> If the purpose is to learn, you can do it better with YouTube and AI.
I’d argue that is true for STEM but not for humanities.
I’d argue that is true for STEM but not for humanities.
> To be blunt, the current economic value of the humanities is pretty low,
The bill usually comes due when we faithfully recreate failures of the past while failing to learn from others' experiences in the present.
So if they're all about teaching how to think, where are the brilliantly thought out ideas for tackling their problem? Surely that's where their own skills should be valuable?
Philosophy is an obvious counter to that claim. It's hard to see how anyone could major in a humanities and not think, even with LLMs. But perhaps the problem is thinking that requiring everyone to take a sampling of intro humanities courses will force them to think instead of just getting by.
> we aren't allowed to fail students so they see no reason to study.
But that wasn't the issue previously for a majority of this professor's 30 years teaching, it's something that changed recently.
I pulled out trend lines of capability and made projections from this, and easily avoided the red meat of testing and humanities.
They don’t have a solution, because it’s a system level issue - well beyond what teachers, who are already underfunded, can do.
This is the alarm bell being rung.