Why do people do this?? (VENT)

[SKL]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

It’s not because they have a profound impact on everyone but because they make it possible for people to do what they do or want to do in better ways, from bedside manner to sales and product development.

I think many people learn that kind of thing better from life experience vs. books.

But look, I'm not saying we need to ban college psychology.  I'm saying I can understand why some people don't want to  bankroll a young adult's degree in the humanities.  You are free to disagree.

[Sneezyone]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think many people learn that kind of thing better from life experience vs. books.

But look, I'm not saying we need to ban college psychology.  I'm saying I can understand why some people don't want to  bankroll a young adult's degree in the humanities.  You are free to disagree.

Isn’t it good that there are people who actually study and quantify these things so we can know how best to teach and learn? My lived experience is that most people don’t experience nearly as much as they could learn through study, nor would most people want to experience it all. The school of hard knocks is painful. My primary point is that many of us here make our livings, good ones, using the humanities and know, from experience, that poo pooing them is foolish and comes largely from a place of ignorance.

Edited March 24 by Sneezyone

[TechWife]

3 minutes ago, SKL said:

I think many people learn that kind of thing better from life experience vs. books.

But look, I'm not saying we need to ban college psychology.  I'm saying I can understand why some people don't want to  bankroll a young adult's degree in the humanities.  You are free to disagree.

I’m thinking that perhaps we aren’t using the same definition of “humanities,” because, at least to my recollection, psychology isn’t included as a specific subject within that designation. 

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I’m thinking that perhaps we aren’t using the same definition of “humanities,” because, at least to my recollection, psychology isn’t included as a specific subject within that designation. 

I’ve always interpreted it broadly— history, philosophy, language, psychology, sociology, mathematics (which is also an art), fine arts…

One of my friends majored in neuropsychobiology, she also passed the foreign service exam and is now a homeschooling mama. She used to work in video game design (medical simulations).

Edited March 24 by Sneezyone

[SKL]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Isn’t it good that there are people who actually study and quantify these things so we can know how best to teach and learn? My lived experience is that most people don’t experience nearly as much as they could learn through study, nor would most people want to experience it all. The school of hard knocks is painful. My primary point is that many of us here make our livings, good ones, using the humanities and know, from experience, that poo pooing them is foolish and comes largely from a place of ignorance.

It varies by individual.  Many people can read all day but not really gain valuable understanding from what they've read.  Others learn and internalize a lot from what they read.  But even then, IME all that book learning doesn't stop the school of hard knocks from being painful.

[TechWife]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

I’ve always interpreted it broadly— history, philosophy, language, psychology, sociology, mathematics (which is also an art), fine arts…

Interesting. I’ve always thought that sociology and psychology were incorporated in a thorough examination of history, literature, language and the arts. I think  such a study would include the psychological and sociological aspects of those different areas of study. I do see your point about mathematics being an art, and science can be placed there as well, I think. Synthesizing all of the different is one thing that distinguishes a study of humanities from a narrower field of study. 

[Sneezyone]

Just now, SKL said:

It varies by individual.  Many people can read all day but not really gain valuable understanding from what they've read.  Others learn and internalize a lot from what they read.  But even then, IME all that book learning doesn't stop the school of hard knocks from being painful.

People will always vary. The idea that we should prefer to relearn every lesson/rediscover every thought or fact experientially just because is rather novel. The whole point of higher education is to learn from and build on prior knowledge. 

[SKL]

Just now, Sneezyone said:

People will always vary. The idea that we should prefer to relearn every lesson/rediscover every thought or fact experientially just because is rather novel. The whole point of higher education is to learn from and build on prior knowledge. 

Pretty sure you're putting words in my mouth.

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Interesting. I’ve always thought that sociology and psychology were incorporated in a thorough examination of history, literature, language and the arts. I think  such a study would include the psychological and sociological aspects of those different areas of study. I do see your point about mathematics being an art, and science can be placed there as well, I think. Synthesizing all of the different is one thing that distinguishes a study of humanities from a narrower field of study. 

This. To your point, the ability to synthesize and find through lines is something that is absolutely lost in narrower programs. One of the things that impressed DS about UChicago was its steadfast commitment to breadth.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Pretty sure you're putting words in my mouth.

Not really. You’ve said humanities are BS, generally worthless for poor people, and a waste of money because learning from experience is better. I disagree.

[TechWife]

14 minutes ago, SKL said:

It varies by individual.  Many people can read all day but not really gain valuable understanding from what they've read.  Others learn and internalize a lot from what they read.  But even then, IME all that book learning doesn't stop the school of hard knocks from being painful.

It does provide a  knowledge base to draw on as we navigate the difficult situations we all encounter in life, though. Knowledge of  classic literature, for example, give us a reference point and a framework from which to draw on as we problem solve and express our thoughts and emotions.

