The End of the English Major(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
The End of the English Major
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/03/06/the-end-of-the-english-major
288 comments
I live in Ukraine and I don't agree with this at all. The arts are very much alive during war. The opera houses and theatres are full, songs and art are flourishing, and if anything, the artistic instinct has only been further inspired. "painting, poetry, and music" have gone nowhere even as we fight for our basic survival.
That's wonderful, and I'm glad to hear it!
I wouldn't interpret Adams as saying that the humanities have no value until after the war is over and the nation established—I think he's saying that he doesn't have as much time to focus on them as he would like to have, and he hopes that future generations will have that time.
At the beginning of the letter he says this:
> Since my Arrival this time I have driven about Paris, more than I did before. The rural Scenes around this Town are charming. The public Walks, Gardens, &c. are extreamly beautifull. The Gardens of the Palais Royal, the Gardens of the Tuilleries, are very fine. The Place de Louis 15, the Place Vendome or Place de Louis 14, the Place victoire, the Place royal, are fine Squares, ornamented with very magnificent statues. I wish I had time to describe these objects to you in a manner, that I should have done, 25 Years ago, but my Head is too full of Schemes and my Heart of Anxiety to use Expressions borrowed from you know whom.
Note that he does say he took time to view and appreciate the things he found in Paris—what he laments is that he does not have the mental focus to study and describe them in detail to his wife.
I wouldn't interpret Adams as saying that the humanities have no value until after the war is over and the nation established—I think he's saying that he doesn't have as much time to focus on them as he would like to have, and he hopes that future generations will have that time.
At the beginning of the letter he says this:
> Since my Arrival this time I have driven about Paris, more than I did before. The rural Scenes around this Town are charming. The public Walks, Gardens, &c. are extreamly beautifull. The Gardens of the Palais Royal, the Gardens of the Tuilleries, are very fine. The Place de Louis 15, the Place Vendome or Place de Louis 14, the Place victoire, the Place royal, are fine Squares, ornamented with very magnificent statues. I wish I had time to describe these objects to you in a manner, that I should have done, 25 Years ago, but my Head is too full of Schemes and my Heart of Anxiety to use Expressions borrowed from you know whom.
Note that he does say he took time to view and appreciate the things he found in Paris—what he laments is that he does not have the mental focus to study and describe them in detail to his wife.
There’s also a historical irony in that within a decade, that beautiful, cultured France tore itself apart in a bloody revolution and ultimately engaged in an ambitious war to conquer all of Europe. Even some people there were studying war, it turns out, and they were the ones who ended up running things.
Well, he said it was appropriate to study only politics and war "in a young Country, as yet simple and not far advanced in Luxury", which hardly describes Ukraine!
Ukraine became independent in 1991 and has a per capita GDP PPP of less than $15,000 as of 2021 compared to over $57,000 in Germany and over $69,000 in USA, so it is a young country with seemingly little ability to afford material luxury.
You both seem to agree that art & culture is of enormous value. And I hope like Adams we agree that it would be ideal if we could leave war & defense much behind us, wish that it was not necessary. You seem well aligned with Adams to me.
I do think there's an interesting level, where when it's suddenly difficult to have art & culture, we value it higher, it's need is more apparent.
I do worry that the path of alienation & isolation capitalism has walked the world down has distanced us from meaning in such a way that art & culture no longer have the capacity to stand as (especially valued/positive) signifiers as much, that art & culture is both under supply side risk from a more brutal & unrelenting mechanization that makes art less accessible to make (few can afford the luxury of being an artist/cultural producer), while also slamming many arts (especially non bougouise) from the demand side - both for the same economic there-is-no-surplus-for-labor/no one-can-afford art problem, but also in the sense that we're so alienated, that we dont resonate positively or cherish art- we dislike so much of the state-of-ourselves, are so roundly enmiserated by the mainstream we are suffused in, that art/culture dont have the essential power it ought have.
We (everyone other tham Ukraine presently) forget what culture we had. Squid Games anti-culture is what we're left with.
I do think there's an interesting level, where when it's suddenly difficult to have art & culture, we value it higher, it's need is more apparent.
I do worry that the path of alienation & isolation capitalism has walked the world down has distanced us from meaning in such a way that art & culture no longer have the capacity to stand as (especially valued/positive) signifiers as much, that art & culture is both under supply side risk from a more brutal & unrelenting mechanization that makes art less accessible to make (few can afford the luxury of being an artist/cultural producer), while also slamming many arts (especially non bougouise) from the demand side - both for the same economic there-is-no-surplus-for-labor/no one-can-afford art problem, but also in the sense that we're so alienated, that we dont resonate positively or cherish art- we dislike so much of the state-of-ourselves, are so roundly enmiserated by the mainstream we are suffused in, that art/culture dont have the essential power it ought have.
We (everyone other tham Ukraine presently) forget what culture we had. Squid Games anti-culture is what we're left with.
> The opera houses and theatres are full
That is amazing.
That is amazing.
In my opinion, some of the most meaningful art has war as the subject.
Nothing like a reality to destroy popular quote.
I don't think the radically different contexts of a burgeoning nation in the 18th century and a highly developed nation in the 21st "destroys" this quote.
The experience of "actually in times of war people need and use art" does it.
Quote was made by diplomat and revolutionary. It expresses his personal values and needs rather then universal needs in bad times.
Quote was made by diplomat and revolutionary. It expresses his personal values and needs rather then universal needs in bad times.
This is a fascinating quote in part because you can see John Adams's thought process in the bits that are scratched out. He starts by saying that he needs to study politics and war so that his sons can study "painting and poetry", but then he scratches that out and replaces it with "mathematics and philosophy". The next sentence suggests that he realized while writing that it would take more than one generation to get to the leisure state he desires—that once his generation has won the war, his children will need to establish the nation, and only then will his grandchildren have enough leisure time to study the humanities.
And it seems he changed "My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give theirs a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine." to "in order to give their Children a right" to include women in that third generation.
Ah! I was wondering what that change signified. I assumed it was just a corrected mistake, but you're right, it changes the gender of the third generation. Very interesting.
I think I can picture him, writing "...give their sons a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary,... hmm, Tapestry... and Porcelaine? Let's make it 'children'!" ツ
Must be ol' Abby's influence.
