dude, did you fail your english lit class or something? I've never seen so much resentment in one post. Sorry for being such a parasite on society. Usually people on this list want to kill all the lawyers :)
ck On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:10:42AM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > > "Christopher M. Kelty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I mean do you really thing that people in the humanities are > > somehow more disconnected from reality and commercial pressure than > > engineers or scientists? > > I actually do think that. > > The study of, say, literature, is not particularly demanded by the > market. The economy would not collapse if all the world's professors > studying Victorian English novels vanished without a trace. The > principle natural demand for such professions comes from academia > itself, which is highly subsidized by the government at the moment and > thus not operating particularly according to normal market dictates. > > Demand for academics in the humanities is largely synthetic, being > generated by redistributions of money from taxpayers by > governments. This synthetic demand is created both directly via > payments to fund academics and academia, and indirectly through the > subsidy of college educations. The latter is an especially important > subsidy, since without it many more seeking such educations would feel > tremendous pressure to learn things that would be of benefit in the > job market, and might not otherwise spend much time on the study of > poetry and the like. > > There is precious little objective test for the quality of such > academic work in any case, but in the current environment, a lack of > practical value in the work done will go largely unnoticed. > > A century ago, there was little to no government subsidy of professions > like the academic study of literature, and as a consequence there was > fairly little of it done -- those who might have been so inclined > found other ways to occupy their time, be it the practice of law or > running lumber mills. The few who did manage to get such work usually > had to pass a very high barrier in order to do so. It is not clear > that society was radically worse off as a result. > > Now, engineering *is* in high market demand, without subsidy. People > want their cars and heart-lung machines and fire suppression systems > and bridges, and for good reason -- without such things they might > live very uncomfortable lives. There is thus a considerable amount of > market pressure on the profession of engineering -- and considerable > market judgment about the quality of the output. No amount of > posturing will alter the objective qualities of an engineered artifact > -- vigorous argument will not make a car more fuel efficient, and a > thorough command of arcane jargon will not make a bridge stand up. > > > The humanities today are more like (US) reality than ever before, > > namely in the economic distribution of wealth, with a handful (less > > than 1%) making more than say, 100K per year, and whose names are > > known by the New York Times or the TLS, and the 99% living in near > > poverty (starting salaries for a tenure track job are still around > > 30-45K), our outright poverty (adjuncts teaching 4 classes per > > semester for $3000 or less per class). > > That's not being "more like (US) reality than ever before", that's > far less like reality than ever before. The average person in the US > has to convince other people to trade hard won resources for their > labor in order to earn their bread. The average academic survives > because of subsidy. > > The "pressure" on academics is not actual market pressure at all. > It is, in fact, a very luxurious state of affairs. > > There is, of course, dramatic competition for academic jobs in the > humanities, and why shouldn't there be? If you can get a tenured job, > you have a lifetime of doing more or less only what you enjoy, devoid > of any need to actually do terribly much other than the indifferent > teaching of a class or two. (You might have to read the student's > papers and grade them, but that's hardly onerous compared to any real > job.) You even get your entire summer off, sabbaticals, funded trips > to conferences, carnal access to the occasional undergraduate if you > are so inclined, etc. The pay may not be fantastic, but the job itself > is, so why wouldn't there be huge numbers of people striving to get > in? > > Now, if you compare the current state of affairs to that a century or > so ago, and the contrast is fairly stark. There just wasn't enough > money flowing in to the marketplace to support a large class of > academics in the humanities. > > Of course, even in the modern situation, far more try to get in than > actually manage, and so we have the academic underclass that is forced > to actually work hard, at the behest of actual market demand, doing > such "demeaning" tasks as teaching remedial English composition > classes at community colleges (a task held in contempt in spite of the > fact that it actually is of substantial benefit to society). > > > > Perry >
