How to getting motivated for my required humanities class?

October 23, 2006 1:24 PM

How can I do well in my required college humanities class, despite serious motivational challenges?

I am a science major in college. I am taking a required humanities class, and can't bring myself to listen in lecture, do any of the reading, or write my papers. There are two reasons for this:

(1) I have serious practical problems in my life, and feel that spending time learning about the art of ancient cultures is trivial when I have far more important problems to solve. (My science classes at least make me feel I am learning something that can be used to solve real-world problems.)

(2) I don't like the humanities to begin with. Every time I take a class on art or literature I am plagued with feelings that it is really all nonsense. (I don't mean to offend any humanists here; I just want to explain how I see the humanities on a gut level.)

There is probably not much advice that can be given about (2) that I haven't heard already, but I would really appreciate pragmatic advice on (1); that is, how to get motivated to do something I see as frivolous when compared to the other serious problems I have to face.

(Ideas about how to cut down on my work in this class would be equally appreciated.)

posted by lunchbox to education (25 comments total)

I realize that you didn't really want responses to (2), but the thing is: literature is all nonsense. I was a literature minor in college and learned a lot of names and words, but all the "analysis" has been done already to a very large degree so the papers become citation wars. This is not a bad thing, sometimes very elucidating things come out of it. Sometimes its funny to read certain kinds of criticism applied to works (Feminist criticism to Norse Sagas? Hi-larious!).

When you speak of the "practical problems" in part (1), are you referring to logistical issues (i.e., I need to shave 15 minutes off my commute both ways so I can get all the HW/real work/etc. done), or psychological/emotional issues? If the latter, you may find some kind of help in what ancient philosophers have to say. You might not, but that's the way it goes. If the former, carry around a seperate notebook for ideas for improving your efficiency and jot your ideas down the instant they come to you. One suggestion in this vein I've seen involves making columns for a subject, a hint that will trigger the rest of the idea to bloom, and a short (article-less) sentence about your idea. The columns will force you to think your idea out well enough that you should be able to recall it later.
posted by Xoder at 1:35 PM on October 23, 2006

It's a job. Just do it. You have responsibilities and some of them are tedious and boring but you still have to do them. Little kids get to avoid them, adults don't. Well, they can, but there are consequences, like a big fat F. Suck it up man. It's not frivilous when your grade depends on it.

What I said is the real answer, but you can improve your performance at something you hate by breaking it down into small tasks and then concentrating on doing well in those tasks. For someone like you, it might help to make systems out of them. For instance with class - try to write down one thought for each paragraph like expression the lecturer gives. Concentrate on the process of making the notes, as it will probably be more interesting than the material in them. Skim the readings, it is better than not doing them at all, and see if you can find some "Cliff's Notes" type summaries.
posted by caddis at 1:38 PM on October 23, 2006

I had the exact same (opposite problem). I am a humanities whore through and through and had to take a science class during undergrad to graduate. Seriously - don't sweat the fact that you hate humanities, it's just going to make it harder. Find your motivation in not completely fucking up your GPA by actually passing the course. Figure out now the bare minimum you have to accomplish to pass - I did this by befriending a couple of other students in the same boat as me and managed to squeeze by. There was some mutual hate of the subject, and we all picked part of the work to do and then shared the results. I hear your pain though - I skipped every single lab for my science course...and still passed.
posted by meerkatty at 1:41 PM on October 23, 2006

"C"s get degrees.
posted by Sassyfras at 1:46 PM on October 23, 2006

Studying humanities is a good way of developing the skills necessary for connecting with other human beings. Most of the actual finding-intimate-connections conversations I've had with people, as well as the most satisfying party small-talk conversations, have been about books, movies, art, music, or architecture. Maybe figuring that it will help you get laid / find a partner / survive future dinner parties would help with motivation?
posted by occhiblu at 1:47 PM on October 23, 2006

"C"s get degrees.

