next »

[licaone]

You don't get it, because you conflate humanities undergrads and dabblers with humanities scholars.  See Polly_Mer's excellent post.  But that's OK, because I don't expect you to get it.

My use of "cool" was, in fact, a joke, based upon the "cooler or easier" comment from the OP.  I don't think you got that, either.  I have not yet argued seriously that the humanities are cooler.  I save that for the AHA meetup.

No, I really don't get it. The OP never mentioned cool or easy. You introduced "cool", I introduced "easy". What am I missing?

I find your tone rather patronizing.

[jonesey]

Why do people go into the Humanities?  Because they love it, and they think they'll love teaching it.  Plus, when you have an English degree, the usual career options are Law School or teaching, and everyone knows that teaching college is much better than teaching high school (and infinitely more respected).   

I think the conclusion that the only thing for an English major to do to go get a PhD or go to law school is silly. I was an English major as an undergraduate. I graduated, got a job, worked for about 5 years, and decided to go back to school in something completely unrelated.

Perpetuating the idea that people in the humanities are only qualified to continue to do things purely related to the humanities (like teach them) is an insult to liberal arts education.

Lots of 22 year olds go into the humanities because have never had a job, think they are too good for a cubicle, and don't know what else to do. On the other hand, a lot of them go to business school for all the same reasons.

My posts here mostly reflect my deeply held belief that no one should ever go to grad school without working for a few years, and I think the humanities are worse than other fields in allowing this to occur.

I was being sarcastic, but I agree.  

I worked while getting my BA, which was originally going to be in Business because my company was paying for it (it had to be "work related").  When said company outsources my entire department, and I had to pay for the rest of the degree out of my own pocket, I changed to English, because I hated Business, and didn't want to pay a bunch of cash to complete a degree in a subject I hated.  I figured (correctly, it turned out) that the vast majority of companies don't care what one's degree is in, just that you've got one.  

After I finished getting it, I realized that I really wanted to teach college (because I really liked going to college, and, honestly, how cool would it be to sit around and talk about the books you like and get paid for it.  Right?  My professors didn't looked stressed.  They wore whatever the hell they wanted, came to work at 10am, didn't do any heavy lifting or dig ditches, and they made, what, $45K/year?  Plus they had all Summer off?  

I didn't see how that could be beat.  So, grad school (which was amazing, and furthered my fantasy image of what being a prof would be like).  Then, of course, the job search.  

I didn't know anything about the higher ed job market until I discovered this web site about three years ago; after I'd finished my degree.  

The ironic thing is that I'll be leaving academia because my SO is taking a job transfer to another coast, which is great for me (family in this state, I don't like where I live now, etc) but, I'll have to quit this job and I'm fully aware that the odds of landing another FT college teaching gig are very, very slim.  

One huge drawback to academia is that you're stuck where you're at, often for the rest of your life.  If your spouse (who in my case, like many others, earns a dramatically higher salary than I do) has to relocate, you're out of not only a job, but often, a career.  

[octoprof]

For example, I could say, "I study early medieval Europe, particularly ecclesiastical history."   I may even expand by saying, "I'm particularly interested in the differing forms of the Christian church in the British Isles and Ireland and how they later affected Christian practice as a whole, as well as the social structures of those communities."  A non-humanities person will think that's a relatively comprehensive explanation.   It isn't, not even close.  Additionally, I'm betting that a non-humanities person would have no (accurate) idea as to how I would go about studying that.  From science people, I get a lot of, "So, you read books on that stuff and then write about it?"  Uh, no.  I'm not a freshman undergrad.

I don't think this is just a humanities phenomenon.  If I give someone the two or three sentence explanation of what I research, they do not get the full idea at all.

[scheherazade]

Actually, I was thinking of another similar thread.  I did introduce "cool," although as a joke.  I would have thought that part was obvious.

It's unfortunate you find me patronizing, but then, I've found your comments patronizing, insulting, and ignorant, so you're ahead of the game.  Imagine someone insisting that your field was "easy" because it was based on experiments that you could do right there in you lab!  You don't have to go anywhere!  And it's mostly math, right?  I mean, even the science stuff is all math.  Oh, and you're either right or wrong, there's no real question.  Right?  It's easy!

That's essentially how you're coming across.  Clearly, the above ranges from ignorant to completely incorrect, much like what you have posted about the humanities.

For example, I could say, "I study early medieval Europe, particularly ecclesiastical history."   I may even expand by saying, "I'm particularly interested in the differing forms of the Christian church in the British Isles and Ireland and how they later affected Christian practice as a whole, as well as the social structures of those communities."  A non-humanities person will think that's a relatively comprehensive explanation.   It isn't, not even close.  Additionally, I'm betting that a non-humanities person would have no (accurate) idea as to how I would go about studying that.  From science people, I get a lot of, "So, you read books on that stuff and then write about it?"  Uh, no.  I'm not a freshman undergrad.

I don't think this is just a humanities phenomenon.  If I give someone the two or three sentence explanation of what I research, they do not get the full idea at all.

I completely agree.  real research questions are complex enough that no one can really "get it" in a couple sentences.  It's just the thing you say when people ask.  Usually, when I give the rally short answer, people look all interested, and then they ask more questions.  Then I give the slightly longer answer, and I get the blank look and change of subject.

I think that Polly has probably nailed the answer to this pretty well.  Oh, how often do I hear, "I love history?  Do you watch the History Channel?"  Or "I like Civil War history!  I've read lots of books on it!"

