It was clear to me when getting a graduate degree in a humanities field that these programs produced mostly academics whose only viable job was going to be teac

It was clear to me when getting a graduate degree in a humanities field that these programs produced mostly academics whose only viable job was going to be teaching the next generation of academics. And by viable, I mean viable for the luckiest one in ten. In other words, it was already an island of cannibals with no other food source than itself, and none likely to arrive. That system cannot run forever. Twenty years later, nothing has changed my opinion, and I agree with the author's conclusion here: that a graduate degree in the humanities makes sense only for the wealthy. That's how liberal arts education began, and how it'll probably end. This return to origin should appeal both to students both of history's long rhythmic structure, and of literary narrative, and so maybe it will provide some value to the private scholars of the future. I also partly disagree with the author, in that I don't think an undergraduate degree in the humanities is all that useful. I have one of those too, and I wouldn't get one again. I can't speak to history departments, but English departments don't have a lot to offer students anymore that a library card and an internet connection wouldn't do better. That's not because studying Literature is easy or worthless, but because that's not what English departments do well anymore.