What are welders?

I think the problem in misunderstanding the life and it's requirement. Now, the human communities seem not care, human values, but on materialism or profit and loss.

Dear Marcel. Probably Rubio meant the US nation has significant vacancies in the skilled trades. This is knowledge work (education-based earned money) verses manual work type of question!

P.S.: A welder or welder operator is a trades person who specializes in fusing materials together.  Plz. see attached picture

The vote bank politics might be one of the reasons but the moot point of humanities taking a backseat in present day society is a reality. Of course there seems to be a revival in the thought process where the community involvement is being solicited for which the humanities subjects need to be taken into consideration.

Dear @Napoleon. You said "how you calculated the statistics that those studying Humanities face humiliation these days." 

Let me elaborate on my stands and question on this issue. Beside Rubio, others said similar things.  For instance,  Pat McCrory, governor of North Carolina, also singles out philosophy as a discipline offering “worthless courses” that offer “no chances of getting people jobs.” Is not this so sort of indifference? So I conclude in today's America, the philosophy is not popular.

Plz read the link if you need more evidence.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/01/30/north-carolina-governor-joins-chorus-republicans-critical-liberal-arts

Dear Mahmoud.

Thank you for an interesting proposal for debate. Quite interested !

I wouldn't think that there is humiliation related to the Humanities... Of course, in our modern societies, we might tend to advise our children to follow scientific courses instead of Humanities, if we want them to "succeed" in life, in practical and financial terms. (And this would or could be my interpretation of Rubio's words. Welders might find it easier to get employment in today's world...

Nevertheless, our world is rapidly changing. There is unemployment in every field of Society. So, if we wish them well, we'd better advise the young generation of the near future to go as they please and to choose the occupation that grants them more pleasure and interest.

I am certain of a very near rebirth of the Humanities, in a better more practical and updated form. The Humanities may well become the Science of the future, in a renewed form, either  as a fundamental complement of the classical fields of pragmatical sciences or as the basic component of the necessary multidisciplinary luggage that the generations of the future will need to adapt their own "modern" world.

This is my futuristic approach to your question, and I do hope that I am right.

Perhaps, people are overly sensitive. I've certainly heard more than a few humanities-oriented students or professionals who consider engineers to be a lower form of life. So I wouldn't take any of this too seriously. We tend to devalue what we don't know, I suppose.

As to what politicians say, one point is that they have to appeal to a certain audience. But another point is that the main engine of the US economy is high tech. It's been that way for decades. So if a US politician emphasizes course work that leads to high tech jobs, what's usually called STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math), that shouldn't be too surprising.

Mahmoud, hi, what a strong reply to your question!

I read you, dear colleagues. Amaising... Well, but this is my personal point of view, not any scientific support for it. I could not be an engineer if I couldn’t address my work to human and social necessities and I would not do models of cognition if I did not know some math approaches... And I would believe politicians, I guess.

Dear All,

I do not think students learning Humanities would be humiliated. By the way, opinion of a presidential candidate cannot be for me a considered view. However, what a real tendency is that power and influence of technocracy – people without the necessary philosophical, ethical and cultural knowledge/backgrounds – try to change the world – with the pretext of modernisation - using political, economic and pseudo-scientific ways. Unfortunately, among scientists the rate of technocrats – I call them professional barbarians – is high. This is prominent when these people attempt to play the expert in questions on philosophy and art.

The critiques to the humanities are not generalised, even though they may come from influential politicians. Such was the case of the Japanese prime minister some months ago. However, the replies from the presidents of the Japanese universities were clear and short: no question about that, sir!

Someone like M. Rubio may be a politician, but he is never entitled to rightly judge sciences or humanities. He is just a media-product, period. No problem about that.

The most important is that the very scientists are willing to recognise the values of the humanities. Not to mention the very civil society.

Believing that a critique is a humiliation is a rather... weak stance. 

Human societies will always need visual arts, music, literature, philosophy, etc. These things are essential to our nature. If many parents and vocational counselors are advising young people follow the high-tech trend, there may even be a competitive advantage to the humanities. If one pursues one's passion with dedication and love, doors will usually open. If they don't open, one can build one's own workshop and invite like-minded people to come in and lend a hand. It is important to understand that we don't have to be virtual slaves to an increasingly dehumanized system to meet our basic requirements for a healthy and happy life.

Dear Carlos,

Your answer is simply right and modest. Thanks.

