Professionals vs Humanities at Marquette

[mu03eng]

A little background on this topic.  My company does a lot of recruiting on campus at MU and I am involved in a lot of it as a "campus manager" for my company at the College of Engineering.  We've been working on a recruiting/assessment event that we're going to have on campus.  As part of that we came up with an advertisement to get students to come.  Part of the discussion with the university was that we had to make it open to all even though we only higher business and engineering grads at my company.

One of the folks on our team dug in deeper and had some discussions with some faculty, etc and the university and apparently the school is split in two, professionals(eng, bus admin, etc) and humanities(theo, phil, language, etc).  I sort of always knew this was a thing at universities but hadn't seen it so clearly driving decisions.  Additionally, apparently the humanities clique is "very concerned" about President Lovell since he comes from the professional ranks.  There is talk of how the humanities will protest when Lovell slashes the funding for humanities.  Traditionally the humanities have always been in charge at universities and especially at Marquette and they are freaking out about it.  I was surprised because everything I've seen of Lovell is just awesome.

Anyone else experienced this split or know how deep it runs?  I don't know whether I'm excited or gravely disappointed to see even universities play the stupid petty bulls$#t politics that the corporate world does.

[jsglow]

I think it'll be interesting to watch the upcoming Provost hire.  You may be aware that the 4 finalists were announced earlier this month.  Here's a recent link.  http://today.marquette.edu/2015/01/provost-search-update-four-finalists-selected/  I'd argue that no particular bias can be found in candidate backgrounds.

My sense is that the worry you describe relates in part to a trend toward greater fiscal restraint that has been underway for at least two years at this point.  I won't go too far into this but it's fair to say that funding used to occur on the 'squeaky wheel' principle rather than being based on merit and that certain departments were infamous for not being able to live within their means and were getting away with it.  That's largely stopped in the last 2 years (even before Lovell) but I think some are still getting used to the new world order.  As you can imagine, many academic types live in a bubble similar to our 'friends' in Washington.  So naturally there's some skepticism associated with a President that comes from the Professional side.  I have personally heard Mike Lovell speak about the critical importance of a classic Liberal Arts education so I believe that any claims about mistreatment are overblown.  Said another way, I'll bet that some in the various Professional colleges are pleased that reasonable restraint is now being exercised campus wide.  It's needed as costs had been increasing at an unsustainable rate.  

[mreezybreezy]

There is talk of how the humanities will protest when Lovell slashes the funding for humanities. 

"When" he slashes funding for humanities? Is there any substance to that at all? It sounds like interdepartmental nonsense/cooking up an us-vs.-them drama that doesn't exist at the moment.

[forgetful]

It is a big split at most Universities.  It is also always a point of contention as far as funding.  The fact is that the Hard Sciences, Engineering and Business schools are big time profit machines at the University.  The humanities are a net loss.  That ruffles a lot of feathers.

The Provost hire (as jsglow mentions) will be a big deal.  The most qualified is by far Ludden, who is currently interviewing, but he comes from a science background (first UW and then Berkeley).  That may not be popular with the humanities crowd.

Anyone have any inside info on the sentiment towards the different Provost candidates?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I think it'll be interesting to watch the upcoming Provost hire.  You may be aware that the 4 finalists were announced earlier this month.  Here's a recent link.  http://today.marquette.edu/2015/01/provost-search-update-four-finalists-selected/  I'd argue that no particular bias can be found in candidate backgrounds.

My sense is that the worry you describe relates in part to a trend toward greater fiscal restraint that has been underway for at least two years at this point.  I won't go too far into this but it's fair to say that funding used to occur on the 'squeaky wheel' principle rather than being based on merit and that certain departments were infamous for not being able to live within their means and were getting away with it.  That's largely stopped in the last 2 years (even before Lovell) but I think some are still getting used to the new world order.  As you can imagine, many academic types live in a bubble similar to our 'friends' in Washington.  So naturally there's some skepticism associated with a President that comes from the Professional side.  I have personally heard Mike Lovell speak about the critical importance of a classic Liberal Arts education so I believe that any claims about mistreatment are overblown.  Said another way, I'll bet that some in the various Professional colleges are pleased that reasonable restraint is now being exercised campus wide.  It's needed as costs had been increasing at an unsustainable rate.  