Yep. If you have any writing skill at all, a paper of the right length will get you a passing grade. It should take you about 30 minutes per page, plus another 30 minutes to insert citations. Seriously.

Also, writing skills are ESSENTIAL for the sciences. Much more important than anything you're gonna be learning your first few years of intro classes. Take this opportunity to hone your writing and revising skills, and you'll appreciate it come thesis/grant proposal/tech paper writing time.
posted by muddgirl at 1:52 PM on October 23, 2006

As a former slacking humanities major, I can give you a this practical time-saving hint: Don't do your reading till you get the paper questions, then do the minimmum required. There is no way you'll use more than a small amount of your reading in a paper, so don't worry about it. Do pay attention in lecture though. You are spending an hour listening to avoid five hours' reading.

Also, maybe you can see the nonsense part as freeing. Because there is no right answer, the only point is to argue well. Or you can see that learning to back up something with a compelling argument (whether or not you personally believe it) has a practical application in your future work life and thus is not pointless.
posted by dame at 1:53 PM on October 23, 2006

I second dame.

Unless your instructor is a real hard work/follow the rules fanatic -- and most humanities types aren't -- you'll get everything you really NEED just from taking lecture notes.
posted by dagnyscott at 2:15 PM on October 23, 2006

You could "trade" with fellow students for help -- they assist with your humanities papers, you assist with their science stuff.

If class participation counts as part of your grade, pre-script one or two questions to ask per class so that the instructor knows who you are.
posted by xo at 2:35 PM on October 23, 2006

Motivation:
Humanities courses are good for the things mentioned above: improving your writing skills (which you will need in order to get paid as a scientist), giving you a baseline knowledge and ability to converse about cultural stuff that you can use to relate to other humans (which will be handy to get jobs and friends, and to get lucky).

Some trendy analysis is BS, but a lot of the basic analytical skills you learn in intro humanities classes are not BS at all. Focus on the useful, universal stuff and you will be plugging into a grand few-thousand-year tradition of culture; this has the potential to enrich your whole life, if you are willing to get off the high horse and give it a chance. (I guess this depends a lot on what particular course you're taking. If you're taking English Lit 101, this is definitely true. If you're taking French Queer Socialist Films from 1945-1962, maybe not as much.)

Also, you are taking this class, and if you don't at least write reasonable papers you will get a bad grade. In most humanities classes you can get by with a C+ or B- for doing the reasonable minimum -- but you must at least do this. This is a practical requirement for other goals you have, like med school or whatever.

You, or someone, are paying for this course. You should try to get the most benefit you can from it. This may mean viewing it mainly as a series of writing exercises. You might even go talk to the prof or a TA and tell them that the main thing you're interested in is improving your writing skills, and do they have tips. Try not to view the course with contempt, because this will ensure that you're wasting your time. Instead, try to see what the course can give you. There's plenty that college students don't know, and plenty of skills that you could stand to develop. Be a little humble and see if that helps.

Finally, it also should not be hard to do the reasonable minimum. The work is usually easy enough that you should be able to do fine by just sitting down with your notes and sources for one serious night of paper-writing. Not that it's brainless, but that if you just take it seriously as a thing you need to do and can benefit from, it's nothing you can't do. (Don't cheat, no matter what you do. This is just not a lot of work -- it's never worth cheating for that. Also it's really, really easy for profs to catch cheaters, and cheating really pisses profs off, so they'll make a personal point of crushing you if they find you cheating.)

Just one practical suggestion:
Take constant notes in lecture.
Even if you never look at them again, taking notes helps you to (a) keep from nodding off and (b) absorb some of what's being said. And, bonus, you will be able to look at them again when it's paper time. In humanities lectures that I find boring, I take as many notes as possible, trying to write down everything that's being said even if I don't understand it or am not interested in it. When I get home, these notes get dated and put in a manila folder. Simple, and if I need them again they're relatively easy to find.
posted by LobsterMitten at 2:48 PM on October 23, 2006 [1 favorite]

I would really appreciate pragmatic advice on (1); that is, how to get motivated to do something I see as frivolous

(A) If you don't, it will fuck you up. That should be motivation enough. Welcome to college, and your gateway to real life -- the worls doesn't give a shit how worthwhile you think it is, or what you think is frivolous and what you think is important. Instead, you are being told to treat something as if it were important completely irrespective of your actual feelings on the matter. Get used to this.

