"The answer is simple enough: cut out the departments offering majors that make students unemployable," starts Cohan. But a few lines later, and backtracking from his intuition, he continued: "While I would be in favor of conducting more research on this, the solution could be as simple as eliminating the departments that offer majors that employers do not value." [emphasis added]. Referring to the majors of zoology, anthropology, philosophy, art history and humanities, Cohan argued that "for students, lenders, and parents it makes no sense to send a child to college to study humanities if they do not have a chance at getting a job that uses the skills they’ve developed..those students could skip college and go right to their jobs as waiters and receptionists." Continuing, he stated: "I would suggest that every university develop an income statement for each of its academic departments. Departments that are profitable and likely to remain so would stick around. Those that are not and would not, get cut...those who still wanted to study zoology, anthropology, philosophy, art history and humanities could read the books during their Starbucks barista work breaks."
Aside from degrading everyone who has or is currently majoring in those fields--with special contempt for Starbucks baristas--Cohan flippantly dismisses these areas of inquiry without any understanding of what a humanities education entails or instills.
At first, the solution was "simple enough", and then it "could" be as simple as, and then it only makes sense if the humanities departments are losing money. Which one is it? From my own experience studying philosophy and religion, and based on the countless students I've engaged with over the years initially as classmates and now as colleagues, the humanities instill a rigor of the mind that is purposeful, logical, independent, and creative. Few other disciplines across the educational spectrum provide such an experience. And with respect to employment, many colleagues of mine now work in the nonprofit sector, which is the second largest non-government industry in the United States next to retail. Still others span careers in everything from journalism to national security.
According to a recent New York Times article titled In a New Generation of College Students, Many Opt for the Life Examined, "Once scoffed at as a luxury major, philosophy is being embraced at Rutgers and other universities by a new generation of college students who are drawing modern-day lessons from the age-old discipline as they try to make sense of their world, from the morality of the war in Iraq to the latest political scandal. The economic downturn has done little, if anything, to dampen this enthusiasm among students, who say that what they learn in class can translate into practical skills and careers. On many campuses, debate over modern issues like war and technology is emphasized over the study of classic ancient texts."
The need for the study of humanities has never been greater, and I would argue for its necessity even if balance sheets show a departmental loss--assuming cash-rich areas like athletics can make up the difference.
The article then quotes Matthew Goldstein, the CUNY chancellor, who majored in mathematics and statistics: “If I were to start again as an undergraduate, I would major in philosophy...I think that subject is really at the core of just about everything we do. If you study humanities or political systems or sciences in general, philosophy is really the mother ship from which all of these disciplines grow.”
During my studies, we explored--in great depth--everything from the morality of conflict to biomedical ethics to religious pluralism--each of which is absolutely critical to the future of humanity. Hence, the humanities. We need to continue the case for the humanities, not against it. Perhaps students of these majors should be more creative in the ways in which they employ the skills that they've developed, for they certainly have many, but Cohan's demeaning argument to gut the departments is both offensive and misguided.
