Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Ben Mitchell-Yellin's avatar
  2. Nate Meyvis's avatar
  3. Peter Buckmaster's avatar
  4. Jörg Schaub's avatar
  5. David Wallace's avatar
  6. David Wallace's avatar
  7. Catherine Sutton's avatar

The political economy of the academy and the decline of the humanities

This New Yorker essay on the decline of the humanities is getting lots of comment on social media; an excerpt:

According to Robert Townsend, the co-director of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ Humanities Indicators project, which collects data uniformly but not always identically to internal enrollment figures, from 2012 to 2020 the number of graduated humanities majors at Ohio State’s main campus fell by forty-six per cent. Tufts lost nearly fifty per cent of its humanities majors, and Boston University lost forty-two. Notre Dame ended up with half as many as it started with, while SUNY Albany lost almost three-quarters. Vassar and Bates—standard-bearing liberal-arts colleges—saw their numbers of humanities majors fall by nearly half. In 2018, the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point briefly considered eliminating thirteen majors, including English, history, and philosophy, for want of pupils.

During the past decade, the study of English and history at the collegiate level has fallen by a full third. Humanities enrollment in the United States has declined over all by seventeen per cent, Townsend found. What’s going on? The trend mirrors a global one; four-fifths of countries in the Organization for Economic Coöperation reported falling humanities enrollments in the past decade. But that brings little comfort to American scholars, who have begun to wonder what it might mean to graduate a college generation with less education in the human past than any that has come before….

For decades, the average proportion of humanities students in every class hovered around fifteen per cent nationally, following the American economy up in boom times and down in bearish periods. (If you major in a field like business for the purpose of getting rich, it doesn’t follow—but can be mistaken to—that majoring in English will make you poor.) Enrollment numbers of the past decade defy these trends, however. When the economy has looked up, humanities enrollments have continued falling. When the markets have wobbled, enrollments have tumbled even more. Today, the roller coaster is in free fall. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the percentage of college degrees awarded in health sciences, medical sciences, natural sciences, and engineering has shot up….

“Technology in the last twenty years has changed all of us,” he [a Columbia English professor] went on. “How has it changed me? I probably read five novels a month until the two-thousands. If I read one a month now, it’s a lot. That’s not because I’ve lost interest in fiction. It’s because I’m reading a hundred Web sites. I’m listening to podcasts.” He waggled the iPhone disdainfully. “Go to a play now, and watch the flashing screens an hour in, as people who like to think of themselves as cultured cannot! Stop! Themselves!” Assigning “Middlemarch” in that climate was like trying to land a 747 on a small rural airstrip….

“The last time I taught ‘The Scarlet Letter,’ I discovered that my students were really struggling to understand the sentences as sentences—like, having trouble identifying the subject and the verb,” she [a Harvard English professor] said. “Their capacities are different, and the nineteenth century is a long time ago"….

“My parents, who were low-income and immigrants, instilled in me the very great importance of finding a concentration that would get me a job—‘You don’t go to Harvard for basket weaving’ was one of the things they would say,” she [a Harvard undergraduate] told me. She was a member of the first generation in her family to attend college—the sort of student that élite schools are at pains to enroll. “So, when I came, I took a course that was, like, the hardest course you could take your freshman year. It integrated computer science, physics, math, chemistry, and biology. That course fulfilled a lot of the requirements to be able to do molecular and cellular biology, so I finished that, for my parents. I can get a job. I’m educated.”

She paused, then added, “I took courses in Chinese film and literature. I took classes in the science of cooking. My issue as a first-gen student is I always view humanities as a passion project. You have to be affluent in order to be able to take that on and state, ‘Oh, I can pursue this, because I have the money to do whatever I want.’ ” Nice work if you can get it. “I view the humanities as very hobby-based,” she said.

(As an aside, note that philosophy is a partial [only partial] exception to this trend.)

The elephant in the room, only partially acknowledged, is the "Great Recession" of 2008 and its after-shocks.  Add to that the continuing increase in the cost of college, far outstripping inflation, and the pattern is not really surprising:  economic pressures and anxieties are driving student choices of majors.  What role the further dumbing down of the populace by smartphones and the Internet has played is harder to say, but it can't have helped.  Mindless identity politics also hasn't helped, a point the full essay touches on.  A philosopher of law in a country where law is an undergraduate degree told me that after a lecture on Plato, Aristotle and the idea of the "rule of law," a young student "asked, genuinely bewildered and curious: 'Why are we reading all this old stuff?'"   I wonder how common this experience is among readers?  Other thoughts on the article, and the trends noted, are welcome.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

24 responses to “The political economy of the academy and the decline of the humanities”

  1. I'd be fascinated to know more about the institutional outliers like — as mentioned in the article — Berkeley and Claremont McKenna. What makes them outliers? A Claremont professor is quoted giving credit to the department's focus on "beauty and aesthetics" (as opposed to history and identity?), but who knows?