I did not understand your question, Dear Mahmoud: “Why those studying Humanities face humiliation these days?” Thanks for sharing anyway. It seems that it does not make any sense. There is no such stupid thing. How do you know? I suppose that you do not study specifically humanities. Nevertheless, I suppose that politicians must never underestimate the intelligence of researchers and scholars, independently if they study humanities, natural sciences, arts, engineering or any other area of knowledge. I agree with most of the answers. I usually like and give particularly value to RG answers with some level of intellectuality subjacent, particularly when coming from Humanities.

This is so due to the influence of globalization. The focus is more on doers rather than analyzers today, which is what humanities are more about. So many technical universities are coming up all over to make this happen. Then also, there is question of funding the social science education. Usually, the funding is done from the high fees collected from engineering, management and other technical courses students.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all,

Personally, I see no humiliation in the humanities, and I wouldn't think to pay much attention  to what most politicians may have to say about the need of the humanities. If the humanities have sometimes been humiliated, by reference to politics and politicians, then I suppose they may have chiefly done it to themselves. In any case, I tend to see more pressure on the humanities from economic interests--perhaps more distantly connected with or catering to political interests.

Consider, though, the notion that "interpretations" are arbitrary, based on interests and incapable of escaping that kind of bias --no "better and worse" of interpretations there, but only "ours" vs. "theirs." Though this idea often appears as a complaint, it is implicitly suited to function as a rationalization of self-serving interpretations seeking to cater to or flatter those in a position to confer some economic benefit. In this way, the self-serving may prosper, while the honest go at the matter in lost from sight. If this happens, on occasion, though, it is a matter of defects in the manner in which practitioners organize themselves and support each other.  Though powerful economic actors may come into play, they could only act effectively by means of a too prevalent acquiescence.

So, I suppose that if there is sometimes perceived humiliation, then, in this fashion at least, the practitioners are bringing it on themselves. Nothing is accomplished without courage; it has a certain preeminence among the virtues, moral and intellectual. 

The world has need of welders, for sure. It also has need of philosophy, but not just anyone in high office or low will likely understand the needs equally. By the way, it is worth remarking that Senator Rubio, stepping out of the campaign after his loss in the Florida primary, made an impassioned plea against the style of campaign which Mr. Trump has so often employed.

H.G. Callaway

No Not all any humiliation in studying humanities.All are equally important aspects.

''The Globe used an algorithm, known as the Flesch-Kincaid readability test, "that crunches word choice and sentence structure and spits out grade-level rankings." Developed by researchers in the 1940s and modified for the U.S. Navy in the 70s, the test measures the complexity of a speaker's diction and, theoretically, concludes the level of education an average person would need to have in order to understand it. 

The Globe studied the announcement speeches of 19 presidential candidates, both Democrats and Republicans, and the results are staggering.''

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a39031/trump-fourth-grade-level/

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

This is only happening just in underdeveloped countries, the reason for that is the governments are seeking to build industrial and to develop their countries fast so they encourage scientific studies and they made sure that their incomes should be much higher than the other studies. Therefore, they started to ignore Humanitarian studies for that reasons.

Rubio is a Cuban American, born May 28, 1971, he is still got Cuban mentality that was the reason of saying "we need more welders, less philosophers" and is looking for the working class support.

A country as USA or UK, they take care of all types of studies whether scientific or humanitarian. They have diverse kind of disciplines and they make sure they have a good balance of that!!

Dear All,

If one is feeling humiliated then there is a greater chance to take all the humiliations as challenge and contribute something incredible to your discipline as the only way to reply all humiliations! Each discipline has its relevance individually, but it will be better if there is a balance between sciences and humanities to address the issues that persists in the world rather than judging which one is superior.

I don't think so!

Every subject is equally important and contributes towards society and nation development.

Those who think studies related to humanities are inferior; this is their narrow thinking.

In all fairness, a few Humanities departments have allowed their standards to slip, and degraded into more or less feckless talking clubs.

At their best, humanities studies are every bit as analytical and rigorous as any hard science discipline, and sometimes more powerful (as a case in point, read e.g. Stanford's Ian Morris's "War" book, which puts forward intriguing concepts backed up by such vast and rigorous background research & analysis, that any engineer would be hard put emulating it.)

Interestingly, Rubio's cited quote is not even in proper grammatical English - it should be 'fewer', not 'less' ...... 

