Who Needs Philosophy? Colleges Defend the Humanities Despite High Costs, Dim Job Prospects

As rising tuition and mounting student debt makes prospective income a bigger part of choosing a major, humanities disciplines such as philosophy and history are under attack in favor of such fields as engineering and business, which are more likely to lead to jobs and salaries that justify the cost of four-year college education.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Jan Sonnenmair

Ed Ray, president of Oregon State University

Oregon State University President Ed Ray flinched when a stranger confronted him to say his daughter had just graduated from the school with a degree in philosophy.

“I thought, ‘Oh my God,’” says Ray, who expected he would have to fend off yet another diatribe about the questionable value, in a weak employment market, of majoring in philosophy and other humanities subjects.

In fact, the man wanted to thank him, Ray says. His daughter, he said, had just gotten a good job as an ethicist at a hospital.

Ray’s anxiety was understandable. As rising tuition and mounting student debt makes prospective income a bigger part of choosing a major, humanities disciplines such as philosophy and history are under attack in favor of such fields as engineering and business, which are more likely to lead to jobs and salaries that justify the cost of four-year college education.

(MORE: College Costs: Would Tuition Discounts Get More Students to Major in Science)

“Higher education has really pressed this idea that if you have a college education, you’ll make more,” says Ray, an economist by training. That’s true, he says, but the strategy of emphasizing the financial value of degrees has backfired on the academy. “Shame on us. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the next step is, which major pays the most.”

That question is currently on the minds of many high school seniors and their parents, as they await college admissions decisions and the students consider what classes to take. And it’s driving a debate over the very purpose of higher education—whether universities and colleges exist to teach people general knowledge, or to train them for specific jobs.

This is no longer just an academic conversation. Only 8 percent of students now major in the humanities, according to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, down from a peak of more than 17 percent in 1967.

Worried that enrollment in these subjects will continue to slip, university officials say it could lead entire departments to disappear. And they contend that what would be lost is exactly what employers say they really need: the kind of educations that teach students how to think, innovate, communicate, work in teams, and solve problems.

“The risk is that we become shortsighted,” says Robert Sternberg, provost at Oklahoma State University. “We have become obsessed with cost. We need to be concerned with value: What use will this education be to me in a rapidly changing world?”

So far, the humanities are losing.

(MORE: Colleges & Universities)

A task force in Florida has recommended that public universities there charge more for “non-strategic majors” such as history and English, which it says are in less demand than “strategic” degrees in science, technology, engineering, math, and the health professions. Those majors would cost students less.

“If I’m going to take money from a citizen to put into education, then I’m going to take that money to create jobs,” Florida Governor Rick Scott told the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. “Is it a vital interest of the state to have more anthropologists? I don’t think so.”

In North Carolina, Governor Patrick McCrory also questioned whether taxpayers should underwrite programs devised by what he called an “educational elite” that don’t lead to employment. “If you want to take gender studies that’s fine. Go to a private school and take it,” McCrory said in a January radio interview. “But I don’t want to subsidize that if that’s not going to get someone a job.”

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has said that public technical colleges there should be judged on whether “young people [are] getting degrees in jobs that are open and needed today, not just the jobs that the universities want to give us.”

Companies that reimburse their employees for tuition are also getting choosier about which subjects they’ll pay for. Amazon.com, for instance, last year launched a tuition-assistance program for full-time employees, but it will pay only for “courses that lead to technical and vocational certifications or associate’s degrees in eligible in-demand fields.”

Even some inside academia—especially at community colleges, which are largely vocational and which see the debate as an opening to promote their value—are joining the chorus of voices preaching that a four-year liberal-arts education has become a bad investment and a luxury for the elite, compared to an education that trains a student for a specific job.

“We should all be blessed enough to pursue life’s passion, but not everybody is,” says Tom Snyder, president of Ivy Tech Community College in Indiana, who says that the economy cannot support more art-history or philosophy majors.

(MORE: The Biggest Barrier to Elite Education isn’t Affordability. It’s Accessibility)

Meanwhile, a record 88 percent of this year’s freshmen at four-year colleges and universities say “getting a better job” is the top reason they enrolled in college, UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute reports—17 percentage points higher than before the economic downturn started pushing tuition up and the supply of jobs down. That’s more than said they enrolled “to learn about things that interest me.”

More than two-thirds say the goal of going to college is to make more money, compared to 44 percent in 1976, according to a survey conducted for the recent book, “Generation on a Tightrope: A Portrait of Today’s College Student,” by Arthur Levine, former president of Teachers College, Columbia University, and Illinois State University Professor Diane R. Dean. So widespread has this sentiment become that several major associations of independent universities and colleges have launched campaigns to promote the humanities.