    The article focuses on Harvard, the Stanford of the east, so I thought, why not look at the actual Stanford? According to their website, Humanities & Sciences at Stanford has 102 enrolled English majors as of Autumn 2022. That seems rather robust compared to Philosophy (50), Poli Sci (117), Psychology (117), International Relations (107), and Economics (223). (By the way, I remember a feature on the Stanford website that showed historical enrollment numbers by department; but I wasn't able to find it just now.)

    Anyway, here's an idea I've had that I've never heard discussed before. The humanities are often deprecated for their supposed lack of rigor. So what if humanities fields like Literature and Philosophy made the mastery of at least one foreign language a requirement at the undergraduate level? (Of course, many grad programs currently require mastery of two.) This would give those fields a jolt of 'difficulty' that may burnish their attraction for undergrads. As an undergrad I personally knew one philosophy major who mastered two foreign languages (not Greek or Latin), which he says undoubtedly helped him on the job market. Just a thought.

  2. BTW in my above comment the data on Stanford enrollments comes from here: https://irds.stanford.edu/data-findings/enrollment

  3. At Missouri State, where I taught for 24 years, student refusal to take foreign language resulted in the University extending BS degrees to every humanistic subject, so students could skip the language requirement for the BA. Doing what you suggest would be a death-blow to any department at my former Uni.

  4. A comment on how the political economy at large is shaping that of the academy.

    The de facto position of the Department of Education is that the humanities are a waste of time, and that “STEM” (Science, Tech, etc.) majors are the only really “useful” ones—useful, that is, to employers. That is the only possible interpretation of Education Secretary Cardona’s recent remarks.

    Speaking as an employment attorney, I can assure you that Cardona is correct. According to the Department of Labor, health care is one of the two largest service sectors (at 13.6%), and my biggest client was a gigantic health care system in Southern California. So what are these employers looking for?

    They need graduates who know just enough but not too much. Employees need to be able to read and do simple math but be unfamiliar (and therefore uncomfortable) with actual “ideas”.

    “Meeting the needs of today’s economy” (in Cardona’s words) means supplying the service economy with the production of “technicians”, that is, $17-an-hour button-pushers and lever-squeezers, who can read and do simple math but aren’t going to talk back.

    My client was able to de-unionize because the rank and file was “technical” in just this way. The members who voted for getting rid of their union could do simple math (no more union dues!), but could not think strategically, or even humanely. The concept of “solidarity” among the workforce is utterly foreign and therefore viewed with suspicion. It goes against the grain of DEI ideology, which is nakedly counter-solidaristic.

    Thanks to DEI inculcation—which now starts at the grade-school level and continues through high school, college, and the employee “onboarding” process—black employees now “know” that their implicitly-biased white colleagues can never be real comrades, and vice-versa.

    “STEM” as a concept is largely a shell game. Most American jobs are lowly “tech” positions. Grouping these with engineering, math, and science is fallacious, grandiose, and serves to disguise the true nature of America's political economy.

    Of course, at the higher levels, legitimate SEM scholars can take their doctorates to Silicon Valley and make big money there (at least until the recent layoffs), but the reigning ideology, that of Ayn Rand, is equally impoverished.

  5. Brian asks for relevant 'experience'; I have bucket loads. Here's a couple of examples from the past decade. #1.The Administrator: I'm teaching an Ethics class at one of the highest ranked art schools in the U. S. The class is mandated as a wide-ranging survey, and so the materials include the first film of Kieslowski's Dekalog, Sophocles, Confucius, Aristotle, Victor Serge vs. Trotsky vs. John Dewey on Kronstadt and means/ends, Nietzsche, etc. I get called in for an 'evaluation', and the administrator says, "Why are you teaching Aristotle? What do you think Aristotle has to offer to our students?" #2. The Students: I'm teaching a class in the English Department at UC Berkeley. The students are supposed to have read the first chapter of J. M. Coetzee's novel Elizabeth Costello; the fictional Costello, as described in the first chapter, is famous for having re-written Joyce's Ulysses from the viewpoint of Molly Bloom. I ask 38 students "Has anyone read anything by James Joyce?" No one had. "Does anyone know what books he wrote?" No one. One student tentatively says "Didn't he write novels?" Then a student asks "Why are you asking us about him?"–By contrast, almost all of the students knew of and had read Kafka, as 'The Metamorphosis' was required in high school. Nonetheless . . . Still, I'm a bit surprised that the Harvard students are struggling to parse Hawthorne.–My own experience is NOT that students are puzzled that they're required to read Plato and Aristotle, Jesus and Paul, Confucius and the Buddha; my experience is that young people for the most part do not wish to be idiots, although they do view themselves as under tremendous stresses and caught up in a senseless maze. It seems to me that the 'mindless identity politics' has effects most immediately manifest in top-down administrative imperatives, as the bloated managerial class aims to justify their existence by tightening the screws on teachers. The imposed managerialist ideology is something like what David Graeber wrote in the just-published Pirate Enlightenment about soi-disant 'radical' historians: they demand a simple moral tale, and their only motto is that they will never ever be taken in by some old dead white dude.