[polly_mer]

[on preview, you people type too fast, but I'm not revising this post again]

For example, I could say, "I study early medieval Europe, particularly ecclesiastical history."   I may even expand by saying, "I'm particularly interested in the differing forms of the Christian church in the British Isles and Ireland and how they later affected Christian practice as a whole, as well as the social structures of those communities."  A non-humanities person will think that's a relatively comprehensive explanation.   It isn't, not even close.  Additionally, I'm betting that a non-humanities person would have no (accurate) idea as to how I would go about studying that.  From science people, I get a lot of, "So, you read books on that stuff and then write about it?"  Uh, no.  I'm not a freshman undergrad.

I don't think this is just a humanities phenomenon.  If I give someone the two or three sentence explanation of what I research, they do not get the full idea at all.

I completely agree and I have to wonder how much people who say "I can't give a research statement that makes any sense to nonexperts" have tried.

I work with theoreticians: physicists, chemists, mathematicians, and computer scientists and many of them can give a flavor of their research to a casual audience.  Nope, it's not an accurate explanation and it usually completely misses the most exciting (to an expert) details, but it is something akin to what humanities people can give.

I found that after I reduced my summary to "I use giant computers to look at the chemistry of gases in plastic", people were much more likely to say "Cool" than when I insisted on giving explanations that are more accurate.  The only part that is technically accurate in the above statement is that I often use big computers in my research, but people understand that explanation much better than the details of the mathematical model and computer algorithm development that is actually the interesting part of my research.

No, my statement doesn't say everything because what I actually do will be inaccessible to people without special technical training, which is why I get paid good money for what I do.  However, to not even be able to give a two or three sentence distillation that at least allows a member of the general public to nod and say "I see.  [insert attempt at connection with a popularization or introductory class]" strikes me as lazy.

[licaone]

It's unfortunate you find me patronizing, but then, I've found your comments patronizing, insulting, and ignorant, so you're ahead of the game.

I apologize for that, it was not my intention. But ignorance is rarely intentional, is it?

I am giving up reading and posting these board. I was spending too much time on them, anyway.

[octoprof]

It's unfortunate you find me patronizing, but then, I've found your comments patronizing, insulting, and ignorant, so you're ahead of the game.

I apologize for that, it was not my intention. But ignorance is rarely intentional, is it?

I am giving up reading and posting these board. I was spending too much time on them, anyway.

Oh no! That sounds like GOOD BYE CRUEL FORUM!

[scheherazade]

We haven't had a "Goodbye, cruel forum" in quite a while.  Although sometimes it's just a tease, and then they come back.  Lying liars, they are.

[the_myth]

The Mean Girls are circling.

[scheherazade]

The Mean Girls are circling.

Spare me.

[the_myth]

Well, it's good to be respected. However I still think that as a general rule humanities are "easier" (more approachable might be a better expression).

<snip>

On the other hand, what I write is completely incomprehensible to her. This does not mean that what she does is easy, it certainly isn't, but it does prove that it is more approachable, doesn't it?

<snip>

However, the fact that you can give a half-understandable summary of what do you makes a difference: I can't. And therefore an undergraduate might find what you do more appealing than what I do.

The fact remains that many [most?] people in humanities specialize in words, their meanings, uses, permutations, connotations, etc.

People in the sciences can and often do learn to use their words effectively, but it can still be troublesome for people who spend their lives dealing with scientific concepts to then covert what is often mathematical to the verbal.

Have you all read the blog FemaleScienceProfessor?  Occasionally, FSP posts about this, noting how she often, as [unpaid] professional service, will edit her peers' written work and provide feedback.

I think it's common for us all to forget the often clear divides that separate our various campus entrenchments.

[the_myth]

The Mean Girls are circling.

Spare me.

Back at ya.

[polly_mer]

I am giving up reading and posting these board. I was spending too much time on them, anyway.

No, no, no!  Don't go.  You haven't spent too much time here until 3000 posts or a month of clock time, whichever comes last.

People in the sciences can and often do learn to use their words effectively, but it can still be troublesome for people who spend their lives dealing with scientific concepts to then covert what is often mathematical to the verbal.

If you think scientific concepts are about math, chances are pretty good you are not a scientist.  While I often help my colleagues write good papers, I sincerely doubt it's because I'm a woman.  I think it is more likely to be a result of being a native English speaker with all of my education in the US instead of being an adult immigrant.

I am, however, a major b*tch.  Is that like being a Mean Girl?

I think it's common for us all to forget the often clear divides that separate our various campus entrenchments.

Or we could work on building bridges across the divide, if only to know whom to shaft when budgets get tight.

[octoprof]

People in the sciences can and often do learn to use their words effectively, but it can still be troublesome for people who spend their lives dealing with scientific concepts to then covert what is often mathematical to the verbal.

If you think scientific concepts are about math, chances are pretty good you are not a scientist.  While I often help my colleagues write good papers, I sincerely doubt it's because I'm a woman.  I think it is more likely to be a result of being a native English speaker with all of my education in the US instead of being an adult immigrant.

Too often folks have simplistic views of the disciplines of others.  Like the commonly held notion that accounting is all about math. Math, in fact, is pretty immaterial in accounting.

[polly_mer]

Math, in fact, is pretty immaterial in accounting.

Another cherished stereotype bites the dust.