ETA: By way of example that most people in the US would be familiar with, whether or not they’ve studied humanities, The Little Engine That Could is referred to frequently by parents. “You can do it, just like the little engine did!” We continue to read it to every generation since it was written because it helps us understand life. 

Edited March 24 by TechWife

[SKL]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Not really. You’ve said humanities are BS, generally worthless for poor people, and a waste of money because learning from experience is better. I disagree.

OK, I guess I must defer to your superior English interpretation skills.

[Sneezyone]

6 minutes ago, SKL said:

OK, I guess I must defer to your superior English interpretation skills.

No need. I could quote if you’d find that helpful.

[Carrie12345]

18 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

get it. The current price and debt related to higher ed makes many parents see college as a means to an earning end without any other considerations which is just sad. But Americans are very "bang for the buck" oriented.

I am not sure though what kind of society these Americans want to live in because one without the arts, without humanities, is going to be dystopian. I guess they figure they will "import" it like they do everything else.

I’m a person who believes the arts and humanities are crucial, and that all employment should be at a living wage. Unfortunately, my beliefs have little influence on reality.

Look, I was raised to do good for humanity. My sister is the only 1 of 3 who completed college and even got her masters in order to be legally qualified to help certain populations. But that’s left her scratching the poverty line as a single mother. The only reason I have the privilege of pursuing a similar path as a Middle Aged woman is because my spouse earns perks, bonuses, and raises that are significant compared to my potential future salary. It isn’t a lack of deep desire for meaningful contribution to society, it’s the odds of survivability.

While I’m here, my kids will always have a home so, sure, it’s safe for them to explore a bit. But I’m not going to be here forever, and whatever estate is left behind will get split 5 ways. 5 people, potentially 5 families, will have to be able to sustain themselves.

In today’s reality, I don’t know, and I’m not sure if any of us knows, what an odds-based hedge looks like. MY music major is 25. How much time does he have left to give it a good go? To 30? 35? (To be fair, he got young parents, so he’s got that going for him. My 13yo, not as much.)

As an X’er who was expected to follow the college-to-adult path and failed that milestone, I push very hard against it. But I’m flying blind when it comes to alternative guidance. All I know for sure is that I have to make people who are capable of living without me, because they’re going to have to, whether that’s tomorrow or in 50 years, and no one can tell me which it’ll be closer to.

I know I’ve raised all of my kids to make significant and beautiful contributions to society. But society’s bills still have to be paid. 

[TexasProud]

12 minutes ago, Carrie12345 said:

 

I know I’ve raised all of my kids to make significant and beautiful contributions to society. But society’s bills still have to be paid. 

But at least for one of the children that the OP mentioned:
 

I have a former student who got her BS in music therapy and her M. Ed in Special education. She's working at a school as a special Ed teacher and lives with her grandfather to save money and because it's good for him to have someone else around. She got good scholarships and grants, so she's not in significant debt. 

Her father considers her college education a "waste" because she's "not making enough to be an independent adult". 

She is paying society's bills and then some.  Not only is she working, but she is helping out an older relative and being smart by saving money....  Her dad is just being a jerk.

[Carrie12345]

18 minutes ago, TexasProud said:

But at least for one of the children that the OP mentioned:
 

I have a former student who got her BS in music therapy and her M. Ed in Special education. She's working at a school as a special Ed teacher and lives with her grandfather to save money and because it's good for him to have someone else around. She got good scholarships and grants, so she's not in significant debt. 

Her father considers her college education a "waste" because she's "not making enough to be an independent adult". 

She is paying society's bills and then some.  Not only is she working, but she is helping out an older relative and being smart by saving money....  Her dad is just being a jerk.

Sure! And Jack Antonoff is majorly rich in my son’s area of music. There’s no argument that the arts CAN be anywhere from sustainable to insanely lucrative. The conversation evolved, and I’m participating as the parent of a musician, sharing my own concerns about the odds.

Frankly, being a sahp has proven financially beneficial to me. I don’t want to see that become my kids’ plan, though. At least, not the way I did it. (Though we do still get a kick out of how the youngest once said he wants to be a sahd who cooks and works out.)

I do think it’s ridiculous to frame “success” as an income over $120k or living alone when there’s no reason to.   
AND a major in music freaks me out.

[Eos]

5 hours ago, SKL said:

It's nice that the humanities had such a "profound impact" on some people.  We are all wired differently.  Different things impact us differently.  The idea that everyone needs to study lots of humanities courses because they had a "profound impact" on some people is flawed IMO.

I think the profound impact is at the societal level, not the individual level.