Reading between the lines I’m sure he meant that they could study those arts in addition to those fundamental studies listed prior.
A nation devoted to poetry and porcelain isn’t sustainable.
And certainly he must have been aware of how cyclical history is versus a linear march towards artistic pursuits. The US since it’s inception has been involved in a significant war in nearly every decade. Post-Vietnam through the 1st Iraq war was one of the rare periods where a US citizen could have been of military age without a major hot war. Although the Cold War certainly brought it’s own level of fear.
A nation devoted to poetry and porcelain isn’t sustainable.
And certainly he must have been aware of how cyclical history is versus a linear march towards artistic pursuits. The US since it’s inception has been involved in a significant war in nearly every decade. Post-Vietnam through the 1st Iraq war was one of the rare periods where a US citizen could have been of military age without a major hot war. Although the Cold War certainly brought it’s own level of fear.
Switzerland has been war free in 171 of the last 176 years. It can be done, just not if you plan on being a major power.
Geography helps too. But they have an army and mandated military service, so regarding the Adam’s quote they still practice those 1st level topics.
Costa Rica is the largest country I know of that has no military.
Costa Rica is the largest country I know of that has no military.
And friendly neighbors. France, Germany, Italy, and others have been willing to play ball. Geography simply changes the equation; fruit ain't worth the squeeze.
I always interpreted it as needing to become richer in following generations until reaching a generation composed of the idle rich able to live comfortably on their inheritance and thus able to study those things unlikely to be remunerative.
pessimizer(2)
I've wrestled with this since I graduated in '08 with an English degree from a shit school and far, far too much debt. Still, you can't put a price on what I learned. My thinking changed fundamentally. The world opened up. It's a rich field, connected to history, politics, philosophy, and more. I had wonderful professors and the epiphanies I had in their classes I will cherish forever. Life without art is not really life.
After I graduated, I was in so much debt I became suicidally depressed. I thought my future was over. (I ended up learning to program and got a job doing that, instead.) The outlook that reduces education in the abstract to its ROI is bleak; the refusal to descend into the real world and consider the economics of education is naive and useless.
I've given a lot of thought about what I'll advise my son to do, assuming he listens to me. It's true that he could always read any books in his free time, but that would leave out the discussion, writing, and instruction, which are indispensable. I do NOT want him going into a horrible amount of debt for it, or miss out on a career that will actually support him. But I want so much for him to have something like the mental and cultural enrichment I got to have, whose effects are hard to even explain because they've touched every part of my life. I don't have an answer yet.
After I graduated, I was in so much debt I became suicidally depressed. I thought my future was over. (I ended up learning to program and got a job doing that, instead.) The outlook that reduces education in the abstract to its ROI is bleak; the refusal to descend into the real world and consider the economics of education is naive and useless.
I've given a lot of thought about what I'll advise my son to do, assuming he listens to me. It's true that he could always read any books in his free time, but that would leave out the discussion, writing, and instruction, which are indispensable. I do NOT want him going into a horrible amount of debt for it, or miss out on a career that will actually support him. But I want so much for him to have something like the mental and cultural enrichment I got to have, whose effects are hard to even explain because they've touched every part of my life. I don't have an answer yet.
I'd like to add my experience. I did a year of English in university, then switched to a software engineering major after internalizing all the "an English degree is useless" rhetoric.
While I am glad I didn't spend the ~$32,000 CAD it would have cost to get an English degree, I do wish I'd enrolled in a CS/English double major to get the benefits of technical studies and a humanities education. I have realized that, while I like software, a corporate job is just a means to an end to what I really enjoy: shared experience and art.
On another note, I did make the mistake of paying $15,000 CAD/year for a software engineering degree compared to $8,000/year for a CS degree. Now, in my final year, I'm taking many of the same classes CS students take. I would warn anyone in the same position in Canada (or the US) to seriously compare the two curricula when making a decision.
While I am glad I didn't spend the ~$32,000 CAD it would have cost to get an English degree, I do wish I'd enrolled in a CS/English double major to get the benefits of technical studies and a humanities education. I have realized that, while I like software, a corporate job is just a means to an end to what I really enjoy: shared experience and art.
On another note, I did make the mistake of paying $15,000 CAD/year for a software engineering degree compared to $8,000/year for a CS degree. Now, in my final year, I'm taking many of the same classes CS students take. I would warn anyone in the same position in Canada (or the US) to seriously compare the two curricula when making a decision.
> On another note, I did make the mistake of paying $15,000 CAD/year for a software engineering degree compared to $8,000/year for a CS degree. Now, in my final year, I'm taking many of the same classes CS students take. I would warn anyone in the same position in Canada (or the US) to seriously compare the two curricula when making a decision.
I find this interesting, at least at the school I attended, there was no difference in pricing between degrees like this. Almost all of the computer related programs are just included under a BS (bachelor of science) and covered by normal tuition.
There were certainly focus differences between something like Computer Engineering vs Computational Media vs Electrical and Computer Engineering, but the prices were the same, and many of the core classes were the same.
I find this interesting, at least at the school I attended, there was no difference in pricing between degrees like this. Almost all of the computer related programs are just included under a BS (bachelor of science) and covered by normal tuition.
There were certainly focus differences between something like Computer Engineering vs Computational Media vs Electrical and Computer Engineering, but the prices were the same, and many of the core classes were the same.
The "software engineering" degree only exists because the Faculty of Engineering didn't want to miss out on the firehose of demand for CS degrees in the last couple of decades that went to the Faculty of Science. Effectively though, "software engineering" is just a parallel CS program taught by the Faculty of Engineering.
As far as I understand, universities' reasoning for differential tuition varies from demand for a particular major, projected earning potential, and the cost of providing the major itself (for example, a civil engineering student requires all the material and facilities for their labs and field courses).
In Canada, this differential pricing between engineering and other majors is applied to all engineering disciplines, which is why software ends up with a higher cost than computer science, despite there being very few tangible differences in the curricula.
In my opinion, a model like that of your school's is much more reasonable, given that many of the core classes are the same.
In Canada, this differential pricing between engineering and other majors is applied to all engineering disciplines, which is why software ends up with a higher cost than computer science, despite there being very few tangible differences in the curricula.
In my opinion, a model like that of your school's is much more reasonable, given that many of the core classes are the same.