Beyond that, you need to realize that the subject does not have to be particularly important for a humanities course to be worthwhile. The process is still valuable. To wit:

(B) You will learn valuable information processing skills in those courses, iff you buckle down and do the fucking work.

(C) You will learn valuable communication skills in those courses, iff you buckle down and do the fucking work.

(D) Learning to do good, solid work on something you don't give a shit about is itself a worthwhile skill to develop.

You should also think about:

(1) Going to whatever your university's center for learning is, where they can help you with course-taking strategies and suchlike.
(2) Deal with the practical problems and then concentrate on school without them, instead of being forced to do a half-ass job all the way through.
(3) Taking a different humanities course.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:49 PM on October 23, 2006 [5 favorites]

I made an extra effort to take humanities I was interested in. I didn't take upper level English — I took upper level poli-sci. From the school's perspective, they were both humanities but they were world's apart to me.

The other thing that took me way too long to learn was to drop classes quickly. If a class is boring or uninteresting on day one, get out while you still can.

One last point is that I wish I had taken a foreign language while in school. Not easy, but it is very practical and I presume it counts as a humanity.
posted by smackfu at 3:18 PM on October 23, 2006

If you can, drop the class and take a philosophy course in formal or informal logic. These classes are a good way to avoid contact with literature and critical theory, and if you can think logically, they tend to be easy credits. An introductory course in formal logic will be especially easy for you if you have some experience with computer science/programming.
posted by smorange at 3:22 PM on October 23, 2006

The purpose of the sciences is to support the humanities. The humanities are what we mean by "civilization."

On a practical level, you need to connect on a personal level with the humanities. Not just to pass the course but to become a more rounded you. You don't say what the course is, but if it is history, go visit some museums or historical sites this weekend. Art galleries if it is an art class. Try to be as open as possible, and see what interests you. Use that as your door into the class.

Another option: hang out with people who do like the topic. See who seems to be enjoying the class and strike up a conversation. Chances are they could use some help in your science field.
posted by LarryC at 3:34 PM on October 23, 2006

and feel that spending time learning about the art of ancient cultures is trivial

A first-level college degree isn't about knowledge, it's an endurance test to see if you can stay focused on a goal for a long period.

It's also an exercise in learning to prioritize. Unless you're planning on going to graduate school, no one will ever look at your GPA. Do the minimum, collect your 'C', and move on.
posted by tkolar at 4:04 PM on October 23, 2006

Ancient cultures are often trivialized by descriptions by Westerners as "savages" and religious bias, etc. There is a whole lot of interesting math and writing systems in there. Yes, use of language is arbitrary, and varies from author to author, but the survival of certain forms, phrases, metaphors, is very important to constructing worldviews specific to the time period of the literature. It's not like this isn't a science; you just have to think about the language differently.

Alternately, it is fun to just disagree with whatever the obvious point of hte readings you don't do. You must read to disagree but it's somewhat motivational if you feel bitter towards the assignment. Plus criticism indicates comprehension; you're golden for grading.
posted by shownomercy at 4:44 PM on October 23, 2006

i have to say there's some great advice in there (as a engineer who finds most humanities to be half fluff and the other half BS.

to reiterate:

1) try to only take courses you are interested in and lean towards the more logic oriented: philosophy (my personal favorite course in college was a Philosophy of science course...very cool), poly-sci, sociology, economics (think pseudo science)

2) don't read, take good notes and then write specific papers based on what notes you've taken (because most profs don't do the reading either)

3) drop classes you hate (you only do undergrad once and you might as well enjoy what you're paying for (and remember, you are paying)).

