Author: Alexandra Caruso

My title may be more than a little sarcastic. But this article truly spent around 1000 words announcing the results of a study by the American Academy of Arts & Science that concluded that the amount of humanities degrees are declining, while the number of science degrees are steadily growing.

Now, while it is nice to have studies that pretty much confirm common knowledge (or what I thought was common knowledge, as I’ll explain), I was shocked to receive the impression that politicians and other figures have been speaking as if the humanities were on the rise. In my opinion, it takes a day in a non-specialized college to realize that the majority of students are flocking towards science majors (and other science-related majors, such as nursing and engineering) in search of the supposed overflow of career opportunities (or rather you’re just ‘more likely’ to get a job in the science/science-related fields, rather than ‘guaranteed’). Seems like the author of the article was looking for a snazzy introduction to the information, rather than a more just one.

This article frames the study’s information in a way that gives the reader the impression that the sciences are simply becoming ‘more interesting’ to people, only dedicating one sentence to career safety/monetary gains; apparently, students would rather study cell reproduction than Marie de France. The author of the article also posits (in a whopping two sentences) that maybe the recent sweep of cuts in college’s humanities departments may have something to do with this decline in interest; I think this ‘reason’ also connects to the promotion of science/related fields because of financial reasons and job needs. Promoting science and cutting humanities follows the desire to draw students to the supposedly booming science/related job markets.

This blog post has turned into more of a critique of the article, rather than actual commenting on the issue presented. But I do wish the author of the article had spent less time attempting to sensationalize the findings of the Academy of Arts & Sciences, and more time exploring the real “reasons for recent declines” and the interesting gains of the humanities at community colleges.

A couple of days ago, Inside Higher Ed rolled out a blurb about the latest episode of “The Pulse,” a monthly podcast hosted by Rodney B. Murray, executive director of academic technology at the University of the Sciences. “The Pulse” is an über nerd podcast that usually focuses on ‘e-learning’ and class design. This month’s podcast strayed a bit from its typical topics, having more of a psychological theme due to its guest/interviewee.

Murray interviewed Victor Yocco, a design researcher and author of a recently published book (Design for the Mind: Seven Psychological Principles of Persuasive Design). Their conversation largely covered Yocco’s interests in how to improve higher education using–yes, just as I teased–psychological findings and innovative techniques.

I remember two points standing out two me during the 25-minute long podcast, both of which have come up in class.

The first was about college professors not knowing how to teach. Or rather, about how most professors having not been taught how to teach college students efficiently and effectively. Rather, most professors at most universities are trusted to rely upon their own instincts and idiosyncrasies to educate their students. Yocco talked about his experiences in instituting skill-based (meaning, everyone could start out at different levels of ability but end up in the same place systematically) seminars on teaching at universities/colleges for faculty.

It only takes one semester with a droning cardboard cutout of a professor to see why such training programs make so much sense. Just because someone has six degrees from MIT doesn’t mean they know anything about transferring information pleasantly and intelligently to students. But we’ve exhausted this topic.

The second point Yocco spoke about was the importance of faculty knowing how to use technology properly and helpfully in the classroom. He made a clear distinction between fad/showpiece technology (e.g., aggressively slinging a sack of iPads at students, commanding them and their professors to LEARN!) and proven helpful technological practices and devices. Yocco and Murray bonded over the stubborn resistance of professors to learning new (and usually better) ways of doing things with technology, as they usually deem such things to be merely trendy and superfluous. Yocco brought up that actually having a fellow faculty member teaching his or her peers (as opposed to an outside speaker) about these new educational platforms fights this resistance significantly.

Seems logical. Seems relatively inexpensive. Will most universities go for it? Probably not.

What else is knew?

-Alex