This is about where I'm at. I was an art major and spent my time working in contemporary art until switching careers to programming via a bootcamp in my 30s.
If I could go back and do it all again, I don't think I would a CS major instead, even when taking the massively increased earning potential I would have had I entered the field straight out of college. My humanities classes gave me so much historical perspective on the world that shapes my outlook today, and I simply can't imagine living without that.
I also credit my humanities education with teaching me how to do research and "how to learn". I think it gave me a lot of the skills I used to teach myself coding and switch careers. I'm not certain it would have been as easy to do it the other way around -- learn CS in college and teach myself humanities later.
If I could go back and do it all again, I don't think I would a CS major instead, even when taking the massively increased earning potential I would have had I entered the field straight out of college. My humanities classes gave me so much historical perspective on the world that shapes my outlook today, and I simply can't imagine living without that.
I also credit my humanities education with teaching me how to do research and "how to learn". I think it gave me a lot of the skills I used to teach myself coding and switch careers. I'm not certain it would have been as easy to do it the other way around -- learn CS in college and teach myself humanities later.
I went to a well-regarded state school, thus graduated with less debt, but I'm in the same boat -- graduated with an English degree in 2008, having decided after a year of computer science classes that it wasn't for me. I started university a self-important ass, and the English program forced me outside my comfort zone repeatedly, leaving me a very different, much more open-minded person than I started as.
I somehow found my way back into tech, and have spent a decade across several well-regarded tech giants and now a hedge fund. Throughout that journey, I've received consistent praise for my soft skills, which have generally surpassed those of my peers, and have allowed me to excel beyond where I would ever have gotten on raw technical talent. Those soft skills would likely never have developed without majoring in the humanities.
It's terribly sad to see the slow death of the humanities. Perhaps if more people read some Jonathan Swift, we'd be in a different world and the humanities would still thrive.
I somehow found my way back into tech, and have spent a decade across several well-regarded tech giants and now a hedge fund. Throughout that journey, I've received consistent praise for my soft skills, which have generally surpassed those of my peers, and have allowed me to excel beyond where I would ever have gotten on raw technical talent. Those soft skills would likely never have developed without majoring in the humanities.
It's terribly sad to see the slow death of the humanities. Perhaps if more people read some Jonathan Swift, we'd be in a different world and the humanities would still thrive.
The answer is to do a double major in Computer Science and English.
That's close to what I did. Major in software engineering, equivalent of a second major in English (back then, the university I attended didn't have the concept of "minors" for engineering students, or recognize double majors). That led to a fellowship offer for my MFA. After three years of intensive writing, I went into software development.
Given the cost of higher ed these days, I would imagine that path is not nearly as feasible now as it was in the late 80s/early 90s. (Definitely not at that university, which just discontinued its MFA program in writing.)
Given the cost of higher ed these days, I would imagine that path is not nearly as feasible now as it was in the late 80s/early 90s. (Definitely not at that university, which just discontinued its MFA program in writing.)
[deleted]
I did this. It's a fun niche to exist in! For folks like me who want to enjoy tinkering but also love writing, I think it's an underappreciated space. So many engineers lean as far as possible into the deeply technical bits that focusing on the "soft" bits like writing and communication is a nice way to stand out.
I did a Poli-Sci degree with a minor in IT. Work in IT full-time now, but worked in a few different (wildly different, in some cases) fields before then.
Worked out alright, definitely see the differences when working on the architect / manager / principle engineer -- the highly technical types only see tech.
Worked out alright, definitely see the differences when working on the architect / manager / principle engineer -- the highly technical types only see tech.
You've never seen such beautiful word choice and phrasing in a git commit
In terms of ROI, a person with an English degree is in a much better position than a person who dropped out without completing the final year or semester. The important thing is that your child completes.
I'm not crapping on your experience at all.
I have a degree in CS/Business.
I know all about ROI and balance sheets and database normalization and boolean logic.
However, I also read all kinds of things on my own, like Thucydides, Seutonius, Virgil, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Joyce; I study art history; I play guitar and piano; I'm learning Spanish; I'm a damn fine cook; I'm super into clothing and know fine clothing - a clothing connoisseur: I've been involved in politics. And a lot more.
The reality is reality - university is just too fucking expensive to fuck around with. Back in the day, in California, tuition was free, and when they increased it, it was still affordable. So anyone could take any type of major that they wished. But now is not then. No amount of wishing will change it.
However, at least in California, you can still get any degree you wish. Going to community college for 2 years is free if your family makes less than about $40K per year, and about $2,000 tuition if more. California State Universities is $5,742 tuition per year. So you can get undergrad courses out of the way for either $0 or $4,000 for 2 years, and $11,484 for California State University. For a total of $11,484 or $15,484 for a 4 year degree. This is only tuition, but you can zero out books and fees and room and board because they are going to be the approximately the same anywhere, unless if you go to high cost of living place like SF metro area, LA metro area, or San Diego metro area. But there's a lot of places like Bakersfield, Fresno, Chico, Humbolt that are a lot lower cost of living. Get a share rental apartment or house, get a part-time job and Bob's your uncle. But with $11K or $15K, you can pretty much get any degree you want. Any kind - English, sociology, whatever, it doesn't matter. You should be able to work part-time to pay for Cal State University tuition, and you can get a loan to help out with food and housing, but you can find a shared housing for $400-500 per month, so that's fucking cheap and might be able to have that part time job pay for that as well and graduate with very little debt.
$400/month in Chico - https://chico.craigslist.org/roo/d/chico-room-in-58-in-nord-...
$460 in Bakersfield - https://bakersfield.craigslist.org/roo/d/bakersfield-furnish...
$500 in Humboldt - https://humboldt.craigslist.org/roo/d/arcata-room-for-rent/7...
I'd say if you do one thing for your son, teach him how to comparison shop on everything. As you said, you went to "a shit school and far, far too much debt."
My first school was a private university, and was $4,500 per year, and that included tuition, room and board - 3 meals a day. That same school is now $60K per year for the same thing. So many private universities charge this much and it's fucked up. I went to school a long time ago. But I only went to that private university for one year before moving to California and going to community college and California State University to graduate for almost nothing - no outstanding debt.
