school is fucked up too, but thats a completely different story.

I don't entirely agree with you, but I do think there has been too much of a focus on university and not enough on apprenticeships--because companies don't want to train people anymore. The US used to have Supreme Court Justices who'd never been to law school, they'd just had an apprenticeship.

On the other hand, I've seen a lot of comp sci people say they think the self taught software developers with lots of certs types aren't as good as people who've been to college.

The problem with law school in the US is there's no regulations on it. There's laws about how many doctors there can be, but not lawyers, so shady schools will open up law programs (since it doesn't require equipment it's cheap), enroll lots of students and make tons of money, and then throw them out into the world to flounder.

Apprenticeships force companies to share the risk with the public, and makes them responsible for the quality of the lawyers/dancers/plumbers they produce. Also reduces waste, you only learn what is needed, saving years of your life and a lot of money.

Comp sci requires tiers of certs. From basic code monkey (python, scripting, vb.net, no theory, game modding, high school) to software engineer (oop, practical theory, vocational and apprenticeships) to computer scientist (lots of math and theory, basically a subset of a math degree and taught at uni).

You also need to break the field up laterally. Certs for:
* operating systems dev - c, some theory relevant to oses, some compilers instruction, operating systems practicum
* embedded systems dev - c, asm, vhdl, reverse enginnering, basic electrical stuff (no clue)
* database design - itself should have tiers from admin to dev
* info systems which spans both hardware and software

I think unis should exist only as entities supported by industries and states to produce workers that require lots of investment. Everything else you can learn online, in a library. Apprenticeships for the remaining fields. This way a motivated guy could teach himself practical stuff until a uni or company decides to take a risk on him and pay to learn higher tiers or an apprenticeship.

K-12 is a shitshow, basically babysitting. Should be grouped together based on abilities and inclinations, not age. More like 1 through 9, then you try a bunch of 2 week long mini-apprenticeships in 10th, then choose one in 11th and keep at it in 12th.

Thus you get a shallow intro knowledge of a lot of a few fields, and you take steps towards mastery in one.

Those so inclined and gifted start training for intro uni tests (literally college prep for a change) in 11th and 12th, and once they pass they can start uni.

Simple and cheaper than the existing system.

 

[Audit]

I know this is a crazy thought but hear me out. What if the problem with the university system is that people have forgotten what the point of the whole thing was in the first place. At this time, getting a college degree has been viewed as a rite of passage for the middle class instead of a pathway to higher learning for our best and brightest. We've got a serious problem right now where classrooms are getting filled up with people bound for careers that never should have required a college degree. The university system should by no means be used as a second high school. We've got the community colleges for that and they do a wonderful job teaching the basics without charging a fortune in tuition. Hell, any good community college also teaches blue collar jobs like welding and trucking. There's just no excuse for sending kids away to a college to rack up massive debts when there's a nearby community college that can teach them everything they need to know at 10% of the cost.

If it were up to me, I'd leave university education only for those who wish to become scientists, doctors, lawyers, or scholars. Because these fields demand only the most intelligent members of our country, we'd need to insert strict recruitment standards but once a student is accepted they should be given a living stipend. This is because right now the university system is segregated into the poor, middle class, and rich schools, a system that can leave promising talent lingering in the worst schools because of financial limitations. It is important to consider the university system a breeding ground for the future leaders and innovators of our country rather than as just a work training program. Affirmative action and other systems that judge candidates on a cosmetic or subjective basis have no place in decided who is most likely to work hard and make the country stronger. After all, under this model, the university is meant to train people for high level government, private, and corporate leadership.

Back to the humanities, there absolutely no reason to get rid of them. The world needs philosophers, anthropologists, and even gender studies majors to perform research that will go into deciding the best way to approach any given problem. E.g. gender studies can be useful when it comes to deciding the best way to reach out to victims of domestic abuse so that they'll respond. The larger problem is that the purpose of these fields has been warped and distorted by the whims of the faculty that teach them. The university professors are trying to play god and invent problems that they can fix instead of just trying to fix extant problems. That's why there are no jobs available for some of these people. No one wants someone that can tell you why you're guilty of oppressing the Palestinians just because you're from Israel; they want someone that can design anti-radicalization programs to fight Hamas. In essence, the humanities aren't letting a lack of demand keep them from offering a supply. Don't get rid of the humanities, get rid of professors who would never be able to get a job outside of the university system.