Humanities is evolving into new phases as digital humanities

A rare combination of a strong Faculty of Arts and an equally strong Faculty of Engineering and Technology, brings an unique scope for a synergy of cultural and technological perspectives.

Moreover Jadavpur University which offers this course  is located in the vibrant cultural centre of Kolkata, and can draw upon the collections, expertise and ambience of its many galleries, museums, libraries and archives, and its intensive programme of cultural activities.

http://www.jaduniv.edu.in/upload_files/dept_file/1401436115-1.docx

Dear Colleagues,

Good Day,

In underdeveloped countries, parents encourage their children to study scientific disciplines because they see that the annual income of say, doctors, engineers, biologist , etc etc, are very high comparing to the other humanitarian fields.

I understand Mr. Marco Rubio statement as saying that welders mean people who can create new income, new objects. Philosophers can analyze our reality. Philosophers will not be involved with manufacturing processes.  It does not mean that philosophers, lawyers, artists are not essencial for the growth of our economy, but that we also need engineers who will create new energy sources, build houses faster and cheaper. People who can make better house appliances, etc. There are too many people going to services and we need hands on people in duty as well.

Again, I do not agree with the statement implicit in the question: “Why are those studying Humanities face with humiliation these days?” It looks inclined or biased. Is my opinion that must be respected, as I respect all other opinions. The reduction of the percentage of people studding in one area of knowledge with respect to the total universe, does not mean that the area is less important or is not relevant, and has absolutely no relation with humiliation. I could give many examples, even inside the area of science and technology.

I agree with several colleagues, like Napoleon, etcetera, etc., etc.

My best regards from University of Coimbra, Portugal, with a great tradition of studies also in the areas of Human Sciences and Humanities.

Mahmoud Omid: “Still some colleagues (e.g., António) call themselves intellectual and think of others stupids (I call them arrogant intellectual judges in RG forum!). When we have all sort of opinions it is more rational to write more carefully. I am still interested to know why humanities programs are in decline and getting less popularity. “

I concur that it is more rational writing more carefully in a public forum. Also, I could never call myself an intellectual, because I never felt myself an intellectual, and I do not think that someone is stupid. These are your words, dear Mahmoud Omid … When the arguments fail? …

''Though the decline of the humanities is getting a lot of attention now, the major drop in enrollments happened between 1970 and 1985. Humanities enrollments dipped from 17.2 percent of all degrees in 1967 to around seven percent in the early 1980s. In 2011, humanities degrees still constituted 6.9 percent of all bachelor’s degrees. In other words, the decline stabilized ten years before current freshmen were even born.

Current debates were sparked by a much smaller decline. In 2011, there are seven percent fewer students studying the humanities than there were in 2009. The current downward drift is a gentle slope in comparison to the 1970s, when humanities enrollments fell off a cliff.

So the rhetoric of a deep crisis in the humanities does not bear out in the numbers. As overall enrollment has increased at institutions of higher education, very similar percentages of the college-age population have graduated with adegree in English over the past twenty years. In fact, there were proportionally more English majors amongst 21-year-olds in 2011 than in 1981.

...

Indeed, in a world where we worry less about practicality, the future of the humanities could be very bright. Economist Tyler Cowen has provocatively argued that America will become a “hyper-meritocracy” divided into winners and losers. Winners will be highly self-motivated and possess creative skills that complement computers. For skills-based subjects, the rising importance of creativity is good news and a fillip to those who argue against a relentless focus on field-specific knowledge.''

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/12/the-real-reason-the-humanities-are-in-crisis/282441/

I can understand that you might be talking in context of Asian countries. And you must have experienced this one decades back. But in present time I am not agree with this. Around two decades back engineering and Mathematics was not very popular among girls. Even few years ago few branches of engineering like Civil and Agriculture and Agriculture engineering were not opted by girls. But nowadays girls are opting these disciplineas. The same story is about the study of humanities subjects. Now person studying subjects like philosophy, psychoogy and social sciences are getting more respects than who are studying engineering,science subjects as they are doing different than others.

Gender Distribution:

Distribution of graduates in upper secondary vocational programmes, by field of education, 2009 (From: Education at a Glance 2011, Highlights)

This figure shows the distribution of graduates in upper secondary vocational programmes, by field of education and gender. There are clear differences in what girls and boys are studying. On average, more than one boy in two graduated in the fields of engineering, manufacturing and construction.

Source: OECD (2011), Education at a Glance 2011, Table A4.1a, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932462548

Access the complete publication at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag_highlights-2011-en

Dear All,

Guessing in a purely linguistic subject is but deformed vanity.