Going to most private university is fucked. See what your public university costs, because, well, the public subsidizes it. I think small states like Vermont are fucked because they have a small population base that can't afford it, but not sure. If your public universities are too expensive, see what the requirements for becoming a California resident are, and move her for a year or two and work full time, then get a university degree with all the $$$ that you earned and saved. Or whatever other state you want to go to. Look at all the public school prices and residency requirements.
I don't know if this is correct or updated, but here's a list of public universities in all 50 states, you want to look at in-state tuition, because you have to move there and work for the amount of time before you get residency. As I suspected, Vermont is the highest. Fuck Vermont, if you live there, move. California is the least expensive. Move here, I live here, it's wonderful despite all you hear. Just go to a low cost of living area - California is huge and more than the large population centers.
But again, teach your kid to comparison shop on everything. Don't rush into purchases, any purchases, any money spent, including university.
I have a degree in CS/Business.
I know all about ROI and balance sheets and database normalization and boolean logic.
However, I also read all kinds of things on my own, like Thucydides, Seutonius, Virgil, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Joyce; I study art history; I play guitar and piano; I'm learning Spanish; I'm a damn fine cook; I'm super into clothing and know fine clothing - a clothing connoisseur: I've been involved in politics. And a lot more.
The reality is reality - university is just too fucking expensive to fuck around with. Back in the day, in California, tuition was free, and when they increased it, it was still affordable. So anyone could take any type of major that they wished. But now is not then. No amount of wishing will change it.
However, at least in California, you can still get any degree you wish. Going to community college for 2 years is free if your family makes less than about $40K per year, and about $2,000 tuition if more. California State Universities is $5,742 tuition per year. So you can get undergrad courses out of the way for either $0 or $4,000 for 2 years, and $11,484 for California State University. For a total of $11,484 or $15,484 for a 4 year degree. This is only tuition, but you can zero out books and fees and room and board because they are going to be the approximately the same anywhere, unless if you go to high cost of living place like SF metro area, LA metro area, or San Diego metro area. But there's a lot of places like Bakersfield, Fresno, Chico, Humbolt that are a lot lower cost of living. Get a share rental apartment or house, get a part-time job and Bob's your uncle. But with $11K or $15K, you can pretty much get any degree you want. Any kind - English, sociology, whatever, it doesn't matter. You should be able to work part-time to pay for Cal State University tuition, and you can get a loan to help out with food and housing, but you can find a shared housing for $400-500 per month, so that's fucking cheap and might be able to have that part time job pay for that as well and graduate with very little debt.
$400/month in Chico - https://chico.craigslist.org/roo/d/chico-room-in-58-in-nord-...
$460 in Bakersfield - https://bakersfield.craigslist.org/roo/d/bakersfield-furnish...
$500 in Humboldt - https://humboldt.craigslist.org/roo/d/arcata-room-for-rent/7...
I'd say if you do one thing for your son, teach him how to comparison shop on everything. As you said, you went to "a shit school and far, far too much debt."
My first school was a private university, and was $4,500 per year, and that included tuition, room and board - 3 meals a day. That same school is now $60K per year for the same thing. So many private universities charge this much and it's fucked up. I went to school a long time ago. But I only went to that private university for one year before moving to California and going to community college and California State University to graduate for almost nothing - no outstanding debt.
Going to most private university is fucked. See what your public university costs, because, well, the public subsidizes it. I think small states like Vermont are fucked because they have a small population base that can't afford it, but not sure. If your public universities are too expensive, see what the requirements for becoming a California resident are, and move her for a year or two and work full time, then get a university degree with all the $$$ that you earned and saved. Or whatever other state you want to go to. Look at all the public school prices and residency requirements.
I don't know if this is correct or updated, but here's a list of public universities in all 50 states, you want to look at in-state tuition, because you have to move there and work for the amount of time before you get residency. As I suspected, Vermont is the highest. Fuck Vermont, if you live there, move. California is the least expensive. Move here, I live here, it's wonderful despite all you hear. Just go to a low cost of living area - California is huge and more than the large population centers.
But again, teach your kid to comparison shop on everything. Don't rush into purchases, any purchases, any money spent, including university.
> Enrollment in the humanities is in free fall at colleges around the country. What happened?
It costs too much and the jobs you get out of college (if you get one) are paying way too low. English has been one of the most popular majors in the last decade, but unfortunately the economy cannot meaningfully employ as many English majors. So people end up in careers that are completely unrelated. On the better side, sales and marketing jobs hire them, on the worse, a receptionist or barista. You can actually go to a trade school and come out better off on the other side.
It costs too much and the jobs you get out of college (if you get one) are paying way too low. English has been one of the most popular majors in the last decade, but unfortunately the economy cannot meaningfully employ as many English majors. So people end up in careers that are completely unrelated. On the better side, sales and marketing jobs hire them, on the worse, a receptionist or barista. You can actually go to a trade school and come out better off on the other side.
There was a time where almost everyone majoring in liberal Arts could make a decent living. They were viewed as educated and had an open door to almost any career. I knew many liberal Art majors who ended up programming and as tech writers in the early days, never mind sales/marketing. And I am sure quite a few ended up in Business due to their learned communication skills.
Also, I had Uncles (non college) who worked selling carpets, worked in grocery stores who were able to afford a very nice life. They were able to put their children through college.
But since the early 80s, those jobs are now a race to the bottom. Now it seems you are hired only if you are pigeon holed into a specific career, and if that career path becomes obsolete, you are SOL.
Also, I had Uncles (non college) who worked selling carpets, worked in grocery stores who were able to afford a very nice life. They were able to put their children through college.
But since the early 80s, those jobs are now a race to the bottom. Now it seems you are hired only if you are pigeon holed into a specific career, and if that career path becomes obsolete, you are SOL.
> I knew many liberal Art majors who ended up programming and as tech writers in the early days
In the early days no one could hire people who had degrees in these fields, because the university courses didn't exist. So they had to go further afield.
Also in these early days fewer people had college degrees. You were hiring the social (and sometimes intellectual) elite whenever you hired anyone with any degree.
In the early days no one could hire people who had degrees in these fields, because the university courses didn't exist. So they had to go further afield.
Also in these early days fewer people had college degrees. You were hiring the social (and sometimes intellectual) elite whenever you hired anyone with any degree.