 

[wylfım]

If it were up to me, I'd leave university education only for those who wish to become scientists, doctors, lawyers, or scholars. Because these fields demand only the most intelligent members of our country, we'd need to insert strict recruitment standards but once a student is accepted they should be given a living stipend. This is because right now the university system is segregated into the poor, middle class, and rich schools, a system that can leave promising talent lingering in the worst schools because of financial limitations. It is important to consider the university system a breeding ground for the future leaders and innovators of our country rather than as just a work training program. Affirmative action and other systems that judge candidates on a cosmetic or subjective basis have no place in decided who is most likely to work hard and make the country stronger. After all, under this model, the university is meant to train people for high level government, private, and corporate leadership.

@Audit_The_Autist for president. Please, I will give you all my money if you can make this a reality.
I don't think I can even emphasize enough how insightful your entire post is.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

Yes because I don't want to starve.

Serious: Philosophy covers logical analysis/application which is important for law. You'll find that quite a few politicians and legal professionals had History as their undergrad major. History teaches you how to structure an argument as well as how to incorporate evidence into a coherent narrative on top of history being just very interesting.

The biggest problem with Humanities is that a lot of the disciplines are funneled into "teaching" majors (only careers with viable pay are related to teaching) as the world is pushing further and further into STEM.

I don't buy that the world is pushing further and further into STEM. How many pure math majors are getting jobs in pure math? I've heard tons of people with biology degrees say they're stuck doing immensely shitty lab work for low pay unless they go to grad school. It's certain fields of STEM only.

If I were in charge, my first action would be to ban for profit schools. This would be way easier than totally reforming our higher education system, but still have an important effect. If you look at all the statistics on loan defaulting and stuff, a really high percentage is for profit students. And they get tons of taxpayer money in the form of GI Bills and Pell Grants.

Also, the worst field, worse than gender studies, are people who want to major in game design. There are so many video-game-lovers who want to be game designers without knowing how hard it is to make money off of and how much skill is required, and many of them are attending these for-profit institutions. Computer-based art has a really high percentage of people who majored in it and now can't find a job, and I think that's because one, there's a perception that it leads to money so everyone is doing it, and two, no standards--traditional fine arts programs (e.g. painting) require portfolios, whereas there's lots of scammy computer art programs now that don't.

 

[This+]

I don't buy that the world is pushing further and further into STEM. How many pure math majors are getting jobs in pure math? I've heard tons of people with biology degrees say they're stuck doing immensely shitty lab work for low pay unless they go to grad school. It's certain fields of STEM only.

Sorry, that was worded badly. I meant there's more preference and emphasis for STEM-related majors, and by STEM it's mostly engineering/CS.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

Sorry, that was worded badly. I meant there's more preference and emphasis for STEM-related majors, and by STEM it's mostly engineering/CS.

Oh, yeah, definitely.
I think we're going to start seeing issues there too, though. There's already issues with loads and loads of terrible Indian coders who don't know what they're doing but thought coding was the way to get out of their shitty village, and what with all the 'coding bootcamps', the bottom of the CS field will become saturated with more dumb people. And in the past, you only majored in CS if you were into it; now smart people are picking it because they think it'll make money, and so there'll be more saturation of talent, too. This will also mean more normies with good social skills in the field, bad for the stereotypical programmer autist.

 

[Audit]

Oh, yeah, definitely.
I think we're going to start seeing issues there too, though. There's already issues with loads and loads of terrible Indian coders who don't know what they're doing but thought coding was the way to get out of their shitty village, and what with all the 'coding bootcamps', the bottom of the CS field will become saturated with more dumb people. And in the past, you only majored in CS if you were into it; now smart people are picking it because they think it'll make money, and so there'll be more saturation of talent, too. This will also mean more normies with good social skills in the field, bad for the stereotypical programmer autist.