As Regentrude mentioned and my musician dd found, European students and the larger society value the humanities in a different and tangible way.  Dd met a mom of 4 who was getting her third Master's in music performance, because she could. The society is set up for her to achieve this goal: she has had excellent health care, childcare, education for her children, and very inexpensive graduate school. She's never going to be a famous performer or have an impact on the scholarly field but what she brings to her family, her community, the larger society, and the "great conversation" across generations is valued and profound in that context.

Imagine our American culture adopting the same posture.

Edited March 24 by Eos

[regentrude]

8 hours ago, SKL said:

I think many people learn that kind of thing better from life experience vs. books.

But look, I'm not saying we need to ban college psychology.  

Curious: How does one learn the humanities, i.e. arts, languages, literature, music, "from life experience"? And how does being poor makes you automatically better at it?

Psychology isn't part of the humanities; it's classified as a social science.

Edited March 24 by regentrude

[SKL]

FTR I love learning for the sake of learning.  It's my life.

Funny thing ... around the time I went to college, the "humanities" were releasing study after study telling me that I was destined to be a failure.  I had so many things against me, per them:

• Brought up poor / working class.
• Parents were high school dropouts.
• Parents had 6 kids.
• I was the 3rd kid.
• I was a girl.
• I was a latchkey kid.
• I didn't have my own room / study space.
• Nobody ever helped me with my homework.
• I was young for my grade.
• My teeth came in slowly.  (Yes, that was supposed to mean I was stupid.)
• I didn't take any vitamins, nor did I eat 7 fruits/vegetables per day.

Forgive me if I scoffed a lot.

And then Psych 101 with the oedipal complex.

And Intro to Poetry, which could be summed up as "all poems are about sex."

And Intro to Soc, where we were required to watch a video of a Chinese woman getting a forced abortion.

I guess I'm just not there with the profound impact of those classes.

Edited March 24 by SKL

[SKL]

Just now, regentrude said:

Curious: How does one learn the humanities, i.e. arts, languages, literature, music, "from life experience"?

I've learned a ton more about each of those outside of college, compared to a very small amount in college.

Your reference to my "life experience" comment is out of context.  My comment was in response to a prior poster who indicated that the humanities helped with job stuff like bedside manner and marketing / product development.  I said many people learn those things best via life experience.

[regentrude]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

I've learned a ton more about each of those outside of college, compared to a very small amount in college.

I did, too. But that doesn't negate the value of studying the humanities, especially since many students didn't have a thorough humanities education in school.

We are a well-read, educated family, incorporated lots of humanities education into our homeschooling,  but the rigorous core requirements at my DD's university were in a completely different category, and she (and I) learned so much from them.

Just because some colleges have poorly taught or low rigor classes in the discipline (which often is a response to the abysmal preparation of the students that doesn't allow for deeper study) doesn't mean it wouldn't be valuable to have a good humanities education.  Several of my best friends are English professors, so I see quite closely the challenges they are facing.

[TechWife]

8 hours ago, SKL said:

It varies by individual.  Many people can read all day but not really gain valuable understanding from what they've read.  Others learn and internalize a lot from what they read.  But even then, IME all that book learning doesn't stop the school of hard knocks from being painful.

There’s a qualitative difference between reading and comprehending. Following comprehension comes application and synthesis, which can happen simultaneously and over time. No one picks up The Illiad and fully comprehends it just by reading it. Studying humanities is how we a learn by doing, because thinking is doing. 

[TechWife]

58 minutes ago, SKL said:

FTR I love learning for the sake of learning.  It's my life.

Funny thing ... around the time I went to college, the "humanities" were releasing study after study telling me that I was destined to be a failure.  I had so many things against me, per them:

• Brought up poor / working class.
• Parents were high school dropouts.
• Parents had 6 kids.
• I was the 3rd kid.
• I was a girl.
• I was a latchkey kid.
• I didn't have my own room / study space.
• Nobody ever helped me with my homework.
• I was young for my grade.
• My teeth came in slowly.  (Yes, that was supposed to mean I was stupid.)
• I didn't take any vitamins, nor did I eat 7 fruits/vegetables per day.

Forgive me if I scoffed a lot.

And then Psych 101 with the oedipal syndrome.

And Intro to Poetry, which could be summed up as "all poems are about sex."

And Intro to Soc, where we were required to watch a video of a Chinese woman getting a forced abortion.

I guess I'm just not there with the profound impact of those classes.

Humanities don’t release studies like that. 

[SKL]

4 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Humanities don’t release studies like that. 

It's become clear that there is more than one definition of "humanities" in the Hive's backgrounds.

[Sneezyone]

4 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

Sure! And Jack Antonoff is majorly rich in my son’s area of music. There’s no argument that the arts CAN be anywhere from sustainable to insanely lucrative. The conversation evolved, and I’m participating as the parent of a musician, sharing my own concerns about the odds.