Oxford dictionary:

“Fewer versus less: strictly speaking, the rule is that fewer, the comparative form of few, is used with words denoting people or countable things ( fewer members; fewer books). Less, on the other hand, is used with mass nouns, denoting things which cannot be counted ( less money; less bother). It is regarded as incorrect in standard English to use less with count nouns, as in less people or less words, although this is one of the most widespread errors made by native speakers. It is not so obvious which word should be used with than.

Less is normally used with numerals ( a score of less than 100) and with expressions of measurement or time ( less than two weeks; less than four miles away), but fewer is used if the things denoted by the number are seen as individual items or units ( there were fewer than ten contestants).”

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/less

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/few?q=fewer#few__5

I followed a course in a foreign language, including Litterature, and I did not ask its popularity. I just asked if I liked it and was it good for my future needs.

Dear Napoleon Most of us here use English as second language (including me). Anyway I up-voted your before the last comment just to (balance the down-vote) and thank you stay with the main issue and forget the side issues, if possible.

Why studying Humanities has declined since the 1970s? The decline of funding for humanities programs, and opening up of science and technology fields such as IT to women may be responsible for it.

The Shrinking Humanities Major

Number of bachelor's degrees awarded fell 8.7 percent between 2012 and 2014, study finds. By Scott Jaschik (March 14, 2016-with link)

 The number of bachelor’s degrees conferred in what the academy considers core humanities disciplines (English language and literature, history, languages and literatures other than English, linguistics, classical studies, and philosophy) declined 8.7 percent from 2012 to 2014, falling to the smallest number of degrees conferred since 2003 -- 106,869. Long-term declines in humanities majors (as a share of all undergraduates) have been well documented and are due in part to trends that even humanities scholars applaud, such as the opening up of science and technology fields to women. But these data are from recent years.

Plz read the attached link if interested in more detail.

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/14/study-shows-87-decline-humanities-bachelors-degrees-2-years

There are some interesting discussions in following RG question:

"Ferenc Hörcher: What is the use of studying philosophy? 'What is the use of studying philosophy if all that it does for you is to enable you to talk with some plausibility about some abstruse questions of logic, etc., and if it does not improve your thinking about the important questions of everyday life...?' (Ludwig Wittgenstein)."

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_use_of_studying_philosophy

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_use_of_studying_philosophy

Dear Mahmoud and all:

In most societies, perhaps especially in the developing ones, priority is given to economic growth and global competitiveness.

Therefore, governments try to promote technical and scientific careers in order to increase productivity and innovation.

In this scenario, humanities seem to be in disadvantage. At least, many people think that the number of students should be reduced in benefit of professions more directly related to the production of goods and services.

As Dear George Stoica has already highlighted, humanities are also usually seen as politically dangerous due to the critical thinking they promote.

In some countries, humanities enrollment is perhaps excessive. But don't worry. Empirical social sciencies --basic and applied-- and even the most theoretical disciplines --philosophy, history and the like -, will remain essential.

Dear Napoleon Ono Imaah,

I am not a native speaker of English.  I can but repeat “Guessing in a purely linguistic subject is but deformed vanity.”  To find the individual on the basis of a general rule is a little discovery. Every little discovery must be a real sense of achievement. One must not deprive anybody of this pleasure.  

Dear Mahmoud Omid,

It is true as you mentioned in the preamble of your question that the percentage of people that study humanities has declined in the 1970s.  It is true in the West where humanities were the core of the ancient university curriculum in the old days.  But since that declined occured the percentage is fairly constant and so we cannot say that there is a steady decline or a crisis in the humanities today.  

I do not understand why you mentioned Rubio's thoughts about the humanities. Why do you take this declaration as meaningfull or as a reflection of the general opinion on the humanities.  

I do not understand at all the phrasing of the question:

''Why are those studying Humanities face with humiliation these days?''

I never heard about anybody studying humanities that said it was humiliated these days.  Where did you get such notion?  Suppose that the number of students in Engineering would decline at some point, do you think that the students of engineering would then feel humiliated?   Very often students of a subject that is difficult and not popular are on the contrary proud of their interest.