That only worked because college was a finishing school for the well brought up (plus the occasional striver), and businesses felt comfortable just trying to hire that demographic. It doesn't work if businesses are trying to hire based on qualifications, and if half of all young workers have a college degree.
The only job that majoring in English remotely qualifies one for is teaching English at a school that is not bound by teacher-qualification rules. Well, maybe editing, or entry-level work in publishing. (Qualifies one for, that is, more than any randomly selected undergraduate major.)
In my day, a fair chunk of the English majors had it in mind to go to law school. A very few aspired to become professors, and some may actually have done so; but I don't remember any undergraduate peers who spoke of wanting an academic career.
In my day, a fair chunk of the English majors had it in mind to go to law school. A very few aspired to become professors, and some may actually have done so; but I don't remember any undergraduate peers who spoke of wanting an academic career.
Most of the jobs that people point to for English majors are things that any well-mannered educated person who went to college and has decent people and communication skills can do. This is not to say they are not much better educated in language, nuance, literature, much more than me. I'm a math/cs educated software engineer. They have skills I don't have. My tortured syntax here might be indicative of my terrible writing skills but I think I actually communicate reasonably well in my field.
All those english majors who could do a lot of things need more skills to get started in other fields. Partly that would be because companies are interested in more skills coming out of college. But this whole thing comes down to lack of good jobs for english majors.
Writing is a skill, but the vast huge world doesn't need so much of it, or we get along with terrible blog posts etc. The world is at a weird point, at least the western world. A lot of countries have significant labor shortages but many of these shortages don't require the education people might get in such an area in college. Plumbers, engineers, medical field.
All those english majors who could do a lot of things need more skills to get started in other fields. Partly that would be because companies are interested in more skills coming out of college. But this whole thing comes down to lack of good jobs for english majors.
Writing is a skill, but the vast huge world doesn't need so much of it, or we get along with terrible blog posts etc. The world is at a weird point, at least the western world. A lot of countries have significant labor shortages but many of these shortages don't require the education people might get in such an area in college. Plumbers, engineers, medical field.
Sure but, there are plenty of jobs with the qualification of "randomly selected undergraduate major", and English is just fine for that.
That used to be true. But more recently, universities have milked that market too. When you have students with a $200k “Masters in Photography” degree, would you consider a candidate with “randomly selected undergraduate major”?
Not saying that masters degree is any better, but from a job perspective, it is becoming increasingly harder to get a decent living wage job with random degrees.
Not saying that masters degree is any better, but from a job perspective, it is becoming increasingly harder to get a decent living wage job with random degrees.
I think that has been significantly decreasing over time, this is shown by the problem with them getting reasonable jobs that support them financially.
Are they graduating from Princeton, or even somewhere like VA Tech or UCLA? Or are they coming out of East Iowa Upstairs Liberal Arts College?
As someone that has done hiring for entry level IT gigs, there is a notable difference between a green-but-interested English major from Ohio State vs. an ITT Tech or WGU grad. I'm not just making that up: my old data center manager was an English major from OSU and a die-hard linux guy, was great. Meanwhile all of our hires who... got DUIs, got fired for sexual harassment, caused 3 hour outages, and ended up involuntarily committed in mental hospitals, were no-degree or dubious-online-degree holders (these were all different people, btw).
You really saw the difference when it came to independent tasks and higher-level stuff, like running projects or management roles. Knew plenty of folks who were amazing and only had an AA (or less), but they were exceptions to the rule when compared to the ones who were sub-par.
As someone that has done hiring for entry level IT gigs, there is a notable difference between a green-but-interested English major from Ohio State vs. an ITT Tech or WGU grad. I'm not just making that up: my old data center manager was an English major from OSU and a die-hard linux guy, was great. Meanwhile all of our hires who... got DUIs, got fired for sexual harassment, caused 3 hour outages, and ended up involuntarily committed in mental hospitals, were no-degree or dubious-online-degree holders (these were all different people, btw).
You really saw the difference when it came to independent tasks and higher-level stuff, like running projects or management roles. Knew plenty of folks who were amazing and only had an AA (or less), but they were exceptions to the rule when compared to the ones who were sub-par.
When I've been involved in entry-level hiring, I nearly always push to hire candidates who exhibit some fundamental, non-domain-specific skills.
A question I used to like was asking someone to help me troubleshoot an everyday object that isn't working. Help me figure out why my toaster isn't working. Help me take apart a ballpoint pen and put it back together.
If you can answer those questions well, and you have a pretty basic level of knowledge, a desire to learn, and good soft skills, I'd much prefer to hire you over someone who's got great tech knowledge but mediocre troubleshooting skills and soft skills.
A question I used to like was asking someone to help me troubleshoot an everyday object that isn't working. Help me figure out why my toaster isn't working. Help me take apart a ballpoint pen and put it back together.
If you can answer those questions well, and you have a pretty basic level of knowledge, a desire to learn, and good soft skills, I'd much prefer to hire you over someone who's got great tech knowledge but mediocre troubleshooting skills and soft skills.
That's an interesting point, I like the idea, but I don't see that it would apply to even well prepared English majors. I just don't expect them to understand how to troubleshoot a toaster. They probably think of plugging it in and seeing if the outlet is working. Did I check if the cord is frayed, if the button that starts it is out, and then is there something wrong inside? I just don't see an English major doing those next steps. And again, I have great respect for their skills. But everyone has a limit. But if I had a chance to hire a software engineer who had experience, let's say working in construction then I think they'd understand some things that would be more applicable.
Totally fair, some English majors aren't cut out to work entry-level IT jobs! But having been an English major myself, I definitely knew many who were more technically-inclined, or just troubleshooting-inclined. Your examples are pretty well in-line with what I'd have been looking for, too -- someone who can use the smallish amount of knowledge they have to extrapolate to other possible causes. Most people will know the electricity flows through the power cable, which should be enough to realize there could be a failing connection inside the toaster, for instance.
I wouldn't be looking for a deep understanding of the electromechanical design of a toaster, just the inclination to combine their existing knowledge in novel ways to come up with new theories of what might be wrong, because, in my experience, that's ultimately the core trait of a successful (engineer|sysadmin|mechanic|etc.).