Frankly, being a sahp has proven financially beneficial to me. I don’t want to see that become my kids’ plan, though. At least, not the way I did it. (Though we do still get a kick out of how the youngest once said he wants to be a sahd who cooks and works out.)

I do think it’s ridiculous to frame “success” as an income over $120k or living alone when there’s no reason to.   
AND a major in music freaks me out.

These things just don’t have to be in tension tho. They’re pitched as dichotomous(tm) because it’s easier than dealing with complexity/reality. I’ve an unhealthy sibling struggling to make a living in her chosen helping profession too. Thinking outside the box about applying those skills beyond clinical settings is mind-bending but worthwhile. Ideally, clinical/caregiving and direct teaching would be highly valued too.

Edited March 24 by Sneezyone

[Faith-manor]

5 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

I’m a person who believes the arts and humanities are crucial, and that all employment should be at a living wage. Unfortunately, my beliefs have little influence on reality.

Look, I was raised to do good for humanity. My sister is the only 1 of 3 who completed college and even got her masters in order to be legally qualified to help certain populations. But that’s left her scratching the poverty line as a single mother. The only reason I have the privilege of pursuing a similar path as a Middle Aged woman is because my spouse earns perks, bonuses, and raises that are significant compared to my potential future salary. It isn’t a lack of deep desire for meaningful contribution to society, it’s the odds of survivability.

While I’m here, my kids will always have a home so, sure, it’s safe for them to explore a bit. But I’m not going to be here forever, and whatever estate is left behind will get split 5 ways. 5 people, potentially 5 families, will have to be able to sustain themselves.

In today’s reality, I don’t know, and I’m not sure if any of us knows, what an odds-based hedge looks like. MY music major is 25. How much time does he have left to give it a good go? To 30? 35? (To be fair, he got young parents, so he’s got that going for him. My 13yo, not as much.)

As an X’er who was expected to follow the college-to-adult path and failed that milestone, I push very hard against it. But I’m flying blind when it comes to alternative guidance. All I know for sure is that I have to make people who are capable of living without me, because they’re going to have to, whether that’s tomorrow or in 50 years, and no one can tell me which it’ll be closer to.

I know I’ve raised all of my kids to make significant and beautiful contributions to society. But society’s bills still have to be paid. 

I get it. It is frustrating, even heart breaking. I don't think so long as this version of capitalism and worship of money are the only focus our culture is willing to have, it will change. I hate it. And I am pro every single job should be a living wage that can provide all the basics of life. To that end, I want universal healthcare.

But as Mr Holland said in Mr. Holland's Opus, "Well, I guess you can cut the arts as much as you want, Gene. Sooner or later, these kids won't have anything to read or write about!"

Also, "The day the football budget in this state, that will be the end of Western Civilization as we know it!"

So ya. As a musician, I have a lot of feelings on the subject, and get why parents don't want their kids to major or minor in humanities, or even attend college at all due to debt. But it sure hurts to be so incredibly undervalued that this is where we are now as a society.

[Arcadia]

38 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Also, "The day the football budget in this state, that will be the end of Western Civilization as we know it!"

So ya. As a musician, I have a lot of feelings on the subject, and get why parents don't want their kids to major or minor in humanities, or even attend college at all due to debt. But it sure hurts to be so incredibly undervalued that this is where we are now as a society

Where I am from, the sports budget is pathetic. None of the sports have a decent budget. The athletes who do well in sports there have strong family financial backing. Still, the musicians in the symphony orchestra were either from affluent families, have a spouse in a well paying job, or working multiple jobs.
College is very affordable where I am from because being a tiny nation, everyone could commute from home. However, the government decided that it would subsidize some degrees more than others because of “value” to society. For example, non-lab based degrees (e.g business) students would have to pay the same or more than engineering students now versus when I was in college and engineering students pay a higher tuition.  Basically the government is calculating the ROI on its funding. 
 

[Sneezyone]

Believe it or not, big time sports in the US subsidize other scholars and most of the kids who do well have parents paying through the nose to participate in supplemental/private leagues. It’s only been in the last 3 years that athletes under 20 have been able to monetize their talents/their parents’ investments. Both my dad and my brother paid for undergrad with D1 Football scholarships and the amount of disinformation about this is huge. The decision about whether college athletes are employees or free agents is still being adjudicated. Following the U.S. lead in picking winners and losers (academic program surge pricing) is a mistake. 

Edited March 24 by Sneezyone

[Corraleno]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Believe it or not, big time sports in the US subsidize other scholars and most of the kids who do well have parents paying through the nose to participate in supplemental/private leagues. It’s only been in the last 3 years that athletes under 20 have been able to monetize their talents/their parents’ investments. Both my dad and my brother paid for undergrad with D1 Football scholarships and the amount of disinformation about this is huge. The decision about whether college athletes are employees or free agents is still being adjudicated. Following the U.S. lead in picking winners and losers (academic program surge pricing) is a mistake. 

