Enrolling in STEM programs is not the only course to realizing a successful career. Scott Jaschik, the writer of the captivating piece, “Shocker: Humanities Grads Gainfully Employed and Happy,” published in 2018, would not agree more. Scott argues that according to available research, graduates who majored in humanities are productively employed, have assumed positions of authority and are as satisfied with their professions as peers who specialized in STEM (Jaschik 2). Scott begins establishing his credibility by making references to reliable sources, citing incontrovertible facts and statistics, and successfully employing pathetic and logical appeals. Scott’s attempt to appeal to the audience’s logic and ethics through the subtle incorporation of emotions reinforces and makes his argument more convincing.
In his article, Scott first sets the stage by recounting specific instances where programs in the humanity department have been undermined. For example, Scott mentions that based on an article by Forbes and Kiplinger, anthropology, music, history, archeology, religious studies and art are the worst career choices (Jaschik 2). Scott then provides a broader view of the issue stating that most parents and students are convinced of the idea that pursuing courses in humanity is not the best professional choice. Furthermore, Scott highlights that many liberal arts roots and higher learning institutions are seeking to introduce pre-professional programs. Scott continues by presenting the findings of a recent study that counters the prevailing notion that humanity graduates are underemployed and unhappy in the careers (Jaschik 3). Throughout the rest of the article, Scott presents data from different research to support his point of view on the issue.
In the entire, piece Scott employs strong sources that reinforce his credibility and appeal to ethos, in addition to strengthening his argument. The sources that Scott cites include, “American Academy of Arts " Sciences, the U.S. Census Gallup Poll on workers nationwide” (Jaschik 3). Scott entire argument is based on the findings and conclusions made by these sources. Additionally, Scott references the works written and presentations made by different recognized authorities and experts in the field of humanity. For instance, he quotes, “Robert B. Townsend, who is the director of the Washington office of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and William D. Adams, a senior fellow at the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities” (Jaschik 3). Scott also makes references to popular sources such as Forbes and Kiplinger. Quoting from these sources reinforces Scott’s credibility by showing the audience that he conducted extensive and up-to-date research on the topic under discussion and, therefore, the claims made are based on facts and statistics as well as expert perspectives on the subject and not on personal opinion. In this manner, Scott succeeds in establishing trust from his readers, thereby increasing the receptivity of his message.
Additionally, Scott’s writing style also establishes an ethical appeal. By employing mostly a third person’s point of view, the piece sounds more objective, assertive, professional and free from any personal biases. For instance, the author says, “Turning away from pure financial figures, the report finds that humanities majors are succeeding in the workforce by a range of measures" (Jaschik 3). In this manner, the arguments more valid. Also, the fact that Scott uses a reasoned and a serious tone establish his credibility with the audience. Lastly, Scott manages to create a common ground in the refutation segment of the article. For example, Scott writes,
The report doesn't contest that those who majored in engineering or natural sciences earn more, on average, than do humanities graduates do. But it shows humanities grads to be gainfully employed… When it comes to measures of career satisfaction, humanities grads are as satisfied as those who majored in STEM (Jaschik 3).
In this excerpt, Scott establishes a mutual ground in which he acknowledges that his argument and that of the opposing individuals agree on at least a single aspect. Achieving this is critical to creating ethos and reassuring the audience of his capacity to treat the subject under discussion fairly.
Adding to the ethical persuasion, Scott has also employed strong appeals to logic, incorporating different facts and statistics and ensuring a coherent flow of ideas. Scott highlights facts about the satisfaction rates of humanity graduates and likens it to the information available about peers who majored in different academic departments. For example, he says, "Almost 87 percent of all workers with a bachelor’s degree in the humanities reported they were satisfied with their jobs in 2015, comparable to graduates from almost every other field” (Jaschik 3). The data introduce and support the claim that humanity majors are thriving well in their career, contrary to the common notion. Scott further cites more statistics provided by the different research conducted in the area,
Only 4.3 percent of those with terminal bachelor's degrees were unemployed in 2015, and the figure was under 3 percent for those with a bachelor's in a humanities field and an advanced degree in any field… large percentages of humanities majors are in supervisory roles, with 60 percent reporting that managing or supervising others is part of their job (Jaschik 3).
The numbers are just a few of the many that logically back up Scott’s argument that the prevailing notion that humanity graduates are underemployed and unsatisfied is merely a baseless and an unfounded stereotypical view. The specifics and the statistics establish an appeal to the reader’s logic and impress upon the audience that the topic is an area of concern, worth exploring.
Also, by ensuring consistency throughout the piece, even in the advent of opposing arguments, Scott further appeals to the audience's logic. Scott agrees that based on the available data, humanity graduates do earn less as compared to their peers in many other fields. However, he reinforces his main claim by stating that regardless of the remuneration, the fact is that humanity majors are employed and are being compensated. Furthermore, Scott highlights that the wage gap between humanity graduates and the other employees in different sectors is narrowing over time (Jaschik 3). Scott also incorporates inductive claims in his article, “Almost 87 percent of all workers with a bachelor’s degree in the humanities reported they were satisfied with their jobs in 2015, comparable to graduates from almost every other field” (Jaschik 3). The use of inductive reasoning encourages the reader to draw the conclusion to Scott's argument about humanities on their own. In this manner, the audience relishes in the fact that they were ingenious enough to unravel it, and the reveal becomes much more satisfying.
Along with the strong logical persuasion, Scott effectively appeals to the audience’s emotions as well at the beginning of the piece. To begin with, the article’s title itself evokes emotional responses from the reader, “Shocker: humanities grads gainfully employed and happy.” The emotionally-charged word, “shocker” arouses the audience’s interests on the topic (Jaschik 2). Scott’s introduction is full of phrases that elicit feelings of surprise, anger, and sympathy from the reader. For instance, Scott highlights that according to Forbes and Kiplinger, humanities are the” worst college majors," and students should not pursue them. Such statements arouse feelings of anger, surprise, and sympathy from audiences enthusiastic about humanities (Jaschik 2). The careful integration of information from popular sources and subtle emotions effectively introduce the main argument and the seriousness of the topic under discussion. In the last paragraph, though quoting from a different source, Scott fills the audience with indignation. He reiterates the importance of considering facts about humanities by analyzing the workplaces of humanities graduates. From the choice of words to the repetition of phrases such as, "we need to know," Scott appeals to the audience's feelings of indignation against stereotypical views on pursuing humanities as a career (Jaschik 6).
Conclusion
In a sum, Scott has successfully employed the appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos to persuade his audience that graduates who majored in humanities are productively employed, have assumed positions of authority and are as satisfied. To establish his credibility and create an ethical appeal, Scott has made references to different reputable sources and cited information presented by experts in the field of discussion. Also, Scott has also employed strong appeals to logic, incorporating different facts and statistics and ensuring a coherent flow of ideas. Lastly, through the subtle incorporation of emotions of anger, surprise, indignation and sympathy, Scott has managed to attract the reader's interest, thereby improving receptivity of the message. Overall, the text is persuasive.
Work Cited
Jaschik, Scott. "Shocker: Humanities Grads Gainfully Employed and Happy." Inside Higher Ed | Higher Education News, Career Advice, Jobs, 7 Feb. 2018, www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/02/07/study-finds-humanities-majors-land-jobs-and-are-happy-them. Accessed 23 Mar. 2018.