Dear Louis:

I guess Mr. Omid is not an humanist, as I read on his profile page, but works with agricultural machinery. He lists "anthropology" as one of the humanities, though it is considered a social science, and the other humanities are gathered right after that under the phrase "and the like", meaning that humanities are sort of like anthropology. Maybe we humanists should start questioning why scientists and technicians think their professions are more necessary that anyone's else. The world and humanity itself are a little bit more complex. We are not machines... we are people: people have a language, people use metaphors for expressing ourselves, people use symbols to structure our thoughts, we represent things in order to understand them, we see meaning beyond the things we see, we have concerns about good and evil, about beauty and truth, and about life and death, all which subjects are philosophical, not mechanical or scientific. We even question science's capability of finding truth because we see science change every ten years...  

I believe the question itself is expressed in humiliating terms for humanists as it evinces no knowledge whatsoever of what the humanities are. That is why I will leave it right there. 

Lilliana

Dear Louis. This is excerpt from Hilary Putnam  published in HuffPost Arts & Culture

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martha-c-nussbaum/hilary-putnam-1926-2016_b_9457774.html

"Philosophy is pretty unpopular in America today. Marco Rubio says, with typical inelegance: “We need more welders and less philosophers.” Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina also singles out philosophy as a discipline offering “worthless courses” that offer “no chances of getting people jobs.” Across the nation there’s unbounded adulation for the STEM disciplines, which seem so profitable. Although all the humanities suffer disdain, philosophy keeps on attracting special negative attention — perhaps because in addition to appearing worthless, it also appears vaguely subversive, a threat to sound traditional values." This is where I got the notion.

Mr. Lilliana Ramos-Collado (School of Architecture): Thank you for your comments. I removed the word "anthropology" from the question. To be honest it was not supposed to be there and the intention was on Philosophy only (as stated in last paragraph). That is why I will leave it right there, too. Good luck.

The voice of the humanities and social sciences must beat its center.

They help delineate the choices we confront as a society and as individuals,and how best to respond. They help make the complex intelligible, and help us understand human values and possibilities. Their business is to challenge and question, and their challenges are sometimes awkward and difficult for those in authority. 

https://www.britac.ac.uk/prosperingwisely/pub/pdf/prospering-wisely.pdf

These words of Marco Rubio seem to orientate to the production more than to knowledge. He would prefer industrial workers before intelligent persons, I think.

Dear Mahmoud:

Your question has sparked a lively debate which has been very interesting to follow. Thank you for posting it.

Some of the stronger reactions, I suspect, are due to the choice of the word "humiliation," which may have stronger emotional associations than you originally intended, since it would seem to exaggerate the present situation. I assume you intended to present an idea that could have been expressed with words like "disdain," "indifference," or something along these lines.

People are constantly disagreeing about the semantic form of verbal discourse, even when they may essentially agree on the content. In a multilingual, multicultural, and multidisciplinary forum like ResearchGate this is probably inevitable.

Peace,

David

Dear David, Thank you for your clarification and support. In fact I previously confessed that English is not my native language. So as you explained it now I understood why some colleagues take it personal. Maybe instead of the word "humiliation" i should have used "suffer disdain" instead, would have pleased those criticism. Thank you, Mahmoud

Dear Mahmoud, never mind! Most of us, here on RG are not native speakers. No problem about that. The point here is that you invited us and provoked us all with your post. RG is a platform for arguments, opinions, comments, remarks, questions and replies. You made your point, believe me.

Dear Carlos. Thank you for your comment. Again with my poor English (humbly), I read your comment as a complement. It reminds me of a proverb: "After a storm comes calm." But for this question I paid the price already. 

There are some things you learn best in calm, and some in storm. Willa Cather

Dear Mahmoud, most of us are here on RG not for the up or down points, but for the joy of sharing some thought with real and virtual friends. We are all here to learn, briefly. Language is but one of those circumstances that bridge up distances and experiences. English happens to be lingua franca, However, many of us are capable of looking beyond a particular language, geography, religion or political system.

Dear Mahmoud,

I am aware that there are strong prejudices out there against the humanities as

Martha C. Nussbaum mentioned in her Putman's obituary.  It is because such attitude exist that I interpreted the wording of your question as an indication that you were lauching an attact on the humanities.  It is what I wanted to find out with my last post. I am glad to hear that I was wrong in my interpretation.

Regards

Thank you, dear Napoleon, for supporting my view.

Yes, but we need to review and we need to update and to adapt . Humanities will modernise in a new necessary "Renaissance" that may give rise to a renewed and better science.