I wouldn't be looking for a deep understanding of the electromechanical design of a toaster, just the inclination to combine their existing knowledge in novel ways to come up with new theories of what might be wrong, because, in my experience, that's ultimately the core trait of a successful (engineer|sysadmin|mechanic|etc.).
>“The last time I taught ‘The Scarlet Letter,’ I discovered that my students were really struggling to understand the sentences as sentences—like, having trouble identifying the subject and the verb,” she said. “Their capacities are different, and the nineteenth century is a long time ago.”
Are the standards to get into university that low?
Are the standards to get into university that low?
Based on my experience in a liberal arts program in a state school, yes.
Professors can't assume the students learned anything in high school, so it takes a few semesters just to get the students to a college level. A lot of students graduated with nothing more than a passing knowledge of their subject because they took so long just to catch up.
Many students in the US are working full-time while seeking their degree, so they don't have a ton of time to study or write papers. Most professors understand this and assign a less-demanding load.
Another factor that I strongly suspect but can't prove: You have to have a college degree for most jobs, so professors feel like they're hurting a student's future prospects when they give a bad grade.
Keep in mind I'm talking about state schools - I would expect Harvard to be better!
Professors can't assume the students learned anything in high school, so it takes a few semesters just to get the students to a college level. A lot of students graduated with nothing more than a passing knowledge of their subject because they took so long just to catch up.
Many students in the US are working full-time while seeking their degree, so they don't have a ton of time to study or write papers. Most professors understand this and assign a less-demanding load.
Another factor that I strongly suspect but can't prove: You have to have a college degree for most jobs, so professors feel like they're hurting a student's future prospects when they give a bad grade.
Keep in mind I'm talking about state schools - I would expect Harvard to be better!
I'm sure I'm just an old curmudgeon, but when I heard that undergrads were using ChatGPT to write essays my first instinct was to wonder how university standards had gotten so low that a generated essay would not simply be dismissed as a feeble attempt.
500 words on the Thirty Years War generated by an AI and submitted by a high schooler I could understand. But arent college standards higher?
500 words on the Thirty Years War generated by an AI and submitted by a high schooler I could understand. But arent college standards higher?
It depends on the college. I have two friends who are professors in the same subject (a humanities-ish subject that is reading/writing heavy).
One is a professor at a low end CSU. The way she describes her students is roughly high school level; they struggle with tasks like writing a 2-3 page, 3-point, sandwich-style essay. They struggle with reading primary source material. Her senior students typically seem to have the kind of skills I would expect of a college freshman. Many students have severe life disrupting issues (rehab and court are common). Deadlines seem to mostly be a suggestion.
The other is a professor, again in the same subject, at a relatively well ranked and famous north eastern liberal arts college. The way he describes his students is that they engage, handle very dense primary source readings, and that many of them are on track for grad school or law school. I am not sure what he assigns them as final assignments, but I would assume 10-20 page final papers are not uncommon. He's never mentioned anything about behavioural issues, though like every other professor he notes that accommodations/mental health stuff is worse than it used to be.
I also thought "boy, ChatGPT seems to be closer to what was expected of me in 10th grade English than it does to any university course I ever took", and frankly I went to a mediocre Canadian university and didn't really go to a competitive world class university until my PhD.
So it's possible that the push towards everyone has going to colleges has created greater stratification from college to college. The CSU system's mandate is to serve the underserved, so it's probably not a stretch to say many of the people in my colleague's classes wouldn't have gotten into college without an explicit effort to make a college for them.
One is a professor at a low end CSU. The way she describes her students is roughly high school level; they struggle with tasks like writing a 2-3 page, 3-point, sandwich-style essay. They struggle with reading primary source material. Her senior students typically seem to have the kind of skills I would expect of a college freshman. Many students have severe life disrupting issues (rehab and court are common). Deadlines seem to mostly be a suggestion.
The other is a professor, again in the same subject, at a relatively well ranked and famous north eastern liberal arts college. The way he describes his students is that they engage, handle very dense primary source readings, and that many of them are on track for grad school or law school. I am not sure what he assigns them as final assignments, but I would assume 10-20 page final papers are not uncommon. He's never mentioned anything about behavioural issues, though like every other professor he notes that accommodations/mental health stuff is worse than it used to be.
I also thought "boy, ChatGPT seems to be closer to what was expected of me in 10th grade English than it does to any university course I ever took", and frankly I went to a mediocre Canadian university and didn't really go to a competitive world class university until my PhD.
So it's possible that the push towards everyone has going to colleges has created greater stratification from college to college. The CSU system's mandate is to serve the underserved, so it's probably not a stretch to say many of the people in my colleague's classes wouldn't have gotten into college without an explicit effort to make a college for them.
I know that in Oxbridge Universities, that wouldn't cut it. The teaching method revolves around writing essays and attending small tutorials where you discuss your arguments with a subject-matter expert. The problem with that approach is that it doesn't scale.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/student-life/e...
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/student-life/e...
Although of course from the point of view of someone enjoying the benefits of an Oxbridge degree, that probably doesn't seem like a problem!
As part of my CS studies, I went a year in a US university, where I had to take a random class on top of CS classes. I chose a cinema class, where we were watching movies, discussing with the teacher or the director and had to write a 2 pages essay on it.
English is not my mother tongue and it was my first time living in an English speaking country, and of course I had 0 background in anything related to cinema.
The level of the other students was so abysmal that I was got the best grade of the whole class for every single essay.
It was not a great university, but the level of students with even 1 or 2 years of college education is appalling.
English is not my mother tongue and it was my first time living in an English speaking country, and of course I had 0 background in anything related to cinema.
The level of the other students was so abysmal that I was got the best grade of the whole class for every single essay.
It was not a great university, but the level of students with even 1 or 2 years of college education is appalling.
In most of my classes, the professors were just happy to get a paper with proper spelling/grammar and some degree of coherence. Strength of argumentation might be the difference between an A- and an A.
For context, I graduated in 2020.
For context, I graduated in 2020.
Don't assume that!
When I started undergrad there in '72 (yes, even some generations ago), if you didn't have close to an 800 verbal SAT, you had to take a remedial writing course as a frosh.
When I started undergrad there in '72 (yes, even some generations ago), if you didn't have close to an 800 verbal SAT, you had to take a remedial writing course as a frosh.