4) learn to write. As a practicing science like professional i can say that writing skills are as important as analytical abilities (sad but true). Oh, and take the technical writing course now (they suck, but oh god how they suck)
posted by NGnerd at 4:46 PM on October 23, 2006

(2) I don't like the humanities to begin with. Every time I take a class on art or literature I am plagued with feelings that it is really all nonsense. (I don't mean to offend any humanists here; I just want to explain how I see the humanities on a gut level.)

One thing you can do (maybe too late for this course) is find the fields often stuck under humanities which to a greater or lesser degree are very scientific in some way. Theoretical linguistics is an actual empirical/cognitive science, but is often stuck in humanities divisions for historical reasons. In my experience (TAing ling classes) linguistics classes have a very high appeal to science majors, and require the same kind of rigorous logical thought and writing. Someone suggested philosophy above, and this is also a good idea -- especially analytic philosophy (e.g. philosophy of language, metaphysics), also philosophy of science (which might even be useful to your science degree).

As to the current course, one thing you could do (it is hard to talk about this without actually knowing the course) is to treat it as kind of a science. I have a friend who is an undergrad philosophy major in a fairly continentally-oriented department, but has taken a lot of formal logic/semantics courses. When he has to take the philosophy classes that he thinks are more BSy what he does is tries to formalize the arguments (which in this sort of class are couched in very vague natural language) in some kind of formal logical system, make them as precise and rigorous as possible, and see whether they still hold up. Just understand that the premises you might be reasoning from in such a course might be arbitrary aesthetic statements, and not the empirical experimentally-verifiable facts about the world that you are used to.
posted by advil at 5:41 PM on October 23, 2006

1) Remember that even if the date of a given random battle isn't "useful," many of the things you learn through the humanities will serve you well. The most important thing is learning how to write (and present/discuss.) Science majors - particularly those who haven't much interest in the humanities - are often truly awful at writing. Unfortunately for them, project proposals, grant applications, textbooks, and papers all require passable writing. Even if the topics don't interest you, humanities professors are generally more likely to give you good writing criticism.

2) Furthermore, scientists and engineers don't work in bubbles. You are going to continue running into humanities types. It behooves you to be able to communicate with them effectively, and part of that means having some minimal literacy in western culture and thought. If I'm explaining to someone that a bacterium has certain molecules on the outside that the body thinks are ok, allowing the bacterium to sneak around the body and do whatever it wants, people are going to stop paying attention long before I even get technical. If I make an analogy to the Trojan horse, they'll get it. In industry, your superiors may not have your science background; in academia, you may need to collaborate on interdisciplinary or university stuff with humanities types.

3) Practical advice: Deal with your "practical problems." Now. Not every science class you run across is going to be immediately relevant. Quantum mechanics is interesting, but quantum chemistry isn't "useful" in the same way that the design of anti-cancer drugs is. Unless you're at a trade school, the point of your undergraduate information is less to give you a list of marketable skills and more to give you the ability to process information and come up with your own ideas regarding it. Judging your classes on the basis of their "usefulness" may put you in trouble later on, even in the sciences. You need to be able to work on stuff that doesn't seem "useful" at first glance. [It might also help to distinguish between "useful" and "interesting" - something can be the latter even if you don't think it's the former.]

4) More practical advice: "The humanities" are really broad. Depending on the requirements at your college, you may have a fair amount of latitude regarding which class to take. Linguistics, political science, history, literature, art, economics, music, foreign languages, anthropology, philosophy - is there not a single class that sounds remotely interesting? Seriously, do spend the time to scour the course catalogue for interesting courses, and do spend the time asking others regarding how good professors are. Taking a well-taught class that's interesting will do wonders, even if you still don't consider it ultimately "useful."

5) Yet more practical advice: take notes. It'll keep you awake and involved, even if you never look at the notes again. If you know what the paper topics are, focus your reading on the topics the papers cover; the other stuff will be discussed in class [and you should at least skim it if you want to have a decent participation grade], but you're only likely to need to know a certain subset of the data in given set of reading assignments. When you study, go off somewhere where you can sit and work without distractions for as long as it takes to get the work done. It's harder to concentrate on work you're not interested in.