I can't pretend to know the inner politics and budget management of MU, but tuition can't just keep climbing, so if this is the first step in curbing that trend, then I'm all for it.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

It is a big split at most Universities.  It is also always a point of contention as far as funding.  The fact is that the Hard Sciences, Engineering and Business schools are big time profit machines at the University.  The humanities are a net loss.  That ruffles a lot of feathers.

I've never understood this argument. In terms of donations? Sure - the 100 or so suckers who graduate each year with a political science degree [*raises his hand*] won't be donating anytime soon. But in terms of average profit per student, the humanities beats all. It costs nothing to teach them except the instructor, who is usually making a fraction of an engineering prof or a business prof. If there are an equal number of professors per majors (ex. 1 prof per 15 declared history or accounting majors), the school is making more money off of the history majors. Those dollars fund the rest of the university.

[Coleman]

I think this is a false dichotomy. Fr. Wild was a liberal arts guy (Classical linguist by training) and during his tenure we got a brand new dental school and new engineering building. It is not as though he ignored the professions.

I think it is great that Lovell brings an engineering perspective, but I have no doubt he will continue to fund and support the humanities, as they are central to a Jesuit education.

By the way, plenty of very successful CEOs and professionals have humanities backgrounds. The idea that you have to have an engineering or business major to succeed in business is complete hogwash.

[jficke13]

What is the instructors to student ratio for each major? Some majors (e.g. classics) have barely any students. Some majors have more.

Frankly, I refer to my undergrad (public relations major, polysci minor) as "fake college." I'm all for streamlining the university to be best suited to prepare all of its graduates to get well-paying jobs. There are only two reasons to study the classics in depth: 1. Self edification, 2. To teach the classics to future students interested in either reason #1 or reason #2.

[mu03eng]

"When" he slashes funding for humanities? Is there any substance to that at all? It sounds like interdepartmental nonsense/cooking up an us-vs.-them drama that doesn't exist at the moment.

No substance, just what was quoted to me as the feeling on campus....I agree, I think it's the humanities gearing up for a "war" that I don't think exists

[Coleman]

What is the instructors to student ratio for each major? Some majors (e.g. classics) have barely any students. Some majors have more.

For many majors, that is not as black and white a question as it appears.

I was a history major. In my Western Civ intro courses, I had over 100 people in my lecture. American History was probably about 50. My upperclassman courses were anywhere from 20-40. It just depends on what level the course is.

Speaking of classics, I was a classics minor. The classes were definitely smaller, I think they ranged from anywhere from as small as 8 students to as many as 20, but rarely bigger than that. But there are only 2 classics faculty, and they both taught courses in other subjects as well (theology, art history, history, etc.), subjects that probably had much bigger class sizes.

[Coleman]

No substance, just what was quoted to me as the feeling on campus....I agree, I think it's the humanities gearing up for a "war" that I don't think exists

Could be the case, but you are the first person I've heard that from, and I am still decently well-connected with many humanities professors and grad students at MU. That honestly surprises me.

[Spotcheck Billy]

[forgetful]

I've never understood this argument. In terms of donations? Sure - the 100 or so suckers who graduate each year with a political science degree [*raises his hand*] won't be donating anytime soon. But in terms of average profit per student, the humanities beats all. It costs nothing to teach them except the instructor, who is usually making a fraction of an engineering prof or a business prof. If there are an equal number of professors per majors (ex. 1 prof per 15 declared history or accounting majors), the school is making more money off of the history majors. Those dollars fund the rest of the university.

I can state with absolute certainty that at every level of the revenue stream the sciences, engineering and business bring in more money.  Humanities lose money for the University.

The salaries for a Humanities professor are not that different than for science/engineering/business.  Also, there are not equal numbers of professors per major, nor are total credit hours in each department/faculty member the same.  The numbers for credit hours/faculty member are far higher in the sciences. 

It is a fact that most humanities departments are a financial drag when compared to other department.  History departments at most Universities are a net loss and are funded by the sciences.

You have to also remember that your average well funded researcher pays for his entire salary in grants each year.  All teaching is complete profit.  For instance, if a biology professor is funded by the NIH, an NIH grant is currently about $225,000 per year in direct dollars.  The University charges an approximate overhead of 50%, so an additional $112,500 goes directly to the University for whatever they want.  Your average biology professor makes less than $112,500, so they are essentially working for free.

[Aughnanure]

By the way, plenty of very successful CEOs and professionals have humanities backgrounds. The idea that you have to have an engineering or business major to succeed in business is complete hogwash.