These Indian/South East Asian coders are going to become a massive problem in the near future. A lot of the trade deals that the US wants to sign with those nations allow companies to offload programing work to them. If you talk to Marvin, he'll tell you all about how working with international code monkeys is a nightmare.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

These Indian/South East Asian coders are going to become a massive problem in the near future. A lot of the trade deals that the US wants to sign with those nations allow companies to offload programing work to them. If you talk to Marvin, he'll tell you all about how working with international code monkeys is a nightmare.

This seems like a bad idea on the part of the companies. Of course having a factory worker in Bangladesh make a sweater is going to be worse than an American and companies still do that, but the difference I see is that consumers are willing to buy lower quality goods if it costs less, whereas large corporations buying software are more likely to be able to afford good American produced software. And the potential problems from bad code are way higher and worse than the potential problems from bad sweaters.

 

[wylfım]

I don't buy that the world is pushing further and further into STEM. How many pure math majors are getting jobs in pure math? I've heard tons of people with biology degrees say they're stuck doing immensely shitty lab work for low pay unless they go to grad school. It's certain fields of STEM only.

Sorry, that was worded badly. I meant there's more preference and emphasis for STEM-related majors, and by STEM it's mostly engineering/CS.

Also take note that STEM, which has mostly been a bulwark against postmodern bullshit, is starting to crack open. My bio teacher was talking about the difference between gender and sex. It's starting to legitimately scare me.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

Also take note that STEM, which has mostly been a bulwark against postmodern bullshit, is starting to crack open. My bio teacher was talking about the difference between gender and sex. It's starting to legitimately scare me.

That's because only women major in bio.

 

[wylfım]

That's because only women major in bio.

Massive push for "women in STEM." Bio is just the beginning of the end. Rate me optimistic because I really do sincerely hope I'm wrong.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

Massive push for "women in STEM." Bio is just the beginning of the end. Rate my optimistic because I really do sincerely hope I'm wrong.

Well, most people going to college in the US are women. Outside of engineering (except biomedical), programming, and physics (and maybe shit that involves rocks?), I perceive every science as being either gender equal or female dominated and the men that are there are probably gay or at least a little soy-ishe, at the undergraduate level. Men want to be carpenters and roofers and shit like that.

 

[wylfım]

Well, most people going to college in the US are women. Outside of engineering (except biomedical), programming, and physics (and maybe shit that involves rocks?), I perceive every science as being either gender equal or female dominated and the men that are there are probably gay or at least a little soy-ishe, at the undergraduate level. Men want to be carpenters and roofers and shit like that.

Men tend to be more logical/rational and women emotional (gender roles and stereotypes are rooted in evolutionary psychology), so I still think that men are more attracted to STEM. Watched a really interesting video that cited a study showing dominant behaviors increase testosterone levels (causatory), so the increased push for feminine "equality" (ie superiority) and women in STEM is causing them to have higher testosterone and be more masculine, and on the reverse side the efforts to shut down men are making them more feminine. It helps explain the reversals in college gender ratios, and things like soyboys.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

Men tend to be more logical/rational and women emotional (gender roles and stereotypes are rooted in evolutionary psychology), so I still think that men are more attracted to STEM. Watched a really interesting video that cited a study showing dominant behaviors increase testosterone levels (causatory), so the increased push for feminine "equality" (ie superiority) and women in STEM is causing them to have higher testosterone and be more masculine, and on the reverse side the efforts to shut down men are making them more feminine. It helps explain the reversals in college gender ratios, and things like soyboys.

No, I disagree. I think women who are already masculine are more likely to be interested in STEM. I've seen so many bitchy posts from girls who love makeup and heels who are in engineering complaining about how everyone thinks they're weird/should act less girly/whatever, and it's like...if some burly bro was majoring in interior design, everyone would be super confused by that, y'know? I'm majoring in economics which to me is a very feminine subject, but my school's business program is very hard to get into so there's a lot of failed business bros in my classes.