  6. Great observations above, two quick additional points:

    1)The article actually ends on a hopeful note, with signs of a reversal of the decade-long drop in humanities students at ASU (a trend I've observed here, and, anecdotally, at other institutions).

    2) The English professors quoted seem significantly less convinced of the value of literature than the students quoted (Greenblatt comes off particularly bad). This is unsurprising. Career advancement in many of the humanities over the past couple generations presents a classic case of perverse incentives: one gets points for running down ('critiquing') the object of study. (This is why most tenured English professors make such bad advocates for the English major.)

  7. @ John Rapko

    So they heard of Rowling (I'm guessing) but not Joyce. I have very smart friends my age and younger who view Rowling as the height of culture.
    In contrast, at a decent MFA program here in New York, ten to five years ago, all the students had familiarity with the major figures you cite.
    Perhaps only people who are really interested in literature to the point of almost a calling, really know it.
    Maybe serious literature has become a niche product like classical music; maybe your students viewed their classes not as an opportunity to cultivate themselves but as an exercise in self-enhancement in the sense of getting a haircut.
    It makes you long for Allan Bloom

  8. A few comments from mobile. Hopefully the formatting and grammar are acceptable.

    Regarding Beauty and Aesthetics: I was fortunate enough to get to watch my department (at the time solidly middle of the pack on PGR) make a new hire while studying. In spite of the fact that four people were invited to give presentations as the final stage, it felt that it was a foregone conclusion that the individual dealing in beauty and aesthetics would be hired. I attended the talks by all four and would have easily picked two others before based on presentation (though pedigree may have been slightly less prestigious). However, multiple other departments showed for the eventual hire, and within a couple of years students were actively applying to the department based on that individual’s hiring. Just thought this anecdote interesting based on what was covered here.

    Having graduated just prior to the Great Recession and having seen its impact on the majority of my cohort, if anything I feel commentary on the damage done to unions is hard to understate. I ended up public sector, serving in multiple union positions including steward in two different locations. Trying to convince people of the benefits of the union was incredibly difficult until someone needed representation for serious disciplinary issues. Oddly enough, it was often harder for those who had just enough education or experience to qualify (for example, new hire A.A. degrees in STEM sounding fields) to see the benefits than people with graduate degrees. The sense of zero-sum, us vs. the other, among people that graduated at the time, especially those hired and immediately laid off from private firms due to being the last in, remains toxic 15 years later. Even worse, as those individuals have moved into management (as I should note I have), most have brought that insanely confrontational mentality to every union dealing. I continue to hope that this mentality will shift, but again, 15 years on I fear it may be solidifying more than anything.

    Finally, while perhaps not applicable to all humanities fields, I feel certain departments should lean into the B.S. idea, and require additional math/stats/logic as opposed to language credits. I had a strong interest in logic, math, and stats as an undergraduate and graduate, and my ability to break down certain problems into logical concepts for programmers and conduct statistical analysis has really made my career (and a great deal of my professional reputation). My current agency component has a second philosophy major (2 out of 8), both of us with strong backgrounds in analytic philosophy and logic. Again, completely anecdotal, but if I’m going to try to find make the field “difficult” (sounding), mathematical logic or meta-logic probably will have a bit more cachet than French.

  9. James Engell, who is a lit. prof at Harvard, had a piece on this general topic in a recent issue of Harvard Magazine. I didn't read it closely, but this is a subject he's been writing about for a long time. It may overlap in certain respects with the New Yorker piece (which I haven't read).

    https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2023/01/features-forum-humanists

  10. It wouldn't be so bad if this trend did not also reflect a far broader collapse of literacy in the United States (and everywhere else). 150 years ago Emerson and Twain would have been major cultural figures, demanding large sums on the lecture circuit. Now, in this country, a humanities college education is virtually the only hope one has of escaping the power of Disney, Comcast, etc. in forming one's tastes, worldview, and manner of understanding.