Yup, the athletic program at DS's university not only pays for itself, it generates a surplus of several million dollars per year that gets transferred back to the academic side. Athletic programs generate "brand loyalty" and bring in a lot of money from alumni and boosters, plus there are lucrative media contracts — just the TV contract for Big Ten football brings in more than a billion dollars a year that is divided among the teams. And then there are contracts for other sports, sponsorships deals, etc.

[Sneezyone]

8 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Yup, the athletic program at DS's university not only pays for itself, it generates a surplus of several million dollars per year that gets transferred back to the academic side. Athletic programs generate "brand loyalty" and bring in a lot of money from alumni and boosters, plus there are lucrative media contracts — just the TV contract for Big Ten football brings in more than a billion dollars a year that is divided among the teams. And then there are contracts for other sports, sponsorships deals, etc.

It’s a system built on exploitation not human/public need.

[regentrude]

36 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Yup, the athletic program at DS's university not only pays for itself, it generates a surplus of several million dollars per year that gets transferred back to the academic side. Athletic programs generate "brand loyalty" and bring in a lot of money from alumni and boosters, plus there are lucrative media contracts — just the TV contract for Big Ten football brings in more than a billion dollars a year that is divided among the teams. And then there are contracts for other sports, sponsorships deals, etc.

...because sports is what is valued in this country, while arts and humanities aren't. Case in point. 

[Sneezyone]

37 minutes ago, regentrude said:

...because sports is what is valued in this country, while arts and humanities aren't. Case in point. 

Making money is what’s valued, not sport. Pure sport is no more valued than the humanities.

Edited March 24 by Sneezyone

[regentrude]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Making money is what’s valued, not sport. Pure sport is no more valued than the humanities.

I was referring to the spectators and the alumni who give because of the sport (which was the point of the post to which I replied.)

They're not the ones making money. 

 

Edited March 24 by regentrude

[The Governess]

I pursued a business degree when I graduated high school because I was thinking practically. I’m now working as a private school teacher making probably a third of what I would have been had I stayed in the field of finance I started in. But teaching is vocational for me, and infinitely more rewarding. This job has formed me as a person. It’s worth it. I’m planning to start a master’s program this fall in the humanities. It will help me with my teaching career, but I’m mostly just doing it *for me*, and any career-related benefits are purely secondary.

Both of my daughters are pursuing arts degrees. My oldest decided to double degree with a BFA in ballet and a second degree in speech and language disorders. She’s decided to pursue the second as a career, but all along it has been her choice, and she will take all of that classical ballet training with her. It has always been a part of her, and will be a part of her no matter what she does from here.

My youngest will start university this fall as a tech theater major. She’s an artist and loves making props and working on sets. She is a “maker” in every sense of the word. It’s a perfect fit for her. Will it lead to a lucrative career? Probably not. But it’s who she is. 
 

I feel that supporting your children in those pursuits that are a deep part of their identity is one of the best things you can do for them as a parent.
 

 

[Sneezyone]

23 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I was referring to the spectators and the alumni who give because of the sport (which was the point of the post to which I replied.)

They're not the ones making money. 

 

Not historically, but increasingly, some athletes are making money. Plenty of others are making more. It is a parallel issue to devaluing humanities tho b/c big revenue drives the decisions and not people. Profit-generating sports are where even parents drive kids, not obscure physical pursuits which, truthfully, offer better ROI and health outcomes. People don’t see an immediate payoff so it must be worthless.

My older brother has a stroke at 55 and my dad, the youngest brother, is the only one with dementia. That’s not normal. With big risks SHOULD come big money, it doesn’t.

Edited March 24 by Sneezyone

[Clarita]

1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:

Not historically, but increasingly, some athletes are making money. Plenty of others are making more.

Isn't that the same with arts and humanities? Some are making money in arts and humanities. Some in those fields make  A LOT of money. I thought the argument is that the majority can't make ends meet with it, which I would say is the same for sports, even the sports that bring in lots of money for some people. 

For reference here's an article talking about a recent contract for minor league players in baseball. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/minor-league-baseball-players-ratify-historic-first-cba-deal-includes-salary-increases-more/According to it a triple A player (which is the level right before the Major Leagues) makes $17,500-$35,800 annually. Although apparently housing is offered. Then there are plenty of people who don't even make it to that level.

[Rosie_0801]

You'd have thought the pandemic would have taught us all the value of arts. Where did we all turn during lockdowns, to maintain our sanity? We were all watching a lot of telly, a lot of movies, and a lot of Youtube- professional and amateur content.

