[nnntrn]

"Very very few History PhD's get their tuition paid for and are typically hugely in debt upon graduation."

This is incorrect. It's absolutely possible to earn a humanities doctorate without going into debt (at least for the postgraduate degree(s)).

[acadien]

Yes, that was poor wording. I meant to imply it is often difficult to graduate debt free for STEM majors as well. TA stipends simply aren't enough to pay the bills these days.

I don't mean to imply a STEM major is more valuable than a History PhD either, simply that its (likely) easier to get a job after graduation. Honestly, its a damn shame the public doesn't appreciate both of these areas of work more as they are the cornerstone for improving society.

[nnntrn]

In the following sentence, he does imply that it's impossible.

The 2011 NSF survey reports that 51% of humanities PhD graduates hold no degree-related debt, and that only 22% fund their degrees through their own resources. Compared to life/physical science students, more humanities PhDs fund their degrees by going into debt (by about 25%), but the majority of humanities PhDs graduate without debt and fund their degrees through fellowship grants and assisstantship positions, just like graduate students in STEM fields.

Anecdotally, all the humanities departments I am familiar with fund the vast majority (90%+) of their doctoral students.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/sed/digest/2011/theme4.cfm#4

[rflrob]

It is kind of correct... from a certain point of view. While there's probably a lower rate of funding for PhDs in the humanities than in STEM fields, there's also fewer people getting PhDs in the humanities than in STEM, by at least a factor of 2[1]. I'm not arguing that humanities PhDs are cushy by any means, but it's not necessarily as bad as that.

[1]http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10308/

[saraid216]

You didn't actually refute the claim you quoted. acadien didn't say it was impossible; the claim was that it's extremely unlikely.