    Recently, France's former Minister of Culture, Roselyne Bachelot, a pharmacist by training (!), caused a bit of a controversy by saying that public funding was going to movies that don't make money, while the popular money-makers are unjustly disparaged by critics. France at least has a minister of culture, and could at least say that the seat was once occupied by André Malraux…

  11. So discouraging. Greenblatt pandering to consumers of "long form" television. Early retirement as "progressive" desideratum. I think of Baudelaire, who writes in one of his draft prefacess to Fleurs du Mal, "France is passing through a period of vulgarity…. Matters of art, terrae incognitae…. Great men are stupid."

    However, as a librarian at Berkeley, I've stated in this very forum at least once before that I am routinely encouraged by the students with whom I meet, and not just law students, but undergraduates and graduates from across campus. I have the luxury of working with self-selecting researchers with whom I'll meet once or a handful of times to work on a defined research problem, and whom I don't grade. Still, I see plenty of "well-rounded" (meaning, expressing some interest in humanities) young adults whose enthusiasm and smarts give me immense encouragement about the world in which my young kids will grow up. Call it denial.

    Just yesterday my daughter and a friend from school, both approaching 12 years old, asked about "good" universities, their premise being that one must attend one to get a good job, make lots of money, and, I imagine, retire early. The jobs they envisioned were STEM-based (veterinarian), but also architect (a tough slog, but an impressive ambition, one I once shared). The best I could do was mention that I've heard that undergraduates at Princeton are among the happiest, suggesting that these youngsters might want to ponder the experience of the four-year process itself, and not just the diploma at its conclusion.

  12. It would be useful to see more data on humanities enrollment, in addition to humanities graduates. In my department (NUS philosophy), enrollment in philosophy courses has roughly doubled over the past ten years, while the number of philosophy majors has seen only a modest increase. (The increased enrollment isn't due to changes in general education requirements: the number of philosophy courses that satisfy those requirements has actually decreased.) Focusing narrowly on humanities majors and graduates overlooks the possibility that a humanities department can play an important role in its university's academic ecosystem without graduating tons of majors, such as by energizing and emboldening students in ways that improve their performance in their chosen majors, even when those lie outside the humanities. (If I'm teaching a class that gets students excited about using their brains, I'm doing something to break down the thinking=effort=pain=bad equation, and that's going to benefit the students whatever their majors are.) By the same token, if institutional resources follow majors rather than enrollment, that creates an incentive for humanities departments to focus on boosting their majors populations rather than (and perhaps at the expense of) benefiting larger numbers of students in the ways alluded to above.

  13. Aleksandar Stevic

    The only plausible defense of the humanities (I am thinking primarily about literature here, but it applies across the board, I think) is a relatively conservative one: literature is a fundamental form of human expression, it has been so for centuries, it offers an invaluable opportunity to think about ethical and metaphysical (among others) conundrums of human existence and, and therefore studying a relatively comprehensive canon of literary texts should be a part of a well-rounded education. Or some version of that. However, as Michael Clune hinted above, with their embrace of critique and identitarianism, the humanities have been incredibly successful in cutting the branch on which they sit. Not only have English professors on the whole stopped believing in many of the assumptions on which the above vision rests (like the fact that some texts are more worthy of our attention than others because they are better), but they have, in large numbers, persuaded themselves a) that their job is not to understand literary history as best as they can but to change the world (usually along the lines of the usual assumptions of the identitarian left), and b) that they are particularly qualified to enact that change. So, not only have we abandoned a set of assumptions that give us the best chance to justify our discipline, but we have given ample ammunition to higher education's rightwing critics who see todays humanities as being engaged not only in a critical engagement with the literary and cultural traditions they analyze (which is fine) but in outright deconstruction of those traditions. So here we are.

  14. It seems to me that the article posted pretty clearly argues against the position that Aleksandar takes here. There's a lot of hot air about the theoretical/methodological approaches in the non-philosophy humanities. It's postmodernism's fault, or critique's, or lack of a canon, or too much canon, or lack of representation, or too much representation, and on and on. Folks are, of course, free to think what they want but these are at best ancillary concerns. That's not to defend the contemporart practice of literature departments, but simply to say that the problem is primarily economic. People need jobs that pay decently, and they don't need crushing debt. The humanities are a luxury right now, and perhaps always were. In the wake of forty years of neoliberal economic policies, of a clear Republican strategy to "starve the beast" of higher ed, increasing economic disparity, and an often out of control housing market, it simply makes no sense to "cultivate the mind" for $100k. The STEM discourse is pragmatic, for those are the "best" jobs going in terms of remuneration on the broad scale. Unfortunately, this will all lead to an increasingly technocratic country in which what passes for intellectualism will be variations of Elon Musk, "Mencius Moldbug," Scott Alexander, Peter Theil, Jack Dorsey, ad nauseam. This a societal failure that's closer to our ludicrous healthcare system than it is to Derrida making English departments sh*t the bed.

