Many majors are put into classification schemes that limit the options of academic interest. There is often a dichotomy between the average humanities major and the average science major. Yes, clear distinctions tend to help with categorization, but defining majors by either being in the humanities or sciences is fallacious.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “humanity,” in reference to the academic field, to be “the branch of learning concerned with human culture.” But shouldn’t this definition apply to all majors, then? In chemistry and physics, aren’t we simply studying the effects of humanity and how to better our species and interact with other species? I think that the distinction between humanities and sciences is a bit misleading because it assumes the field of science does not deal with humanity, when in reality science and certain fields of study are all about humanity.

The deciding factor in the debate of whether or not to major in humanities is money. People are generally steered away from majoring in the nonsciences with the justification being that humanities majors do not make as much money as science majors do. But is money really the true matter at hand? I think that worrying about a future salary while still in college is stressful, not to mention extremely petty. Money talk simply fuels the capitalist society in which we live. Before prematurely taking money into account, I find it valuable to reexamine why one pursues an academic career.

Do we go to school to get a better salary or to gain insight as to how we fit into society? Although the former is true, the latter exemplifies the bottom line: Society has normalized higher education. In high school, it feels like the next logical step to reaching adulthood is to enroll in a college of some sort. If we are expected to attain higher education, then we should have the freedom and support to explore different academic fields and focus on whichever pertains to us most. And I also think that it is healthy to leave the postcollege worrying until postcollege, regardless of finances and jobs.

In comparison to a science major, the average humanities major is faced with high unemployment rates and lower average wages. Although this is definitely something to take into account, having motivation will play a stronger role in changing such statistics. Our generation is typically pressured to go into supposedly successful fields such as medicine, law and scientific research — perhaps this will change in five to 10 years, because there might be an abundance of doctors and lawyers vying for the same jobs. Be motivated, and have a passion for what you study and enjoy doing, for young passion and eagerness will help you in the future.

So do all humanities majors go on to become professors in their fields? Definitely not. But many undergraduates in the nonsciences tend to enjoy their field so much that they seek a doctorate in the subject. People have admitted to me their fear of an overpopulation of people with doctorates in the humanities and not enough demand for them. While graduate school is a viable option for students in the humanities, don’t feel limited to a postsecondary education. But if you do find yourself seeking to continue onto a graduate program, the investment can be justified if you have an immense passion for the subject. If you want to go to graduate school for the humanities, do so if the fiery passion is there.

Am I worried about my future? Yes, but who isn’t? Before worrying about post-college, worry about college. I am trying to make the most of my time here at UC Berkeley and enjoy the humanities path. By exploring my academic interests in interdisciplinary fields, I have had the opportunity to further my knowledge of how society functions, and that is something I find invaluable to all “humanities” majors.

We, as college students, have the privilege to explore and choose our futures. Don’t feel obligated to classify yourself in the humanities or sciences binary. Challenge normative and capitalist ideals of the future — your future.

Contact Matthew Kirschenbaum at mkirschenbaum@dailycal.org or follow him on Twitter: @mpkirschenbaum.

The post Off the beat: Confessions of a humanities major appeared first on The Daily Californian.

I study rhetoric for a living.

And by “for a living,” I mean the government (or should I refer to taxpayers?) makes it possible for me to read and write between the lines of lines, and somehow, someday, “survive” doing something that involves such lines. Whether I end up being a corporate lackey, an educational martyr or a starving journalist, only time will tell.

Rhetoric is the study of the Word. Reading so close until the letters get blurry, when the pages are smudged with sweat. At least in my world, which some could argue is flat, the Word is the truth of what is said. Classified under the humanities, rhetoric is as ambiguous and prevalent as philosophy and language. As a believer of the Word, however, I insist that the study of rhetoric makes everything clearer. At least to me.

I never understood the study of rhetoric until I understood economics. My knack for wordplay and penchant for doubt developed into analytical skills over my course of academic indoctrination at Berkeley. Studying political, social and economic theory for the first time made me realize that “logic” didn’t always have to make all-encompassing sense.

Once in love with Ayn Rand’s Howard Roarke, I was once in love with the truth of objectivity. Logos, pathos and ethos, among other things, are three traditional rhetorical appeals. Historically (and reductively) “the art of persuasion,” rhetoric is the foundation of all disciplines. Based on applied calculus and predictable human behavior, conundrums all on their own, the logical rhetoric of classical economics makes sense of the unpredictable marketplace and government.

Who knew predicting the future could be so rational? Calculated logic, concrete with percentages and variables, transcends the biased opinion of human emotion — interestingly enough, transcending the platform for social justice. Assuming that opinions are emotional and therefore irrational, the rattling of statistics and calculations are easier on most ears than the ranting of impassioned opinions.

Objectivity is an idea that gives hope when there is none, providing the framework for words that paint a background when there isn’t a picture. “Language betrays us,” someone prolific and imitable once wrote. Like slips of the tongue meant to catch only a moment, not every little thing uttered is a lie, nor is it the “truth.” Words reflect observations, expressing what could otherwise be forgotten or ignored.

Maybe I was just a lonely kid, bitter about having too many cavities. Words are cheap, and worth more than they are valued. Plainly written in the form of mathematical proofs or lavishly fluffed like Alice Waters recipes, we move according to words that distinguish ourselves from each other, composing our separate natures into the grand orchestra of the beginning and the end.

My favorite appeals, if you couldn’t already tell, are pathos and ethos. Pathos reminds me of pathological liars, desperate to master anything, even if that includes stabs of guilt. Ethos reminds me of ethical politicians, shining bright with million-dollar smiles and Harvard degrees, exuding charisma and poise only someone with character could omit. Seducing you with in-depth pseudo psychological analysis, or maybe even effortlessly riding the same wavelength of narcissism, rhetoric is the means to identify an end without a mirror, seeing someone else.

Staying positive, believing in the Holy Trinity, evaluating different personalities — it’s all just rhetoric. But does that mean it’s all just pointless? To me, such a conclusion would be too boring and, honestly, sad and empty. If psyching myself out keeps me going, then isn’t there some truth in that? If economic models and scientific sacrifices keep “us” from regressing, then … is there some truth in that too?

While I listened to TLC in my bedroom, my brothers blared Alice In Chains in theirs. While my father gave me A Purpose Driven Life to read, I snuggled up with Neil Gaiman instead. These bits of pop identities don’t define me, but their occupancy in my limited brain space rules my better half. Though capable of transcending my irrational self, I feel better on earth.

Left to my own devices as soon as I can sit still watching my thoughts appear outside my head, I feel like I don’t know anything else. Please take my rhetorical flourishes light like fluffy poetry, like harmless words you might want to hear.

The post Master of none appeared first on The Daily Californian.