All this from someone who was a humanities-loving science major, and who saw a lot of science majors who could barely write.
posted by ubersturm at 6:00 PM on October 23, 2006

More science doesn't make you more fun at parties. More humanities does make you more fun at parties. If you spend all your time solving practical problems and none at parties, maybe you can get a taste for them in the humanities.

The humanities are in many ways harder than science -- not to get a grade in, but to get what's there and how it is useful. In science, you can live on logical autopilot, but humanities courses require something, well, human of you. Much of the best work in the humanities is a lot like science, it's just that you have to make conclusions using much less and much less obvious data. The looking expands the mind. Unlike science, experiments can take lifetimes. Seriously, if you look that deeply for the similarities, they are there. It's all knowledge.
posted by ontic at 6:55 PM on October 23, 2006 [1 favorite]

I don't think the answers in this thread really answer the question of why the humanities are worthwhile.

Do not pay any attention to literary analysis, historiography, "critical theory" beyond what's absolutely necessary to pass. Why? Because the only really good work of this sort is done in order to answer a specific question that you don't even have the grounding to appreciate fully (i.e. "what are the problems inherent in an ontological theory that identifies the being of the entity with presence?") There is no reason why you should care about this, yet this is the starting point of a text which may well be forced down your throat: Derrida's Of Grammatology. Note that not knowing about the difference between presence and being in no way makes you a bad person. If you read work that attempts to use this approach to draw broad conclusions, you will inevitably find it unsatisfactory by reason of incoherence, shrillness, wilful obscurity, etc. This is not a bad thing.

But you should pay attention to, and do your best to internalize, the primary sources you're assigned: poems, ancient philosophical tracts, works of literature, letters and so on. The reason why people still read stuff that is old is because sometimes we find that a twelfth-century monk has already figured out and written something we've had nesting in our head our whole life. The ancients, and the medievals and the early moderns, were people: they shat, fucked, ate noisily, jerked off, fell in love, sneered at humanity, got drunk, were depressed about drama in their lives, went for walks in the sun, threw snowballs and laughed. Sometimes you can see a glimmer of this in what they write, and the feeling you get from reading a letter from twelve-year-old Marcus Aurelius who misses his mother kissing his forehead and wants his friend to visit is one of the most beautiful experiences on Earth--the feeling that, though there be thousands of years between us, we are all human and nothing human is foreign to us.

That's why I love history; perhaps you can come to love the humanities too.
posted by nasreddin at 7:29 PM on October 23, 2006

Humanities are harder only in the sense that they can be so amorphous. Sciences tend to be more concrete. As for getting a grade, I am one science nerd who aced every non-science class with ease, including some rather intense lit and other classes. Perhaps I found my true calling late, but I still love science. Some insight into the readings and some effort go a long way in these classes. In science you either get it or you don't and your grades show it. In humanities you can BS your way through but only if you really think about it and get close. I think science geeks get a break on the grades also, especially in the range of C+ to B. In any event, don't despair your lack of interest. Do a bit of work and you will get the grade.

It's funny how the better discussions here mimic to some extent the sort of discussions you might have in poli-sci or other college level precepts. Perhaps if you participated more in the discussions on the blue it would prep you a bit for this type of class. In any event, participate fully in your preceptorial discussions and you are primed for the papers.

As has been said earlier, even if you pursue a career in science, your classes which emphasize writing and communication will be more valuable in the long run. Everyone learns the equations, the smart guys learn how to communicate the results. Any science geek should be taking one third english, history, etc.

Bottom line, I think the humanities are probably not as difficult as you think if you can only find something to pique your interest, and they are incredibly valuable if only for the practice of learning how to dissect a writing and to communicate your ideas, both of which are valuable life skills for even the most dedicated techno geek.