The Council of Independent Colleges in November began a “Campaign for the Liberal Arts.” The Association of American Colleges and Universities, or AAC&U, had already started something similar, and in January adopted a new mission statement that emphasizes the importance of what it now prefers to call “liberal education,” which it says gives students “broad knowledge and transferable skills.”

(MORE: A New School of Thought in China)

It’s an uphill battle. Students are more likely to get a job with a degree in the sciences than in the humanities, according to the Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce. The unemployment rate for recent history majors, for example, is 10.2 percent, compared to 7.5 percent for students who majored in engineering and 7.4 percent for business grads.

They’ll also make more money. A newly minted humanities major who does get a job will earn an average of $36,988 a year, the National Association of Colleges and Employers reports, while an engineer right out of college will average $61,913. The gap continues in mid-career, when engineers still make 30 percent more than history graduates, according to new research by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. And the exodus from the humanities may accelerate as more states join Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia in publishing the earnings of graduates by college, degree, and major.

“There’s been an inordinate amount of cost increase for both public and private education that makes students have to think about the return on investment, especially since so much of that investment is borrowed money,” says Ivy Tech’s Snyder, an engineer who also has a master’s degree in business administration.

Colleges and universities fire back that what employers really seek from graduates is not specific job-related know-how, but such characteristics as critical thinking, capacity for innovation, and an ability to write and speak well. “For many people the liberal arts seem hoity-toity, but these are the skills employers want,” says Oklahoma State’s Sternberg.

“Being able to read things critically and then being able to articulate how you can change things going forward and assess things, the ability to work in teams—those skills are important everywhere,” says Oregon State’s Ray. “If you talk to people who run companies that hire engineers, they will tell you, ‘I need an engineer who can write.’”

Nearly 90 percent of corporate executives want employees with verbal and written communication skills, according to a survey by the AAC&U. Seventy-five percent want graduates who understand ethical decision-making, and 70 percent say they need creative and innovative workers—the kinds of graduates the association’s member colleges and universities contend they’re turning out.

For the long-term health of the economy, they’re right, says John Dorrer, a program director at Jobs for the Future, and advocacy group that tries to streamline students’ paths to college and careers. “We need to look at the durable skill sets people need and not be at the whim of every short-term work place need.”

MORE:  Should Colleges Ban Double Majors?
This story was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, nonpartisan education-news outlet based at Teachers College, Columbia University. It’s one of a series of reports about workforce development and higher education.


Dim Job prospects? You have to be kidding right? Philosophy is one of the most well respected subjects one could ever study. 

They score the HIGHEST of ANY MAJOR on the pre-law school tests. They come top three of ANY MAJOR in IQ of graduates. These are both facts, look them up. 

They are actively in demand in multiple professions. I hire Philosophy Graduates over some dimwitted history, economics, business management or even computer science majors any day of the week. 

Typically I've found it's only the uneducated, jealous or those in careers they don't want to be in, that think Philosophy is a waste of time. Usually it's those too stupid to actually know what Philosophy means. 


"And they contend that what would be lost is exactly what employers say they really need: the kind of educations that teach students how to think, innovate, communicate, work in teams, and solve problems."

And how exactly are they going to solve problems when they don't have any skills with which to do so? After all, they have just spent four years reading books by old dead white men and then arguing about it. They have also listened to four years of professors telling them that "the life of the mind" is something that can't be taken away from you by the soulless vocational professions. Maybe they should just eat their books when they are done with them.


For any parent or student that doesn't know what they 'really' want to do with their lives, or let their kids do...watch this great video by 'Alan Watts'. It is only a few minutes long, and I really do not feel that truer words could ever be spoken.



We need students to learn how to solve problems by considering more than whether or not a particular solution is "efficient" or "cost-effective" but also whether it is "fair," or "just," or "good." When no one learns how to debate and argue about values, a people loses it's way. So, while it's good to hear from champions of liberal arts and humanities, it is also depressing that at the end of the day, the only question that really matters to those interviewed in this article is: are students getting the "skills" that *employers* need? The assumption behind such single-minded questioning is that we don't live, anymore, in a "culture" or a "society"--we only live, now, in an "economy."


I was in a profession that was a so-called "trade" -- journalism. That is, any aspiring journalist could go to college, study journalism, then go find a job as a journalist. There was a direct link between school and employment. It was exactly like going to technical school to become a plumber or an electrician or, I suppose, studying computer science to become a computer scientist. In these situations, school serves one purpose -- to teach you how to do a certain job.