 

[wylfım]

No, I disagree. I think women who are already masculine are more likely to be interested in STEM. I've seen so many bitchy posts from girls who love makeup and heels who are in engineering complaining about how everyone thinks they're weird/should act less girly/whatever, and it's like...if some burly bro was majoring in interior design, everyone would be super confused by that, y'know? I'm majoring in economics which to me is a very feminine subject, but my school's business program is very hard to get into so there's a lot of failed business bros in my classes.

I don't necessarily see how that's a disagreement? Maybe my post is worded poorly, but my thoughts are that masculinity is attracted to STEM. Historically that was mostly men (for obvious reasons), but now with (((current age))) its switching to a lot more masculine females in STEM.
I'm confused by your point on feminine girls in STEM, given your first sentence on masculine women being more interested in STEM. Are they just outliers, or do they make up a significant population in your school (sorry I'm not in college so I can't speak to anything anecdotally)?

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

I don't necessarily see how that's a disagreement? Maybe my post is worded poorly, but my thoughts are that masculinity is attracted to STEM. Historically that was mostly men (for obvious reasons), but now with (((current age))) its switching to a lot more masculine females in STEM.
I'm confused by your point on feminine girls in STEM, given your first sentence on masculine women being more interested in STEM. Are they just outliers, or do they make up a significant population in your school (sorry I'm not in college so I can't speak to anything anecdotally)?

No, I thought you were arguing that women majoring in STEM makes them more masculine, as opposed to that being their pre-existing state. I'm not in STEM so I don't know, that's mostly my observations from people complaining on the internet. One of my friends goes to a women's college with an engineering program and she said there's a ton of girls majoring in engineering/math/comp sci and, well, you know what they say about women's colleges, so there's that.

 

[wylfım]

No, I thought you were arguing that women majoring in STEM makes them more masculine, as opposed to that being their pre-existing state. I'm not in STEM so I don't know, that's mostly my observations from people complaining on the internet. One of my friends goes to a women's college with an engineering program and she said there's a ton of girls majoring in engineering/math/comp sci and, well, you know what they say about women's colleges, so there's that.

Probably both are factors tbh, masculine woman are attracted to STEM and the intense competitive environment serves to make them more masculine (masculine dominance behaviors increase testosterone levels in women, I can link a study if you want?).
The question then becomes what to do to fix this, because a bunch of masculine women and feminine men means society dies out in a generation or two.

 

[Crunchy Leaf]

Probably both are factors tbh, masculine woman are attracted to STEM and the intense competitive environment serves to make them more masculine (masculine dominance behaviors increase testosterone levels in women, I can link a study if you want?).
The question then becomes what to do to fix this, because a bunch of masculine women and feminine men means society dies out in a generation or two.

See, I don't know, in the 70s women were actually choosing to become lesbians for political reasons, and yet society continued on having babies. Most people aren't homosexuals and never will be. You probably live in a very specific upper middle class world where everyone goes to college and people are very pro-feminism, and this really is not descriptive of the majority of the US.

Anecdotal, of course, but my grandma got a degree in physics in 1934, and she still had seven kids.

 

[wylfım]

See, I don't know, in the 70s women were actually choosing to become lesbians for political reasons, and yet society continued on having babies. Most people aren't homosexuals and never will be. You probably live in a very specific upper middle class world where everyone goes to college and people are very pro-feminism, and this really is not descriptive of the majority of the US.

Anecdotal, of course, but my grandma got a degree in physics in 1934, and she still had seven kids.

Political lesbians always were and will be a radical minority (if this ever changes I think exterminatus may be the only solution). When it starts affecting larger percents of the population (females in STEM is pretty significant), you can start getting subtle, and eventually not-so-subtle, repercussions culturally and biologically. You can be in STEM and feminine, just like you can be an artist and masculine, but when you start getting emasculated men and masculinized women (of which the weird ratios of gender in college is a symptom), theres cause to worry.