This. So much this. Especially on engineers who oftentimes alienate their colleagues in the workplace. Honestly, the lamenting over people studying humanities is so overdone. If you really want humanities to be significantly less of a focus then you just better be ready for a world of adults who can't write worth a damn. Hell, it's already happening.

This in no way means I don't think America needs a significant and better emphasis on STEM at all education levels.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I can state with absolute certainty that at every level of the revenue stream the sciences, engineering and business bring in more money.  Humanities lose money for the University.

The salaries for a Humanities professor are not that different than for science/engineering/business.  Also, there are not equal numbers of professors per major, nor are total credit hours in each department/faculty member the same.  The numbers for credit hours/faculty member are far higher in the sciences. 

It is a fact that most humanities departments are a financial drag when compared to other department.  History departments at most Universities are a net loss and are funded by the sciences.

This is all conjecture and personal opinion. Data, please.

[forgetful]

This. So much this. Especially on engineers who oftentimes alienate their colleagues in the workplace. Honestly, the lamenting of people who study humanities is so overdone. If you really want humanities to be significantly less of a focus then you just better be ready for a world of adults who can't write worth a damn. Hell, it's already happening.

This in no way means I don't think America needs a significant and better emphasis on STEM at all education levels.

I want to emphasize that I agree with you.  I think we need a balance.  People need to be well rounded and the Humanities offer a different route to the same goal, creating intelligent, thoughtful well rounded individuals.

[forgetful]

This is all conjecture and personal opinion. Data, please.

I promise you this is not all conjecture nor personal opinion.  There are surely Universities that do not follow what I said (there are always exceptions).  The average University though, that is true for.  

I however, cannot provide you the data, as it would not be allowed.  You can choose to believe me or not, but unfortunately I can not provide you with the data I have.

I understand that you may doubt me, and fully understand why that is reasonable (especially with most posts on here). 

[Coleman]

I want to emphasize that I agree with you.  I think we need a balance.  People need to be well rounded and the Humanities offer a different route to the same goal, creating intelligent, thoughtful well rounded individuals.

I think MU is a great example of that balance.

[forgetful]

I think MU is a great example of that balance.

I agree.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

This. So much this. Especially on engineers who oftentimes alienate their colleagues in the workplace. Honestly, the lamenting over people studying humanities is so overdone. If you really want humanities to be significantly less of a focus then you just better be ready for a world of adults who can't write worth a damn. Hell, it's already happening.

This in no way means I don't think America needs a significant and better emphasis on STEM at all education levels.

My wife always says they should be emphasizing STEAM more than STEM since studies show studying arts and music helps increase understanding of the STEM part.

And I agree that Marquette is a great example of balance.  20 years of hearing "you're not like and don't think like most of the engineers." 


 

[PBRme]

I want to emphasize that I agree with you.  I think we need a balance.  People need to be well rounded and the Humanities offer a different route to the same goal, creating intelligent, thoughtful well rounded individuals.

Then I think we should make the humanities majors take some business and engineering classes just like I had to squeeze a Phil class between Fields and Thermo.  Make everyone well rounded not just the Business and Engineering students

[jficke13]

...

If you really want humanities to be significantly less of a focus then you just better be ready for a world of adults who can't write worth a damn. Hell, it's already happening.

...

[mu03eng]

By the way, plenty of very successful CEOs and professionals have humanities backgrounds. The idea that you have to have an engineering or business major to succeed in business is complete hogwash.

I'm in no way arguing with you on that, I agree.  My company is a major technology company so it's hard to come in as entry level with anything but a technical, business or communications degree.  Having said that, part of the appeal for my company is like MU Fan said, MU produces engineers that aren't "typical" engineers.  We have some non-STEM folks in leadership and it works it all just depends on the job and the skills needed.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

Then I think we should make the humanities majors take some business and engineering classes just like I had to squeeze a Phil class between Fields and Thermo.  Make everyone well rounded not just the Business and Engineering students

Granted it was many years ago but I recall bringing a Harvard Business a Review article to a conversation with the B School dean. The article posited that students should emphasize the arts and humanities during undergrad and then concentrate on business courses in grad school as it would make for more well-rounded individuals.

[GGGG]

Then I think we should make the humanities majors take some business and engineering classes just like I had to squeeze a Phil class between Fields and Thermo.  Make everyone well rounded not just the Business and Engineering students

Humanities majors take a great deal of core curriculum courses, such as math, science, foreign language, philosophy and theology.  I guess the argument is if taking required courses in the same college, but different department, makes one well-rounded.