We had remedial classes at my university, with the same test-score-based selection system. Everyone had to take two English classes: ENG 101 and ENG 102.
Students with very low SAT/ACT scores in reading/writing needed to take ENG 50-something before moving on to 101 and 102. Students with high test scores could take an Honors version of ENG 101 that also fulfilled the requirements for 102 (so they would only need to take one class).
The problem was that the overall bell curve was so low. The students in remedial courses tended to be extremely low performers - learning disabilities, serious issues at home, or older adults who hadn't been in an academic environment in decades. Those students' writing would have basic grammatical and structural issues leading to unreadability, and ENG 50 was focused on teaching them how to form a sentence or techniques to memorize spelling. There were some downright heroic ENG 50 professors, but the students who made it into ENG 101 had passed a very low bar.
I don't know if the standardized tests have become easier over time. I took the ACT a couple times in 2014 and 2015 but I don't really remember it.
I forgot to mention in my original comment - I graduated in 2020.
Students with very low SAT/ACT scores in reading/writing needed to take ENG 50-something before moving on to 101 and 102. Students with high test scores could take an Honors version of ENG 101 that also fulfilled the requirements for 102 (so they would only need to take one class).
The problem was that the overall bell curve was so low. The students in remedial courses tended to be extremely low performers - learning disabilities, serious issues at home, or older adults who hadn't been in an academic environment in decades. Those students' writing would have basic grammatical and structural issues leading to unreadability, and ENG 50 was focused on teaching them how to form a sentence or techniques to memorize spelling. There were some downright heroic ENG 50 professors, but the students who made it into ENG 101 had passed a very low bar.
I don't know if the standardized tests have become easier over time. I took the ACT a couple times in 2014 and 2015 but I don't really remember it.
I forgot to mention in my original comment - I graduated in 2020.
For context, the Scarlet Letter is pretty annoying. Halfway through each of these sentences I feel myself losing patience
A throng of bearded men, in sad-colored garments, and gray, steeple-crowned hats, intermixed with women, some wearing hoods and others bareheaded, was assembled in front of a wooden edifice, the door of which was heavily timbered with oak, and studded with iron spikes.
The founders of a new colony, whatever Utopia of human virtue and happiness they might originally project, have invariably recognized it among their earliest practical necessities to allot a portion of the virgin soil as a cemetery, and another portion as the site of a prison. In accordance with this rule, it may safely be assumed that the forefathers of Boston had built the first prison-house somewhere in the vicinity of Cornhill, almost as seasonably as they marked out the first burial-ground, on Isaac Johnson's lot, and round about his grave, which subsequently became the nucleus of all the congregated sepulchres in the old churchyard of King's Chapel. Certain it is, that, some fifteen or twenty years after the settlement of the town, the wooden jail was already marked with weather-stains and other indications of age, which gave a yet darker aspect to its beetle-browed and gloomy front. The rust on the ponderous iron-work of its oaken door looked more antique than anything else in the New World. Like all that pertains to crime, it seemed never to have known a youthful era. Before this ugly edifice, and between it and the wheel-track of the street, was a grass-plot, much overgrown with burdock, pigweed, apple-peru, and such unsightly vegetation, which evidently found something congenial in the soil that had so early borne the black flower of civilized society, a prison. But, on one side of the portal, and rooted almost at the threshold, was a wild rose-bush, covered, in this month of June, with its delicate gems, which might be imagined to offer their fragrance and fragile beauty to the prisoner as he went in, and to the condemned criminal as he came forth to his doom, in token that the deep heart of Nature could pity and be kind to him.
A throng of bearded men, in sad-colored garments, and gray, steeple-crowned hats, intermixed with women, some wearing hoods and others bareheaded, was assembled in front of a wooden edifice, the door of which was heavily timbered with oak, and studded with iron spikes.
The founders of a new colony, whatever Utopia of human virtue and happiness they might originally project, have invariably recognized it among their earliest practical necessities to allot a portion of the virgin soil as a cemetery, and another portion as the site of a prison. In accordance with this rule, it may safely be assumed that the forefathers of Boston had built the first prison-house somewhere in the vicinity of Cornhill, almost as seasonably as they marked out the first burial-ground, on Isaac Johnson's lot, and round about his grave, which subsequently became the nucleus of all the congregated sepulchres in the old churchyard of King's Chapel. Certain it is, that, some fifteen or twenty years after the settlement of the town, the wooden jail was already marked with weather-stains and other indications of age, which gave a yet darker aspect to its beetle-browed and gloomy front. The rust on the ponderous iron-work of its oaken door looked more antique than anything else in the New World. Like all that pertains to crime, it seemed never to have known a youthful era. Before this ugly edifice, and between it and the wheel-track of the street, was a grass-plot, much overgrown with burdock, pigweed, apple-peru, and such unsightly vegetation, which evidently found something congenial in the soil that had so early borne the black flower of civilized society, a prison. But, on one side of the portal, and rooted almost at the threshold, was a wild rose-bush, covered, in this month of June, with its delicate gems, which might be imagined to offer their fragrance and fragile beauty to the prisoner as he went in, and to the condemned criminal as he came forth to his doom, in token that the deep heart of Nature could pity and be kind to him.
Annoying? Really? Man, I think this is some beautiful prose - have you tried reading it out loud to yourself?
> Certain it is, that, some fifteen or twenty years after the settlement of the town, the wooden jail was already marked with weather-stains and other indications of age, which gave a yet darker aspect to its beetle-browed and gloomy front. The rust on the ponderous iron-work of its oaken door looked more antique than anything else in the New World. Like all that pertains to crime, it seemed never to have known a youthful era.
Like tell me that doesn’t paint a picture - in a fine narrative voice!
> Certain it is, that, some fifteen or twenty years after the settlement of the town, the wooden jail was already marked with weather-stains and other indications of age, which gave a yet darker aspect to its beetle-browed and gloomy front. The rust on the ponderous iron-work of its oaken door looked more antique than anything else in the New World. Like all that pertains to crime, it seemed never to have known a youthful era.
Like tell me that doesn’t paint a picture - in a fine narrative voice!
I loved it too.
Then again, I read a lot. I imagine this kind of thing is like exercise. This morning I followed along with a 20 minute "beginner yoga" video, and hated it because it felt painful and incomprehensible to my stiff, aging body.
