A proposed federal policy requiring college degrees to demonstrate clear economic value—or risk losing student loan funding—could reshape higher education, particularly in the humanities. Critics warn the rule may force universities to deprioritize fields like literature, philosophy, and history, already struggling with declining enrollment and funding, by tying their survival to job market outcomes. The shift could worsen a looming teacher shortage, as low K-12 salaries make humanities careers financially unviable without steep tuition hikes, potentially limiting access to these programs to wealthier students. Supporters of the policy argue it aligns education with workforce needs, but detractors fear it undermines the broader goal of fostering well-rounded, critically thinking citizens.
I’m not sure if this has been talked about elsewhere, but I’ve been thinking about the new “Do No Harm” standard to be implemented by the current administration, under which degrees will have to prove their economic worth or else be disqualified from student loan funding. This made me consider the ramifications and ironies of such a policy. Naturally, much of the humanities would be under scrutiny. However, won’t this lead to a brain-drain of sorts that will create a shortage of humanities teachers (and possibly professors, eventually)? Because K-12 teachers are paid so little, it will place the onus on the universities to make their tuition commensurate with the meager pay of teachers, or else the programs will be only available to students who can pay out of pocket, making the humanities a rich person’s field. To me it seems like the last nail in the coffin for a culture who chronically devalues the humanities and has lost sight of the traditional purpose of education, which was to create well-rounded citizens, not just financially comfortable specialists. Am I getting this wrong? Thoughts? submitted by /u/onlinecomputeruser7 [link] [comments]