Dear All,

Thank you for your comments so far.  No doubt,both welders and philosophers are needed in a well-rounded society and they DO serve the nation equally well. However, "What is the purpose of higher-education programs anyway?", I usually ask myself.  Are we doing enough to prepare the students in a reasonable way to face the real world tasks? Should not we put more emphasis on practical (work experience) rather than theory? In a sense I think Rubio’s criticism is a fair one. 

The following discussion may help the notion behind this question:

Mike Blake, The Reality of the Philosophers vs. Welders Debate, 

A perennial question on the purpose of higher-education programs.

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/11/philospher-vs-welders/415890/

Dear Sibel Taylor. Thank you for sharing them in RG. You previous two comments are quite thought-provoking. The point you said "We ought to be able to work as a welder while we think as a philosopher" is inspirational. In another word, they should be looked at as complementary rather than canceling each other out.

Becouse we are less and less ..... humans?:)

Senator Rubio undoubtedly meant "fewer philosophers," but as one who reads articles in English (and probably in Spanish, too) in a functional rather than an aesthetic manner he probably feels that such grammatical and styllistic points will have no impact upon the reception of his message. The mark of the educated person in our society now seems to be lifetime potential earnings rather than potential contributions to the knowledge base so that politicians such as Rubio tend to denigrate the work of "philosophers" and graduates of Arts faculties because they feel that the B. A. lacks economic clout. Indeed, in such provinces as Ontario there is probably an over-supply of B. A.'s from the prospective of the job market. However, a person with an Arts degree has the flexibility to learn other skills, whereas the vocational trainee must be retrained if his or her skill is rendered obsolete by technological innovation. The answer to Senator Rubio's observation about the requirements of the job market is that we need more people who have learned how to learn.

Dear all,

I have four children and me and my wife do beleive in the importance of a balance education; an education of all aspects of our person: music, visual art, individual sport, team sport, litterature, second and third language, academic subjects.  We always told them that they could choose any job but that we thought it important that they at least do a bachelor degree in their topic of interest even though their future job would not request such studies.  The purpose of studying being primary personal development and not job market requirement.

The german have a word that capture this sense of a complete education of the person: Bildung.  Humanities are essential to Bildung.  We do not know what our children will end up doing but they have chosen to study: Litterature, Dance, Political science &  gender study, anthropology.  Even a welder deserves to be fully educated  even though welding does not require it but the person and society requires it and so will be able to see that voting for Rubio does not make any sense.

Dear Sibel, Thank you for your detailed explanation.Playing a role for future requires to think about our limited resources for higher education, too. Ideally in developing countries like here, it is best to be deployed to the advantage of future generations. I have a new question. What is an educated person? Where should promoting higher education rank in the long list of priorities for resources? In many parts of the world, pedagogy takes the form of canned lectures by professors and rote memorization by students; cheating is rampant and tolerated; and letters of recommendation are for sale. Shared governance does not guarantee quality if a tyrannical majority is determined to prevent progress (College Board, 2004).

College Board, “Education Pays: The Benefits of Higher Education for Individuals and Society,” 2004.

Thank you dear Sibel. Definitely what you wrote is a life time experience and as I am a life time learner I use those words of wisdom. Is not our educational system misleading? Should not we must give students some ideas that they can build on along with the learning and social skills they have already picked up along the road of life.? I want to hear our colleagues thoughts on the meaning of the following quot:

The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles, but to irrigate deserts. - C. S. Lewis

Social Science course work prepares their students enough to handle humiliation.

Refer - http://www.universityofcalicut.info/SDE/I%20Sem.%20BA%20Sociology%20Core%20Course%20Methodology%20and%20Perspectives%20of%20Social%20Sciences.pdf

The social science developed as individuals attempt to explain the social problems and suggest what could be done to solve them. Thus the Enlightenment period established the three ‘humiliations’ of human beings. They are:

Before we experienced these ‘humiliation’, people believed that social problems set up by God and were to be accepted or endured. Only after enlightenment did people believe that society and culture are themselves products of history and evolution of culture.

Dear Sibel. The entire book of Lewis "The Abolition of Man" (attached link for download) begins with a quote from Confucius: "The Master said, He who sets to work on a different strand destroys the whole fabric." before he talks about "The task of the modern educator is not to cut down jungles, but to irrigate deserts." What he means? Confucius also said: "He who learns but does not think is lost. He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger." How we may learn wisdom?