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, Clarita said:

Isn't that the same with arts and humanities? Some are making money in arts and humanities. Some in those fields make  A LOT of money. I thought the argument is that the majority can't make ends meet with it, which I would say is the same for sports, even the sports that bring in lots of money for some people. 

For reference here's an article talking about a recent contract for minor league players in baseball. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/minor-league-baseball-players-ratify-historic-first-cba-deal-includes-salary-increases-more/According to it a triple A player (which is the level right before the Major Leagues) makes $17,500-$35,800 annually. Although apparently housing is offered. Then there are plenty of people who don't even make it to that level.

Yes, that’s what I was trying to say, badly probably. Sport isn’t funded and celebrated in place of humanities or STEM, it’s compensated where it makes money and starved where it doesn’t. Rather, my point is that, like the humanities it *is* a value add, both for entertainment and for health and for its economic impact. It doesn’t receive the credit it deserves.

[regentrude]

55 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Yes, that’s what I was trying to say, badly probably. Sport isn’t funded and celebrated in place of humanities or STEM, it’s compensated where it makes money and starved where it doesn’t. Rather, my point is that, like the humanities it *is* a value add, both for entertainment and for health and for its economic impact. It doesn’t receive the credit it deserves.

Sports doesn't receive the credit it deserves?? Seriously? In this sports-obsessed culture, where millions of people watch sports, talk sports, bet on sports? Where we just had half the country make a holiday out of watching guys give each other concussions in the name of sport?

Gosh, I'd like to see opera or poetry have even a tiny fraction of that appreciation. 

Edited March 25 by regentrude

[Harriet Vane]

1 hour ago, Rosie_0801 said:

You'd have thought the pandemic would have taught us all the value of arts. Where did we all turn during lockdowns, to maintain our sanity? We were all watching a lot of telly, a lot of movies, and a lot of Youtube- professional and amateur content.

YES

[Sneezyone]

14 hours ago, regentrude said:

Sports doesn't receive the credit it deserves?? Seriously? In this sports-obsessed culture, where millions of people watch sports, talk sports, bet on sports? Where we just had half the country make a holiday out of watching guys give each other concussions in the name of sport?

Gosh, I'd like to see opera or poetry have even a tiny fraction of that appreciation. 

No. It doesn’t. I don’t like ‘classical’ opera but do enjoy and support musical theater (as do many animated film devotees whether they know it or not). Rap is a form of spoken word poetry that I do enjoy. I hate to run, too top heavy, but admire those who do. There are multiple ways to enjoy and be entertained by the things our bodies can do and our minds can create. Sport is one of them. I appreciate them even if I don’t participate in them or connect with them personally, or like them.

One of the things that makes ‘humanities’ so unappealing IMO is the insistence that only high-brow forms count. The number of people who consume athletic-related content, and spend on it, is directly related to the number of people who participate in it, feel connected to it, and want to see it. If opera has fallen out of favor, it’s because things like ‘Carmen Jones’ are disdained. 

‘Humanities’ are not static, and of all disciplines, should be the most inclusive and representative. Folks have lost the plot. Humanities, when done well, foster connection and break down barriers to understanding.  

Why do people compete and feel the need to prove themselves through physical exertion and sport? That is a *human* question/concern. Siloed-study of mechanical/technical disciplines are the opposite, ignoring those sorts of questions. 

*THIS* is why people who play in the humanities will always have a place, role, be able to make a GOOD living. Reductive, siloed perspectives on how humanities apply and what they are creates a vacuum where those who ‘get’ people always thrive and those who lack access to those perspectives lose (as does society as a whole).

Edited March 25 by Sneezyone

[Carol in Cal.]

I think that classics largely have the functionality that is touted for humanities upthread, but that classics are a subset of humanities that are particularly appropriate to this.  There are other parts of the humanities that similarly are useful in that way, but not all of them, and hence it’s easy to talk past each other about this.

I studied STEM in college largely because I knew that I would never learn it any other way.  The humanities classes that I took were my oasis, and I absolutely loved them; I am positive that I would not have self taught nearly as quickly or completely without them; but it is also true that I’m a life long reader and am far more self-taught in humanities than STEM.  FWIW.

[aggie96]

18 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

You'd have thought the pandemic would have taught us all the value of arts. Where did we all turn during lockdowns, to maintain our sanity? We were all watching a lot of telly, a lot of movies, and a lot of Youtube- professional and amateur content.

Totally agree with this, but to be fair the value of theoretical and practical science became pretty darn evident as well.

In our own family, we have had so many paths that lead to diverse definitions of success that STEM vs humanities, learned vs life-experience, school vs hands-on approaches are all supported emotionally and financially. And fortunately we have all been relatively financially successful as well which in turn reinforces that it is OK to take a "different" approach. In my crew and extended family, the common denominator was persistent drive via many different paths.