All that, and of course your classes are still a job that you need to do well to progress to the next job, and for that reason alone are not frivolous.

Good luck.
posted by caddis at 7:35 PM on October 23, 2006

People will judge you based on how well you express yourself. Going by the title of this thread, I'd say you need more humanities courses than you think.
posted by trondant at 9:57 PM on October 23, 2006

trondant, was that really necessary?

Thanks for the great answers so far, everyone.
posted by lunchbox at 9:12 AM on October 24, 2006

I'm a grad student in English who teaches literature to undergrads, and every semester I have a few students like you: science people who have never liked humanities subjects and have chips on their shoulders about it. Often they're really busy with the subjects in which they're already immersed and they resent having to learn a whole new set of subjects; they also have a lot of pre-conceived ideas about how the humanities and arts are bullshit. They are, needless to say, very hard to teach.

So, you are not alone. And conversely, I'm sure that in your more quantitative or scientific courses there are plenty of students stifling yawns who feel that what they're learning is useless and meaningless to them--perhaps even "frivolous."

I can only say to you what I say to my students, and that is:

- You will never make any progress in the course until you come with an open mind.

- As in any discipline, you need to put in a certain amount of grind and pure effort before you start to reap the rewards of your work.

- If you are not a culture person--if you don't, in your spare time, read books, go to museums, read the newspaper, learn history, and so on--then accept that you will be playing catch-up to many people who are engaged in these activities as a matter of course.

- Understand that, if you are not a culture person, the university is very explicitly trying to make you into one. You will be happy when this process is complete; but if you quit now, you won't even know what you are missing.

- Don't confuse the relative easiness of a humanities class--which is the result of the kinds of assignments that are possible in those classes--with the complexity of the subject itself. This is a common mistake. It is like assuming that physics, as a subject, is a complex as your midterm exam.

- Remember that the discipline is not frivolous. Your professor, occasionally, could be frivolous; your attitude to the subject sounds, at the moment, a little frivolous; but the subject is substantive, more so than you are capable of evaluating as a beginning student.

As for pragmatic hints on making it work:

- You sound like a busy person (as do all my students). Begin by setting aside a substantive amount of time to do your reading. If you rush it, or if you cheat by not finishing or by only reading Sparknotes, you will never be engaged and motivated.

- Don't listen to naysayers with axes to grind--i.e., people who have told you in the past that what you are studying is dumb. I am constantly surprised as a teacher by how many students have parents or classmates or instructors in their home disciplines who badmouth other disciplines. This is incredibly irresponsible. Students should be curious and open-minded; they should learn before they judge; they shouldn't be dogmatically clossed to whole areas of inquiry and endeavor.

- Remember that in a humanities course you cannot 'learn' the material the way you might 'learn' information in a quantitative course. You must engage with it directly; there is no summary. So if you are zoning out in lecture and zoning out during the reading, you are sealing your fate. Really concentrate on what you are studying: if you breeze through your reading while listening to music at 2 a.m., it will not do anything for you.

Finally, it sounds like you're taking a course that at least begins with the ancient world. Of course it seems remote and irrelevant to you. It certainly is not going to hit you over the head with its relevance the way a course on insurgency and counterinsurgency, or on climate change, might.

"Relevance" and "practicality" aren't the standards by which you judge a course on ancient art. You're taking the course because the art is beautiful and fascinating, and because it was made by people like yourself, albeit many years ago. As you take more and more of these courses, you will find that you are more and more able to connect the arts to your life; but that will come later. Right now you need to put in the work of learning to appreciate an interesting subject for no reason at all--just like you had to learn to enjoy and appreciate math, for example, before you could use it to understand the real world.

I assume, by your asking this question at all, that you are at least somewhat interested in doing well for a grade. If that is what's motivating you now, that's fine; but you need to adopt an attitude of openness and curiosity so that your motivation can deepen with time.

Good luck!
posted by josh at 11:05 AM on October 24, 2006 [4 favorites]