There's obviously a difference between a regular school -- what we've come to know as a liberal arts college or a university -- and a trade school. Colleges and universities have NEVER claimed that they prepared you for a particular job. That wasn't their mission. What they did was civilize you, expose you to ideas and people that, at different times, changed the world, ask the questions in life that go beyond the mundane, beyond your career or your bank account. No surprise, I suppose, that then (the 1970s) and now, many -- perhaps most -- of the successful people in the financial world, especially on Wall Street --  went to one of these schools and majored in something other than economics or business (most of these schools don't even offer business as a major). How did they succeed in business with a degree in, say, art history, or English, or French, or anthropology? Well, because they were educated, and they were smart.

This was true in the journalism world, too. The best journalists didn't study journalism -- they studied all the subjects that feed INTO journalism -- that is, all the subjects that have to do with life as we live it and understand it. We call this knowledge and there is no replacing it and no quantifying it. If you go to a good liberal arts college, study, think, learn (and have some fun and make friends, later known as connections), you'll find a good job and you'll make enough money to buy a house and a car and send your own kids to college. And you'll be an educated person in the broadest sense, which will make you a better person and one more apt to succeed in whatever you decide to do.

Tony Reid 

Director of the Humphrey Family Writing Center

Instructor of Journalism

The Hill School

Pottstown, Pa. 


What a silly, silly article, unbalanced and incendiary; hardly the objective look you would expect from Time Magazine. The major flaws of this article concern the ways in which its writer conflates philosophy and history into the entire scope of the humanities, thereby making the ridiculous argument that there is no employment in the humanities in general.  I guess that means there is no employment in public relations and the media? No employment in the entertainment industry or Hollywood? No employment in the gaming industry or communications? No employment for technical writers? No employment for politicians (as I recall, governors, your degrees in poli sci came from the humanities department, not engineering). TRUTH: There is tons of employment in the humanities, lots of jobs out there. Even the president of Oregon State University (like most university administrators) has an advanced degree in the humanities, and he's rocking a six digit figure every year. I know that his salary is paltry compared to the OSU football coach (Mike Riley, who makes more than $800,000 per year, also with a degree in the HUMANITIES). So really, Jon Marcus, writer extraordinaire, don't you think you ought to work these facts into your skimpily researched little screed? A piece like this in Time Magazine can cause a lot of trouble in universities that are constantly facing budget cuts based on misguided views of "what the public needs." I think you could do better. In fact, I know it.


My own BA in Philosophy isn't worth toilet paper, new or used. Why?

Philosophy has been a cynical racket in academia for the past century. Most departments were hijacked by a school of thought termed "linguistic analysis" or the "British Analytic Tradition", which eschewed ideas, instead nitpicking around the abstruse meaning of words and phrases. Socrates examined the notion of Truth and pretty much exhausted the subject - we don't need their asinine repartee to hash this out indefinitely. You want critical thinking? Try mathematics or E. O. Wilson's superb new theory on Group evolution.

Populated by Oxbridge flunk-outs in "the colonies", and their wannabees, they have blunted Western thought since Wittgenstein, and blocked all competing themes (German, French, Oriental etc.)  This is an effete cult that values only tenure.

One result was the West knows little about Confucianism, e.g. which is the most important legacy of thought that our species has assembled. It has distanced us from our Asian counterparts. 

The Internet provides all the company you need to study Philosophy - give the kids some science smarts and opportunities to compete instead. This farce has cost us dearly and needs to come to an end right now. 


"what would be lost [by reducing humanities graduates] is exactly what employers say they really need: the kind of educations that teach students how to think, innovate, communicate, work in teams, and solve problems."

I'm sorry, but this REALLY irritates me.  I've got nothing against the humanities, but I really get annoyed by this idea that the ONLY place you can learn critical thinking, communicating, and problem solving is through them.  Yes, a good liberal arts background will help teach you these skills.  But so will a good engineering or science background (and surely other degrees as well which I know less of).  I've been working on a multinational science satellite mission for the past decade.  You're really telling me that because I got an engineering degree, I don't know how to work with a team, pose complex and creative problems, and think critically about how to solve them? 

Another way to ask this question:  would you really want a doctor or airplane-designer to NOT have critical thinking, creativity, communications, and problem-solving skills?  Do you really think they could do their jobs well without those skills?

The same general skills taught in the humanities are ALSO taught in other disciplines.  Focus on why your major is important and valuable, please, not why things we ALL learn are valuable.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,123 other followers