Talk:Humanities/Archives/2018

Education and Employment

Under Education and Employment, the article makes the claim: "Humanities graduates also earn more as their careers progress; ten years after graduation, the income difference between humanities graduates and graduates from other university programs is no longer statistically significant.[35]" The source listed in note 35 is Adamuti-Trache, Maria; et al. (2006). "The Labour Market Value of Liberal Arts and Applied Education Programs: Evidence from British Columbia". Canadian Journal of Higher Education. 36: 49–74. This source does not find that humanities graduates equalize with graduates from other university programs. Rather, it finds that graduates with "liberal arts" degrees equalize with graduates who have applied degrees. The article lumps physical sciences and social sciences together in the liberal arts category. Unless I'm missing something, this source never makes claims specifically about humanities graduates, who only count for 23% of the graduates that the study includes within the "liberal arts." So using this source here is very misleading. I think this claim should be deleted until someone identifies evidence that supports it. Sherid16 (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. ElKevbo (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Anthropology

Comment about this sentence: "Human disciplines like history and cultural anthropology study subject matters that the experimental method does not apply to—and instead mainly use the comparative method[4] and comparative research." This sentence is poorly integrated into the rest of the article, especially the reference to anthropology. This is a statement about the method used in history and anthropology. The problem is, anthropology is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, and anthropology is not usually classified as one of the humanities. Though it draws on the humanities, it is usually classified as a social science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.15.115.94 (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nor is it the case that history 'mainly uses the comparative method'. History mainly uses the historical method. 77.243.183.23 (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I also take issue with the use of the word “manipulative“ in the current version of this sentence. As it is understood in common parlance,  this sentence could lead people to believe that the experimental method engages in manipulating people,  rather than the conditions necessary to draw scientific conclusions.  SheldonHelms (talk) 05:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)