From: ejh@khonshu.colorado.edu (Edward J. Hartnett)
Newsgroups: soc.college.grad
Subject: Re: Any Humanities Grads out there?
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:44:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: colorado.1992Apr15.234444.27406
Organization: Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences

In article <70381@ut-emx.uucp> hulsey@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Diana Hulsey) writes:
>While I would hesititate to say that humanities is esier than the sciences,
>I would like to reiterate something that has been said already, I think,
>namely the distinction that for the most part the humanities require a 
>broad base of knowledge and are easy to explain to a lay person, while in the 
>sciences, knew knowlege is built upon the last thing you learned (there must be
>a better word for this) and so it is difficult to explain to a layperson.
>
>Also, they way higher education works, at least in the US, most beginning level
>science courses are designed to weed out a certain percentage, whereas
>many humanities classes that are even upper level courses are open to anyone
>who is interested.
>
>These facts contribute to the impression that science is more rigorous than 
>humanities, and as a result, many bright young people who seek to do the most
>with their intellects might consider a science rather than the humanities,
>just for the challenge and prestige they percieve that it implies.
>
>Now, the issue that I come across which is more troublesome than this, is 
>the disrespect for the humanities as a meaningful thing to do.  "Why do you
>want to do classics?" is the question I continually hear,  mostly from
>Engineers who have no great love for what they are doing, and only see a
>secure job at the end of their travails.  And I say, in the final analysis,
>I may not have made as much money, my career may not be as smooth, but hell,
>I am doing what I want to do, and what interests me.  I think that this is
>a real point of misunderstanding between humanities and sciences.
>
>-Diana Hulsey


I think you misunderstand the point when engineers say "what are you going
to do with a humanities major?" That does not mean that they are just interested
in a good job. That might very well mean that they are planning on engaging 
in a lifetime of creative construction of artifacts to advance the human 
condition, whereas most humanities majors are not studying to do this.
Studying literature (for example) is all well and good, but a million
people studying literature is not going to feed any starving people, or
launch anybody into space.

Speaking as an engineer, I love to study the humanities, nor do I think it's a 
waste of time. But I do think that most engineers spend their lives building
stuff, creating things that others will use, whereas most humanities people
simply study the creations of a (relatively few) great contributors, and
really do not create anything themselves which others will see.

There is teaching, and there is writting, but how many humanities majors
go on to those two very constructive and contributory fields? (Plenty, sure,
but 99.9% of engineers spend their entire professional lives creating).

Another thing I'd like to add is that this discussion shifted from 'which is 
harder' to 'which is better.' That shift occured when some particularly
paranoid humanities person (I forget who) assumed that when I said engineering
was harder, I meant it was better. I never thought that the study of literature 
and such is useless. Quite the opposite. It is very usefull to me, on a
personal level. It is obviously perceived to be less useful to society. 
(Why do I say that? Look at salaries, which messure how important society
perceives a profession to be. Also note the fact that humanities people are
a lot more sensitive and defensive about their field then engineers.)

(Note also that I said 'perceived,' for example, teachers are perceived to 
less important than almost any other profession in America, althought they