Value of Humanities

Developing on the work of others, like baseball statistics expert Bill James, Beane designed an aggressive group on a limited price range. Again, he did it by finding players that nobody else desired. For example, trainers and supervisors undervalued players who do not swing at pitches and, thus, attracted more walks. These players were underrated because they had low batting average. But they got on base which, of course, is a requirement for scoring. As James outlined, a batter should be assessed by his capability to make runs. Everybody decided that developing runs was essential, but nobody else saw what these players were doing in those conditions. These days, plate discipline and the capability to draw walks are seen as a useful resource and a player’s ‘on-base percentage’, or OBP, is an essential statistic. But back in 2002, baseball undervalued these players , which permitted Beane to sign them to the Oakland A’s. Of course, he was belittled at times by scouts and other baseball associates. Although his techniques were unorthodox at first, ten seasons later, they are considered as the conventional wisdom.

Okay, so you may be considering ‘What does any of this have to do with the value of a humanities degree? It’s relatively simple. As Michael Lewis places it:

“If total miscalculations of an individual’s value could happen on a baseball field, before a live audience of 30, 000, and TV viewers of millions more, what did that say about the statistic of efficiency in other lines of work? If expert baseball players could be over- or under-valued, who couldn’t?”

A startling query. It’s been my argument for a while that humanities degrees are underrated by the industry. There are a lot of people out there whose abilities are ignored by the ruling business culture. What we need are some businesspeople, some Billy Beane-type visionaries, who will see what we humanities graduates have to provide and give us opportunity. There happens to be a big industry ineffectiveness here patiently waiting to be utilized by some smart people. Not only would this cause to more applied humanities graduates, but their companies would be getting a lot too. Actually, they would be getting great value: a solid expertise set for less than the cost of an overvalued MBA. It makes perfect business sense to me.

Teaching Humanities

Now we’re shifting into a new ‘future’, recognized by the micro-chip. We have a new type of factor that is occurring in this new method. But no one has responded to the query of whether this method is capable of assisting us in executing long-term intellectual work. I value most these long-form open-ended concerns that allow us to query concepts and each other person’s terms over a prolonged time interval. The issue is that the method is mainly developed on a way of diversion. It’s made with plenty of factors occurring all at once; it’s a very low bar for people to reply to any twitch of fascination that happens at one. Moreover to this display, there is any number of other windows. There’s e-mail. This is what this method does well.

The factors I value most in the humanities might not endure in this new method. All of this is depending on the assumption is that what exactly is occurring in the regular face-to-face class has been changed, in the ‘flipped classroom’. This is a euphemism, but what we’re really doing is getting the live session and tossing it into the dustbin. But I do not believe the fact that the live session is damaged and needs to be thrown out. The live session is like the play, as opposed to TV system. But we need to look at our lessons more seriously. Are they any good?

The custom as it’s passed down says that 50 minutes is the most ideal interval of your efforts and energy and time to do what we’re doing in the humanities. But now we’re asking it, which is good, but only because we have a new orthodoxy, which says that the concept time is 12 minutes or 8 minutes. But that is what matches the method, not actually what results in a more vivid chance to learn.