The humanities are under a progressing threat. According to The New York Times, a wave of U.S. universities have either cut or proposed cutting funding for various programs, largely within the humanities division. This broad category encompasses fields such as the performing arts, language, literature, philosophy, history and more. Although its definition has shifted over time, the humanities are notably distinct from business, STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) or pre-professional degrees. As the legitimacy of various programs are challenged and devalued by political and market-driven forces such as the rejection of cultural conservatives concerned with collegiate “wokeness” being centered in these departments—it is imperative that humanities majors push back on outside pressures by reexamining and rearticulating the worth of their degree, both within and outside the context of work.
For many, STEM, business and pre-professional degrees are “safer” options than their humanities counterparts. These degrees often directly correspond to fixed career opportunities. Factors such as rising tuition costs as reported by CNBC have made many students wary of their degrees’ payoff and marketplace compatibility; today, almost one-fifth of all bachelor’s degrees are in business, the most popular undergraduate program in the U.S. This security is preferable to people in non-humanities programs, especially considering the increased potential for high-earning roles. The best-paying occupations by mean annual salary in the U.S. are, according to Investopedia, nearly all within the field of health care. Empirical evidence modeled by the Hamilton Project suggests that humanities majors are likely to earn less than other graduates; however, this may not account for the gender pay gap, according to BBC.
Despite these disadvantages, humanities majors may actually earn more than pre-professional students in various disciplines, such as law or marketing. A study of labor market outcomes for graduates from the University of British Columbia suggested that 10 years after graduation, the income differences of humanities and non-humanities graduates were statistically insignificant. Furthermore, those with humanities degrees still have median incomes at least 40 percent higher than those without college degrees in all but four U.S. states. If those who select their majors based on their estimated earnings are immune to public shame—especially for low-income students seeking to escape cyclical poverty through higher education—humanities majors should be safe from reciprocal shame. Reducing college to a careerist model based solely around future employment devalues the unique experience of higher education and its ability to transform our perception of the world. There is no possible one-size-fits-all model for educating future generations of workers; reducing humanities programs to their relationship with the market undermines the purpose of higher education.
Additionally, many careers do not neatly fit into categories that are traceable to one particular college major. Humanities majors acquire a multitude of “soft skills,” a category applicable to the work of all professionals. The World Economic Forum has reported an increased demand for these essential abilities in a rapidly shifting global economy, including competencies such as writing, communication, critical thinking, logical reasoning, complex problem-solving and cultural awareness. These skills are highly transferable and resistant to automation, a growing threat which, according to the World Economic Forum, looms large in STEM disciplines. Any job which can be broken down into a series of routine tasks is more likely to be automated and replaced by robots. According to PBS, “There is growing demand for workers who are flexible and adaptable and who are skilled at working in team-based settings. All of these skills are still difficult to automate.” This flexibility enables those with a humanities degree to reliably earn positions based on the skills acquired through their study, even if their career is not directly related to their major’s subject matter. Even in STEM fields, experience in the humanities has demonstrably beneficial impacts; a study conducted across multiple medical schools in the U.S. found that positive personal traits in students was correlated with educational exposure to the humanities.
Although the lack of a specific career goal may cause one to feel disoriented in the labor market, the openness of a humanities degree enables one to pursue a wider range of job opportunities. Down the line, the possibility of a career pivot remains open for someone with a pliable skillset, unlike a graduate whose degree prescribes a narrower range of opportunities. LinkedIn has found that more than 40 percent of professionals are interested in making this pivot; in fact, Gen Z is three times as likely to change jobs, making us the most “mobile” generation of workers. Seeking direct satisfaction from work may not be an applicable model of life for all, and the desire to earn enough to live comfortably justifies the career choices of many; however, this should not necessitate that all people must sacrifice their happiness in pursuit of monetary gain, especially given that stability can be achieved regardless of one’s undergraduate degree. This is also not to say that non-humanities degrees are tedious or unenjoyable. Rather, I believe that we should not expect or pressure everyone to pursue these particular opportunities, especially as the need for humanities students persists in the global economy.
For much of this piece, I have generally explained the value of the humanities by justifying their usefulness within the job marketplace, utilizing the language of productivity. Solely sermonizing on the “worldly” cultural benefits provided by the humanities does not enable one to construct an effective argument for their existence under the threat of funding cuts when speaking to those with pre-formed biases against these disciplines. These perspectives form the largest challenge to the humanities from a policy standpoint, requiring a defense which examines their economic applicability; vague platitudes must be avoided here.
Still, humanities students should be cautious to avoid defending our education from a purely career-related standpoint, as there is more to education than acquisition of material benefits. As a philosophy major, my passion for the program’s material often feels like enough for me to justify my pathway to others, even if they are unable to understand why I would choose to earn less in the future than someone doing pre-med. If I am to work for the rest of my life, I would prefer for this work to feel personally gratifying to whatever degree possible, even if it means I may earn less than others. Additionally, my current career interests are varied yet united around a core set of skills. They are not simply linked to one particular degree choice or discipline; therefore, studying the humanities—philosophy, in particular—feels like the most malleable approach to my future.
From this, I feel justified in concluding that my entire educational life need not be oriented towards the potentiality of future work. I believe that my choice to study philosophy may reflect a degree of personal privilege compared to those who feel compelled to complete STEM, business or pre-professional degrees, due to their potentially preferable market outcomes. However, many people fall into our majors without premeditated planning. In discussions with students from a variety of disciplines, I have found that our choice of study reflects preference for the required abilities and material of that major more than class; students I have met through philosophy come from a wide variety of backgrounds.
Studying what is intriguing and beneficial to oneself (whether this is the humanities or not) and searching for careers with related aptitudes afterward engenders a more holistic approach to education, effectively retaining the necessary attention toward career aspirations. Passion should not be stifled or feared under the pretense of learning what is “applicable” rather than what is fascinating; instead, what we learn from college can and should inform our understanding of the world beyond the realm of work. Challenging the Earth’s unequal, crisis-ridden state involves critical thought and creative problem-solving which can be gained from studying the humanities, enabling students to conceptualize why and how the world can change for the better. If this is not “practical” to the social existence of humanity, I am unsure what is.