I really have to disagree with one aspect of this comment ("the erosion of standards in the humanities.") Perhaps that's to be expected because I'm an academic who works in the humanities. But my point is a simple one and it's something that you can test out yourself: try comparing a half dozen academic history article written in, say, 1950, to a half dozen from 2015. I predict that, on average, a 2015 article will feature a far more robust evidence base, a broader range of sources, a richer historiography, and more rigorous language training than its counterpart from the 1940s, 50s or 60s. In my experience there is simply no comparison. In part this is because digitized texts make it so much easier to access a wide range of sources, but it also has to do with an increase in standards of graduate education. Getting a PhD in a field like history used to be an old boys club based on connections and family money. It certainly still retains some of those trappings today, but I think there can be no question that academic training today is far more rigorous (and entering graduate school or getting an article accepted more competitive) than it was in decades past.

I don't really take issue with the comments about students and multiple choice exams, though. The way we teach the humanities in the US leaves a lot to be desired.