Earlier this week, InsideHigherEd.com posted an essay by Peter Burian, a Professor of Classical Studies and Dean of Humanities at Duke University, titled ‘Defending the Humanities’. In his essay, Dr. Burian bemoans America’s tech-obsessed youth and the declining appreciation of the humanities. The essay is, of course, beautifully written, and all of his points regarding my generation, completely true. But are the humanities also suffering from their own rigid self-perception?

There’s an unfortunate misconception among young people that the humanities are devoid of critical thinking and problem solving, and that obtaining an English literature degree somehow precludes one from future financial success, or a career in the business world. As most of us know, this couldn’t be further from the truth. But what message, if any, are high school seniors and their parents getting?

We’ve all seen the post-graduate survey results in the news: Humanities degrees earn less relative to other degrees, such as engineering or economics. But according to College Board 2010 College-bound seniors data, aggregated and organized into this chart by investor Joshua Kennon, many so-called ‘low-earning’ degrees are comprised of some of the best and brightest: students who chose to become writers, instead of economists.

What does this mean? Relatively speaking, career preference is likely the overwhelming determinant of salary for post-grads; not their major, and not their intellectual ability either.

If a 17-year old girl with a high SAT score decides against engineering – a low-risk degree with the highest median starting salary – in favor of philosophy, it only makes sense that her post-graduate career choice would be as equally indifferent to salary. Though her lower-paying career choice may hurt the imaginary ‘salary score’ of her philosophy degree, it may also be steering prospective students and/or their parents away from the degree. This ’cause-and-effect’ information gap needs to be filled by higher education.

Given the current financial climate, the humanities can no longer afford to be above the ‘return on investment’ discussion when trying to fill lecture halls. The “clear writing, careful analysis, cogent argumentation… critical, open-minded thought” skills, cited by Dr. Burian, are highly valued by print media and government agencies; but aren’t these skills also highly valued in the the business world? Of course. But what English literature professor wants to think he/she is grooming a CEO?

The education provided by the humanities should be accurately presented to skeptics as an alternative means to financial success: where a fulfilling experience meets a good investment. Otherwise, they could remain hopelessly tied to government spending and average American income – neither of which appear to be rising anytime soon.

Admittedly, this is all from a guy on the outside looking in. I write this only with an appreciation for the humanities, and the liberal arts in general. Further discussion is definitely needed, and any comments welcome.