We are, however, treated to a number of sky-is-falling statements with links to articles and papers provided by, among others, "The Humanities Commission", which is clearly an independent group that has no stake in securing more funding for humanities.
We are then shown a pie chart. What's wrong with this chart?
What's wrong with this chart is that it makes all of the pies the same size. But we know they're not. Size the pies relative to the total funding for each field. Let's see if that blue wedge in the Humanities is about the same size as those for other subjects.
Now let's think about why STEM subjects might require more funding, especially funding from big sources like the federal government. I'm thinking that maybe, just maybe, it has to do with the fact that STEM subjects require expensive lab space and equipment that are wholly unnecessary in humanities. Could we do a little digging before slapping this into an article?
My favorite part, however, is the following quote, concerning how students write:
They can assemble strings of jargon and generate clots of ventriloquistic syntax. They can meta-metastasize any thematic or ideological notion they happen upon. And they get good grades for doing just that. But as for writing clearly, simply, with attention and openness to their own thoughts and emotions and the world around them — no.This describes the vast majority of writing published in humanities journals, where you are given tenure based upon how well you've obfuscated the fact that you have nothing new to say, and not, god forbid, on how well you've taught your students to write "clearly, simply, with attention and openness to their own thoughts and emotions."
No comments:
Post a Comment