In defense of history majors

According to the always trustworthy and reliable source Wikipedia, Franklin Delano Roosevelt is ranked as the second-greatest president in United States history. He was a man who spent his life doing really small and insignificant things, like pulling America through the Great Depression and winning World War II, all while in a wheelchair. And what did Mr. Roosevelt choose to study when he attended Harvard University? History. Yet, in their article "Four years of a major problem," John Gats and Tony DiTommaso define a degree in History as "completely useless." It is obvious that such a claim, along with the entirety of Gats and DiTommaso's article, is more fallacious than a weight-loss-using-hypnosis commercial.

While majoring in history or english may not appear entirely practical at first, the critical thinking and writing skills learned studying the humanities could undoubtedly lead one to a lucrative career (and more importantly, a sharp mind). In an article titled "History for Dollars," New York Times columnist David Brooks argues, "Studying the humanities improves your ability to read and write. No matter what you do in life, you will have a huge advantage if you can read a paragraph and discern its meaning (a rarer talent than you might suppose)."

Gats and DiTommaso further argued that science-based majors such as chemistry and biology should be classified as "important but with very limited career prospects." I agree that most science majors will have to go on to graduate school, but the possibility of making over $200,000 a year as a doctor hardly seems like a limited career prospect.  

Under their third category, "practical but not that fun," John and Tony placed the School of Business Administration, the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, and the School of Professional Studies. While I agree that studying finance sounds about as enthralling as listening to NPR, a recent drug test seems to suggest that the students in the nursing program are having more fun than one might think. [Last week, a general state of panic seemed to grip a smattering of nurses after an unexpected urinalysis was required of them by the hospitals where they were planning on performing clinicals.]

If their goal in writing such a piece was to stir up conflict amidst the Gonzaga community, then John and Tony were overwhelmingly successful.  The political science majors are threatening to sue, the theatre arts students are calling it a tragedy and the women and genders studies program is rumored to have spent its entire budget on brassieres, lighter fluid, and matches. We're sure that the sports management majors would be ready to brawl, but that would be assuming they read the paper.

Now I am friends with John and Tony, and I know them both to be well-mannered and intelligent young men (compared to the cast of "Jersey Shore"), but they have approached their position as editors of the opinion section with the same amount of professionalism as the owners of Star Bar. It is probably apparent to you that this previous sentence was more or less an ad-hominem attack against Gats and DiTommaso. But that's okay. Considering their lack of respect for philosophy, John and Tony most likely don't know what an ad-hominem fallacy is.

I do agree with John and Tony on one thing: ever since the economy hit "BaRock Bottom," the job market for recent college graduates has been abysmal. But that is all the more reason you should study something you love while in college. As my friend Ricky Kellogg, who John and Tony describe as "on a crusade to earn a history degree," puts it, "Following your passions and not selling out to the man is what is important in life, not working for some big firm doing something you don't enjoy."

Nathan Garberich is a Senior