I know this does not apply to everyone, etc.  Just speaking about my experience.

Seems I'm always on a soapbox about not have to choose one or the other. I fully support both, humanities and STEM. I think everyone needs some of both.  ETA: It's just as baffling when someone says that they "can't" do math and don't need to know any of it. 

FWIW, I would absolutely NOT pay for kiddo to attend college without pursuing some path to a vocation. The path can change as much as needed, but there needs to be some end-game in mind. In the cases presented in the OP, these people have an end-game. In our house, that would be supported. But cost of school vs wage-potential etc would absolutely be discussed and attempted to balance.

Edited March 25 by aggie96

[Arcadia]

I do think you have to factor in the emotional baggage of the speaker (parents). My paternal grandparents had poverty times and relied on the adult children to work outside the family business to be able to eat. My maternal grandparents have never gone through poverty and could support their adult children through rental income if they are jobless. So while my paternal grandparents encourage education, it was really a work and pay for college thing for my paternal family since there wasn’t financial subsidies for college then.

My in-laws were from poverty backgrounds and their support of college is based on a degree holder earning more than a high school graduate in government jobs. Since my in-laws choice of jobs for their children are the military or government job, they were not as concerned about the major. My sister-in-law who was in the air force was a biology major. My in-laws concern then was that she won’t be able to find a husband in college because biology majors are predominantly females. 

My parents would prefer I am in a major which would result in a desk bound job due to my health issues since young. They are able to financially bail me out when I am jobless so they aren’t too worried about which major I pick as long as I am confident of graduating. I took so many college exams taking fever and flu medications because I would catch any flu bug that comes around. So obviously my parents are more worried for me than they are for my very healthy rarely sick brother. My parents were relieved when I became a SAHM. Where I am from, you need a doctor’s note certifying that you are too sick to work. 

[Rosie_0801]

4 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I think that classics largely have the functionality that is touted for humanities upthread, but that classics are a subset of humanities that are particularly appropriate to this.  There are other parts of the humanities that similarly are useful in that way, but not all of them, and hence it’s easy to talk past each other about this.

I have particularly valued the classics for treating trauma. Not a very high brow use of them perhaps, but I am a practical person.

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

I have particularly valued the classics for treating trauma. Not a very high brow use of them perhaps, but I am a practical person.

The ‘classics’ aren’t accessible for everyone in their original form. I agree with the thematic merit (in most, not all cases) but think the updating of form is appropriate and valuable. For some, they’re only valuable in original form. That’s a mistake.

[Rosie_0801]

26 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The ‘classics’ aren’t accessible for everyone in their original form. I agree with the thematic merit (in most, not all cases) but think the updating of form is appropriate and valuable. For some, they’re only valuable in original form. That’s a mistake.

Well, anyone who goes and learns dead languages to read classical literature is entitled to a bit of snobbery as far as I'm concerned, but mostly I look at culture snobs and wonder about their lack of imagination. From my perspective, the originals need to continue to exist so the rest of history can keep playing with them, because humans need to play.

When I wrote my last post I was remembering a section of 'How The Body Keeps Score' where he was talking about a program using Sophocles 'Ajax' to treat military PTSD and the way  'Heidi' and 'David Copperfield' gave words and validation to my dd when she was having similar problems. (Ok, she watched the videos because that was more accessible to Miss 9. Dickens is better as telly.)

Classics might be more accessible, thinking of Shakespeare here, if the schools teaching them taught the students how to access them, how to find them relevant. That would be a more valuable lesson than Shakespeare itself. Not sure what's highbrow about most of the classics, really. Most of what I've read is 'Boy Meets Girl' or 'Someone Is On A Power Trip.' If students endure a class like that without finding it relatable, I can only wonder how that happened and regret it, because a lot of young people these days seem to struggle with not feeling part of a cultural heritage and it's doing them damage. I can't imagine this is the first generation or the last to experience this, but it is painful to watch.

Anyway, I'm not sure if this is relevant to the thread and I should eat breakfast before posting.

[maize]

9 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

No. It doesn’t. I don’t like ‘classical’ opera but do enjoy and support musical theater (as do many animated film devotees whether they know it or not). Rap is a form of spoken word poetry that I do enjoy. I hate to run, too top heavy, but admire those who do. There are multiple ways to enjoy and be entertained by the things our bodies can do and our minds can create. Sport is one of them. I appreciate them even if I don’t participate in them or connect with them personally, or like them.

One of the things that makes ‘humanities’ so unappealing IMO is the insistence that only high-brow forms count. The number of people who consume athletic-related content, and spend on it, is directly related to the number of people who participate in it, feel connected to it, and want to see it. If opera has fallen out of favor, it’s because things like ‘Carmen Jones’ are disdained. 

