[mmartinson]

> Humanities specialists argue that these majors open up higher-earning opportunities later in life because they don’t lock students into a narrow programming language, certification or career path. The critical thinking taught in humanities courses allows students to adapt to jobs that may not have existed when they enrolled in college.

I've experienced this exactly. I have a philosophy degree. I floundered a bit career-wise post undergrad, self-studied for a practical entry vector into a programming job, and 8 years later have a super rewarding career as a software engineer. I felt my humanities undergrad, especially the critical thinking and writing skills I developed, have helped me advance much more quickly.

If I were to change anything, I would have liked to do a CS minor.

[lapcat]

I'm confused by this exchange.

buscoquadnary: "often those with humanities specialization are the least able to think critically"

mmartinson: "I've experienced this exactly... I felt my humanities undergrad, especially the critical thinking and writing skills I developed, have helped me advance much more quickly."

My own opinion is that buscoquadnary's claim is merely anecdotal impression and doesn't hold up to empirical generalization. I'm not even claiming that humanities graduates are better at critical thinking, only that I've seen no evidence that they're worse than others. I've seen a lot of people in tech who are not particularly good at critical thinking.

[anamexis]

mmartinson quoted the part of the article agreeing with their statement.

[lapcat]

Ah, you're right, thanks. I kind of skipped over the quoted part, because I had just read the comment that it was replying to.

Though I'm still confused why mmartinson's reply didn't more directly address the previous comment, if it was meant as a refutation.

[FreakLegion]

Easier to see if you put them side by side.

buscoquadnary: [quotes article]. I've experienced the exact opposite.

mmartinson: [replies with quote repeated]. I've experienced this exactly.

[pdabbadabba]

I've had the same experience. My undergrad philosophy degree was very valuable in transforming me into both a more rigorous and more flexible thinker. But I'm not sure how well our experiences generalize. In order for this to work, I think you need to have been a serious student in a decent program. It could be that humanities programs do a lot for undergrads who take them seriously, but also offer a way to skate through without developing many skills (or, at worst, developing affirmatively bad habits) for those who do not .

Philosophy may also be distinct from other humanities since western analytic philosophy tends to be weirdly technical (if that is what the program was focused on). I'd argue that this is a great fault for the field as a whole, but a boon for undergraduates who want to use these intellectual tools to do other things.

[swatcoder]

Any chance your philosophy degree was rooted in the analytic tradition most popular in english-language philosophy departments? It focuses specifically on logical analysis and argumentation and took over anglo departments so thoroughly that many students seemed to forget that other traditions even existed.

It aspired to demonstrate that philosophy can have the idealized rigor of math or at least the empirical legitimacy of a science, and generally rejected the creative and interpretive analytical practices of literature and history. While still often in the "humanities" school in many places, it's usually an outlier in what it teaches.

[raverbashing]

To be fair I'd say it depends on the major (and on the school)

I'd say there are more "modern" humanities majors (not naming them - but you can say it's "underwater basket weaving") that sound pretty much just a guide for "wokism"

I feel that the more traditional (and wider field) humanities, like Philosophy, Sociology, History (or even literature) etc might give a more useful knowledge base

[crackercrews]

This would make sense since the X-Studies majors consider lived experience to be an important source of evidence. This makes it easy to disagree with someone based on what you have experienced or felt in your life. It does not require logical thought or a nuanced understanding of what the other person is saying. You can shut down an argument by saying you have felt differently or you feel the conversation is threatening you in some way.

It's no surprise that students whose training validates this way of thinking do not end up having strong reasoning skills.