I think is is more of an issue in the sciences than it is in the humanities. There isn't really "a method" for being a history teacher or a language teacher. A

I think is is more of an issue in the sciences than it is in the humanities. There isn't really "a method" for being a history teacher or a language teacher. At least not in the sense of a scientific method. There are, of course, methods of teaching language and history. The point I'm trying to make is that there are certain things very worthwhile to learn and study, but which don't make any sense to quantify or apply scientific methods to. Most of the bullshit I see coming from academia and the humanities in particular are things like social sciences and education. They are rebranded versions of psychology and philosophy, but with sciency sounding words, unfalsifiable theories, and some statistics that look good. Apart from certain categories and departments that are entirely bullshit like these, most academics are remarkably well-behaved in spite of a system that rewards idiocy and bullshit. The most broken part of academia is that it's willing to classify things as sciences which are absolutely not.