‘Humanities’ are not static, and of all disciplines, should be the most inclusive and representative. Folks have lost the plot. Humanities, when done well, foster connection and break down barriers to understanding.  

Why do people compete and feel the need to prove themselves through physical exertion and sport? That is a *human* question/concern. Siloed-study of mechanical/technical disciplines are the opposite, ignoring those sorts of questions. 

*THIS* is why people who play in the humanities will always have a place, role, be able to make a GOOD living. Reductive, siloed perspectives on how humanities apply and what they are creates a vacuum where those who ‘get’ people always thrive and those who lack access to those perspectives lose (as does society as a whole).

Age has a lot to do with what is considered high-brow.

Shakespeare, in his own time, was not particularly high-brow.

I think the musical Hamilton is actually an excellent modern production very similar to what Shakespeare productions were in their own time (higher quality in actual production than any Shakespeare production would have been in the time of The Bard, acting troupes back then didn't have as many resources to work with). Similar themes, rhyming content, use of vernacular, pitched to appeal to Everyman as well as to more highbrow theater-goers.

The whole show felt very Shakespeare-esk to me. I loved every minute.

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Well, anyone who goes and learns dead languages to read classical literature is entitled to a bit of snobbery as far as I'm concerned, but mostly I look at culture snobs and wonder about their lack of imagination. From my perspective, the originals need to continue to exist so the rest of history can keep playing with them, because humans need to play.

When I wrote my last post I was remembering a section of 'How The Body Keeps Score' where he was talking about a program using Sophocles 'Ajax' to treat military PTSD and the way  'Heidi' and 'David Copperfield' gave words and validation to my dd when she was having similar problems. (Ok, she watched the videos because that was more accessible to Miss 9. Dickens is better as telly.)

Classics might be more accessible, thinking of Shakespeare here, if the schools teaching them taught the students how to access them, how to find them relevant. That would be a more valuable lesson than Shakespeare itself. Not sure what's highbrow about most of the classics, really. Most of what I've read is 'Boy Meets Girl' or 'Someone Is On A Power Trip.' If students endure a class like that without finding it relatable, I can only wonder how that happened and regret it, because a lot of young people these days seem to struggle with not feeling part of a cultural heritage and it's doing them damage. I can't imagine this is the first generation or the last, but it is painful to watch.

Anyway, I'm not sure if this is relevant to the thread and I should eat breakfast before posting.

I just completely disagree. I don’t think there’s anything special about the original form. In most cases, they were popular because of their accessibility. They were never intended to be exclusive but popular, accessible, and relatable. Should schools update how they’re taught absolutely. The discouragement of modern interpretation and those who have the minds to do it is, IMO, a *BIG* mistake.

[Rosie_0801]

32 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

I just completely disagree. I don’t think there’s anything special about the original form. In most cases, they were popular because of their accessibility. They were never intended to be exclusive but popular, accessible, and relatable. Should schools update how they’re taught absolutely. The discouragement of modern interpretation and those who have the minds to do it is, IMO, a *BIG* mistake.

The only thing I've found more valuable about original formats than modern interpretations is the therapeutic value of telling a person's current story from enough of a distance away. Of course most people aren't using literature to help resolve trauma. (Maybe they should be, but that's another story.) Well, I get more out of adaptations if I've experienced the original, but I enjoy lineages and don't expect that everyone else should enjoy the same. My brother doesn't. He looks at originals and says "This is crap. I've seen it done better."

Otherwise I don't disagree with you. Classics are just hand-me-downs. We can embroider them however we fancy and it's fun to see how people can upcycle them.

I do think there is a perception that classics are unrelatable by people who haven't tried them. I remember a conversation with a past boardie about how stupidly posh opera was and how it's just not for people like her. She imagined if she took her kids to the opera, all the rich people would be rude and look down their noses at her like she was some exhibit from 'Pretty Woman.' I am a person just as lacking in wealth, and could tell her that opera is for whoever buys a ticket and shows up to sit in it, that no one has ever been rude to me or my child, and that if anyone spoke to her at all, it would almost certainly be some variant on how lovely it was that she brought her children and what a good choice of show she'd made, and indulgent smiles when the kids fell asleep half way through. My first opera was an Italian opera set in the Australian outback with corrugated iron sheep for props. Corrugated iron isn't posh! The Australian outback sure isn't posh! I'm still tickled about that even though the story was pretty stupid. Not the stupidest I've seen but opera seems to like what I think are stupid stories. *shrug*
I don't know if she ever went to the opera after all or if she liked it if she did. I don't mind if she prefers football. I just think it is a sadness when people assume they are excluded from a place where art and talent are on show when they really aren't. I guess we need some movies or tv shows about people who wear jeans who love going to the opera so people know that they could if they wanted to. 👎 to the class divide.