  15. Aaron V Garrett

    Although BU is cited in the article as an example of humanities attrition, our enrollments have gone up. I wonder how much of the attrition in English and History is due to the fact that these departments traditionally taught students who went into law and finance to write — which they do a lot of. I know at BU we now have a Writing Program which has taken over this function and is staffed with non-tenure track lecturers.

  16. Aleksandar Stevic

    I actually don't disagree regarding the primacy of economic factors. I do think, however, that the humanities have positioned themselves in a way that further exacerbates their precarious situation and makes them even more vulnerable. Sure, humanities, however framed, were always going to be open to the criticism that they are useless. But as they are now, they have also opened themselves to the charge that they are not only useless but also dedicated to essentially ideological pursuits, and this is a problem, especially in a deeply divided country. Every time a humanities professor calls himself a 'scholar activist' he is giving additional ammunition to your friendly neighborhood GOP legislator who can't wait to slash university funding.

  17. I agree with this characterization of the value of studying literature, but I don't see anything "conservative" about it. Literature is rewarding and can be joyous to study. There's a reason that retired folks who come back for "continuing education" at universities are taking literature and philosophy and history, rather than engineering and math.

  18. Aleksandar Stevic

    Sure – unfortunate phrasing on my part. Perhaps, 'traditional' would be a more appropriate word.

  19. I think that in general, this view does not apply to English departments particularly well. Those departments, while they are sometimes full of performative Marxists, are often more intellectually conservative than they are given credit for. Close reading is still taught. Canonical texts are still very commonly taught, although some are getting more difficult to teach. Common human themes are consistently taught. Surely, though, we do our students a disservice if we don't present actual readings of texts that indicate the ways in which they interact with past and/or present sociopolitical regimes. Critique is not the enemy, nor is it the only approach of course.

  20. Byron Williston

    But 'traditional' is so wishy-washy. Perhaps in speaking of 'conservatism' in this context you had something like Cohen's defence of the 'conservative impulse' in mind? To wit:

    The conservative impulse is to conserve what is valuable, that is, the particular things that are valuable. I claim that we devalue the valuable things we have if we keep them only so long as nothing even slightly more valuable comes along. Valuable things command a certain loyalty … My thesis is that it is rational and right to have such a bias in favour of existing value… A salient … alternative to conserving what is valuable is to maximize value, but conservatives are resolved to conserve the valuable at the expense of maximizing value: what we distinctively value are the particular bearers of value (‘Rescuing Conservatism: A Defence of Existing Value.’ In Reasons and Recognition: Essays on the Philosophy of T.M. Scanlon, edited by R.J. Wallace, Rahul Kumar and Samuel Freeman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 204-226 (210)).

  21. Math is also rewarding and can also be joyous to study!

  22. Ha! Certainly possible, but check out Pitt's continuing education programs for older adults, and see what classes they're taking.

  23. I wonder if the following is relevant:

    I think I remember reading in a book of Christopher Jencks's that there used to be two distinct status hierarchies, one based on income and one based on cultural factors, i.e. a plumber might be high on the income ladder but low on the cultural one, while a priest or minister or high school teacher might be low on income ladder but higher on the cultural one. More recently, though, if I'm remembering correctly, the two hierarchies have been collapsed and there's basically only the one based on income.

    If that's right, then in the past a humanities education, while perhaps not getting you high up the income hierarchy, would get you higher up the cultural one. Now, though, it's less likely to do that. What respect do you get nowadays, even from yourself, for being a low-income person who goes to Shakespeare plays and the opera?

  24. s. wallerstein

    My daughter–in-law (about age 50) and my niece (about age 35) are both high school teachers.

    In both cases they see themselves as doing socially useful work and contributing to a better world and that's one of the reasons they opted for that line of work.

    Both of them have husbands who earn more than they do, but I doubt that either of them would seek more lucrative and higher status work if they were to separate.

    I don't believe that either of them cares in the least whether the herd (a term neither of them would use, but I will) sees their work as high or low status.

    I believe that there are more people like them in this world, thank the gods.

    —–
    KEYWORDS:
    Primary Blog

Designed with WordPress