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition1.htm

Humanities create an enlarged vision

What is the humanities stream all about? It encompasses the study of diverse subjects falling under arts, languages and research techniques. Thus, a degree in the humanities will entail studying subjects such as history, political science, philosophy, economics, literature, performing arts and similar subjects.

http://m.thehindu.com/features/education/whats-special-about-the-humanities/article8399580.ece

Our universe is changing rapidly, so MUST be true for our universities.

The primary functions of universities must be the transfer of useful knowledge and advancement of knowledge. Alternatively, as Robert Hutchins, the former president of the University of Chicago, once wrote, "The object of education is to prepare the young to educate themselves throughout their lives." In the information age, that is true now more than ever. Accordingly, we must educate the next generation of students to be capable, responsible citizens who give something back to their community, the country, and the world.

https://www2.ed.gov/offices/OPE/AgenProj/report/conclusion.html

Many factors have converged to reduce or eliminate idealism, especially among those with political power. The result has been to reduce tax funding for the general welfare, and, generally, promote the wealthier people  (upper 50% of the population) to hoard their assets.

By doing this, many of the wealthier people can segregate themselves from the lower classes. In the limit, the tendency is to establish a 2-class society. The criterion for class separation being money.

This current, dominant 1-dimensional value system makes money its god. As a result, adolescents and their parents strategize to try to enter professions that will yield large incomes. These professions include hedge fund managers, business administrators, etc.

It takes exceptional, courageous adolescents to follow their "passion," regardless of the expected income levels (for example, to become a teacher). The disparity in incomes can often be explained by the current paucity of tax resources.

Eventually (unfortunately, taking a generation or more), in democratic societies, the majority of voters will become the people in the lower economic bracket and a more humanistic, multidimensional dominant value system will emerge.  

It is a simple case of Economics 101 - Supply and Demand.

The demand for graduates from the Humanities has been declining over time.

The remark by Rubio presumably refers to a perceived demand for blue collar workers in the construction industry.

“a man who is well brought-up may read anything. The only people who boggle at what is perfectly natural are those who are the worst swine and the finest experts in filth. In their utterly contemptible pseudo-morality they ignore the contents and madly attack individual words.”

― Arkady Strugatsky, Roadside Picnic https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8912144-a-man-who-is-well-brought-up-may-read-anything-the?fbclid=IwAR0px1bqMTsdrSBNYguGn1SXPKIwwBEg7kOpjEVmS9ZWnKBdMMtE0U_Hauc

Nominally, we live in the "knowledge society", but actually we live in a techno-economic society, which promotes operative skills, not critical thinking. Studying Humanities is not humiliating, but is usually not profitable.

In my book "Reason and Passions", I wrote:

Techno-economic society calls itself the knowledge society, because knowledge has become essential for the production and consumption of most products and services. ... However, techno-economic society needs only instrumental knowledge and procedural (algorithmic) thinking, which are necessary for the performing of various procedures. In this way, knowledge has been reduced to operative skills, so that techno-economic society does not deserve to be called the knowledge society; a more modest name, such as the skill society, would be more appropriate for that society. A descriptive name, such as the society of specific skills and general ignorance would describe the present society in best way. ... Instrumental thinking and behaviour have displaced reflective and critical thinking, as well as emotions. Techno-economic society has reduced human thinking to the invention and performance of procedures, and human mind to its instrumental dimension, which reduces people to one-dimensional beings.

It is not a question of humiliation.

Fact is that since last few years people do not show any interest to study humanities as their subject of study. Even in my college and university I find no interest in humanities among students today.

May be this is due to advancement of technology and more job opportunities in science based subjects .

But humanity is a knowledge based discipline and it commands high respect from people of all sections of the society.

They are intellectuals loaded with wisdom.

The way people behave, especially the young, is shaped by socioeconomic system rather than by technology. Technology is only the means by which socioeconomic system (its power-holders) shapes people's behaviour. Neoliberal capitalism promotes business, not art and humanities. I call this system barbaric, because the original barbarians were great lovers of freedom: of their freedom, of course; and so is neoliberal capitalism.

Researchers in the humanities are decreasing due to the tyranny of market rule. The market does not understand the language of narratives, feelings, identities and poetry, why?

Because this language doesn't make products that can be stacked and SOLD. So in my opinion, this is what makes us obliged to teach these sciences outside universities in the coming years. I am not worried about this step, as universities have become lame, even paralyzed.

This is what will give us more freedom, and perhaps renew our ways of thinking or re-paint our minds!