I’ve heard that the fights in academia are often characterized by having very low stakes… In the accompanying link and quote I find that there are some interesting, subtle, and quite civil sounding rejoinders to the opposing side of the Humanities-Sciences kerfuffle.
Of course, this ‘argument’ seems to be implying that there is some sort of iron curtain-like dichotomy here (which I don’t see), that there is some sort of never the twain shall meet idea regarding these two broad subject areas. All of the talk about STEM implies that all things outside of a humanities curriculum are purely objective (a serious bugaboo in port-modern circles…in some ivied halls these are actually fighting words!).
I have mentioned before that this is a culture war taking place in academia, where there is a fight for supremacy…between post enlightenment sciences and engineering curricula (and associated staffs) and with the post modern humanities and social sciences.
It all comes down to terms which a medieval scholastic philosopher might have understood. That is: is human existence and all that we understand totally subjective, or are there some absolutes?
In any case, this life and death battle will be going on for quite a while…and I will probably feel inclined to add some more to this blog about the battles as I find them…
The Sciences vs. the Humanities: a Power Struggle
http://chronicle.com/blogs/old-new/the-sciences-vs-humanities-a-power-struggle/336?sid=at
The problem of reconciling the humanities and the sciences poses a greater crisis for the humanities than for the sciences.
One solution proposes a core curriculum consisting fundamentally of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). Giving priority to these disciplines idealizes rationality and quantification over disciplines said to specialize in expression, appreciation of qualitative aspects of life, and the promotion and expression of “values.”
A defense of the humanities on the grounds that they enrich education is not sufficient to justify parity between the sciences and humanities. More than enrichment is involved when education is oriented around promoting a critical attitude toward the circumstances of our common life. We need to remember that the humanities provide crucial knowledge about our social nature, knowledge that would be eliminated in an extreme version of a STEM-dominated core curriculum.
To defend the STEM disciplines at the expense of the humanities requires discounting our social nature. This defense also requires us to assume that all value questions should be settled according to the logic of a “price-making money market,” presumed to be self-equilibrating, efficient, value-neutral, just, and generalizable to all human affairs that matter.
I can see that you have some great ideas here. Unfortunately, the notion of a sort of humanities/science academic reconciliation is one of the holy grails which we will likely never see in our lives…
I see the current focus upon STEM as being quite similar to the political push towards more sciences after Sputnik (‘National Defense…’). When push comes to shove there are some self evident practical uses for graduates who are inculcated into the sciences and engineering.
My personal background is in this area…but, as with you write about a reconciliation of these disparate halves of the education pie…I have many interests in the humanities…I suspect that this personal dichotomy is not that uncommon. MY reason for mentioning this is to present my biases in this discussion.
For me, the idea of whether various areas of study have more to less flexibility in course work is problematic. For instance, I suspect that you might consider that much of all of these differing fields of study have a lot of value for all of us, and that a single ‘survey’ class is not enough for most of us to get a handle upon subjects which have a lot of cultural value (irrespective of whether it gets you a job, as having a ‘STEM’ background…might).
I have found that the old joke about academia holds pretty true…”the amount of invective in academic arguments is so high because the stakes are so low”
But, I can also see that you are pointing towards a bigger picture here…what is the best education for current and future students…in this society. There is real value in having a background in the empirical sciences, as well as the humanities. Sadly, it seems that getting an education reflective of these pretty reasonable insights is not as easy as it should be…
- spam
- offensive
- disagree
- off topic
Like