Stasis: Agreeing to Disagree The debate regarding the decline of the humanities is complex and multi-facetted with divergent opinions on both sides of the argument. Some individuals follow the notion that the humanities may be suffering a decline due to students veering toward other more societally approved and lucrative career paths. Moreover, some worry that this situation is propagated by an overall lack of funding and interest in the humanities, which may play an integral role in the widespread waning of the humanities. These concepts are stranded together with a common cord but one must discern whether these fears are truly tangible or simply overstated. Furthermore, the concept of whether a humanities degree in this day and age is a
…show more content…
This point of agreement is essential for the proceeding argument as it creates a sturdy foundation for the debate to spring from. While all of the authors agree that there is a decline, they disagree in regard to whether the issue is truly as detrimental as it is presented. For example, Schmidt believes not only is the problem overstated but also that when reduced to its bones, there is no crisis facing the humanities. He hones in on the idea that if there is one thing that is certain in reality it is that the world around exists in a perpetual state of change. Likewise, it is nominal for career fields to follow the same dynamic trend. These career fields, however, as argued by Schmidt, need not change due to the “fear that their very survival is at stake” (pars.3). Also, Schmidt highlights that although some humanities fields have suffered from decline even “practical fields [have] suffered intense cyclical fluctuations” (pars.5). For instance, the number of students majoring in computer science has fallen “by 40 percent from 2004 to 2001” exemplifying that even stereotypically pragmatic career fields are prone to negative cyclical lapses. On the other end of the handle, Scott, argues that not only is the decline in the humanities truly an issue to fret about but any actions to positively affect the decline would most likely come too late to offer any beneficial service (Scott pars. 8). Scott, like Carnevale, also employs statistics to affirm his argument. He states that the “humanities degrees dropped by 7 percent between 2009 and 2011, and by half since 1967” thus exemplifying the marked decline he speaks of (Scott pars. 2). To explain this conjecture, he attributes this downward spike to the humanists personally. Furthermore, he illustrates to effectively change the dynamics of the dismal outlook on the
This point of agreement is essential for the proceeding argument as it creates a sturdy foundation for the debate to spring from. While all of the authors agree that there is a decline, they disagree in regard to whether the issue is truly as detrimental as it is presented. For example, Schmidt believes not only is the problem overstated but also that when reduced to its bones, there is no crisis facing the humanities. He hones in on the idea that if there is one thing that is certain in reality it is that the world around exists in a perpetual state of change. Likewise, it is nominal for career fields to follow the same dynamic trend. These career fields, however, as argued by Schmidt, need not change due to the “fear that their very survival is at stake” (pars.3). Also, Schmidt highlights that although some humanities fields have suffered from decline even “practical fields [have] suffered intense cyclical fluctuations” (pars.5). For instance, the number of students majoring in computer science has fallen “by 40 percent from 2004 to 2001” exemplifying that even stereotypically pragmatic career fields are prone to negative cyclical lapses. On the other end of the handle, Scott, argues that not only is the decline in the humanities truly an issue to fret about but any actions to positively affect the decline would most likely come too late to offer any beneficial service (Scott pars. 8). Scott, like Carnevale, also employs statistics to affirm his argument. He states that the “humanities degrees dropped by 7 percent between 2009 and 2011, and by half since 1967” thus exemplifying the marked decline he speaks of (Scott pars. 2). To explain this conjecture, he attributes this downward spike to the humanists personally. Furthermore, he illustrates to effectively change the dynamics of the dismal outlook on the