Then again, I read a lot. I imagine this kind of thing is like exercise. This morning I followed along with a 20 minute "beginner yoga" video, and hated it because it felt painful and incomprehensible to my stiff, aging body.
My brain also shuts off after a few commas. This style just does not speak to me.
Well, sure, of course, if, you like, William, Shatner as, a, narrator,,,
It does, but periodic sentences can be hard to parse, because you've got to keep a lot of context in your head at once. I can't read French, but my English translations of Proust have single sentences which span a full page and more at times, and whilst I love Proust, I must certainly admit that those sentences require multiple readings to fully understand!
Reading it out loud does improve it, you're right
Definitely a pain if you're trying to teach it in a sentence-diagramming kind of way. That said, I kind of wonder why you'd be bothering to do that unless the kids are literally not able to understand what's being said and you need to work through it from first principles. (Which I guess is possible? That all reads as a bit of a ramble but perfectly understandable, particularly if you read it out loud.)
For my part, I've never once in my academic career had to explicitly identify sentence parts.
For my part, I've never once in my academic career had to explicitly identify sentence parts.
> Definitely a pain if you're trying to teach it in a sentence-diagramming kind of way.
I can definitely see the first sentence, alone, serving as an extra credit question on a high schooler's English test: Diagram this sentence!
But that's a high schooler from my era (first half of the 90s). Much less seems to be expected of today's high schoolers.
I can definitely see the first sentence, alone, serving as an extra credit question on a high schooler's English test: Diagram this sentence!
But that's a high schooler from my era (first half of the 90s). Much less seems to be expected of today's high schoolers.
[deleted]
The attention deficit in action. (Not to blame you personally, this is what the modern communication style does to us in its pervasiveness, and the delicious "long form" characteristic of the "olden times" is no longer easily digestible by anyone with the prolonged exposure to texting and such; even when it comes to email, people often have enough patience to only read the first sentence.)
Sorry can you explain that again a bit more briefly?
The 21st century in a nutshell: too long; didn't read.
Modern technology makes people's brains impatient.
I’m sorry I lost interest by word three.
take longer; don't relent
Care to elucidate?
To be fair, more readable 19 century texts definitely exists. Not every writer was writing in such convoluted way.
> Some years ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off—then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can. This is my substitute for pistol and ball. With a philosophical flourish Cato throws himself upon his sword; I quietly take to the ship. There is nothing surprising in this. If they but knew it, almost all men in their degree, some time or other, cherish very nearly the same feelings towards the ocean with me.
"Not every writer was writing in such convoluted way."
Sure there were. But unless they're Mark Twain or Ambrose Bierce, they're probably not much worth reading.
"Not every writer was writing in such convoluted way."
Sure there were. But unless they're Mark Twain or Ambrose Bierce, they're probably not much worth reading.
I find this passage to be far more readable than the Scarlet Letter one posted above. Sure, it's long, but it's developing the character.
Before screens, people must have gotten far more enjoyment from authors painting mental pictures in tiny detail.
We have HD video as an option now. A long description of a rose bush doesn't do it for me unless it's needed for the actual narrative.
Before screens, people must have gotten far more enjoyment from authors painting mental pictures in tiny detail.
We have HD video as an option now. A long description of a rose bush doesn't do it for me unless it's needed for the actual narrative.
What is different about literature is that things are being described through the viewpoints of particular people.
> But unless they're Mark Twain or Ambrose Bierce, they're probably not much worth reading.
I strongly disagree. Being convoluted does not make the text more worth reading. It makes it more fun for one kind of reader. That is about it.
Being well written and pleasant to read does not make the text, whether fiction or real like account less worthy.
I strongly disagree. Being convoluted does not make the text more worth reading. It makes it more fun for one kind of reader. That is about it.
Being well written and pleasant to read does not make the text, whether fiction or real like account less worthy.
Right, but much great writing from that era was convoluted, like the work of Herman Melville.
Are you kidding me? The greatest American novel of all time? Not worth reading?
I was dismissing the previous post that claimed that "more readable" - less "convoluted" - 19th century texts existed by saying such texts are probably not worth reading, as the much more complex works are heralded as classics of English literature.
Oh. That's funny I find this kind of beautiful. I think the contrast between the man made structures and the wild roses is poetic and highlights the cruelty of capital punishment.
EDIT: I wonder if maybe the long florid sentences are the entertainment of that time, kind of like how folks 100% video games today, spending a lot more time than necessary for fun. Definitely it is... Verbose though.
EDIT: I wonder if maybe the long florid sentences are the entertainment of that time, kind of like how folks 100% video games today, spending a lot more time than necessary for fun. Definitely it is... Verbose though.
There is some lovely stuff in there but the way the commas are used keeps tripping up my head. I suppose I would adjust to it after a few pages.
You need to literally slow down. I genuinely think it is far harder to find inspiration in sound-bites, and that is what we are increasingly used to.
What you have quoted, incidentally, is complex because it combines a lot of ideas that follow on from one another. The second paragraph, in particular, starts with the forefathers of Boston allocating land for a prison and ends with disappointment and sadness that prisoners are not even afforded the beauty of nature.
In between it observes that the prisons decays rapidly and is a “gloomy” place with poorly maintained grounds, and observes the general air of hopelessness of the prison.
It’s kind of beautiful, really. It gives a lot of context.
Edit: FWIW, I have ADHD. This wasn’t an easy read, but it was worth it.
What you have quoted, incidentally, is complex because it combines a lot of ideas that follow on from one another. The second paragraph, in particular, starts with the forefathers of Boston allocating land for a prison and ends with disappointment and sadness that prisoners are not even afforded the beauty of nature.
In between it observes that the prisons decays rapidly and is a “gloomy” place with poorly maintained grounds, and observes the general air of hopelessness of the prison.
It’s kind of beautiful, really. It gives a lot of context.
Edit: FWIW, I have ADHD. This wasn’t an easy read, but it was worth it.
I actually had a _lot_ more trouble with the first sentence oddly enough; the proliferation of commas where (in modern syntax at least) there should be no commas kept placing unnecessary and unwanted breaks in the language flow.
It's entirely possible that by the time I was into the second paragraph that I had simply adjusted to the writing style and was able to proceed without any issue; I haven't the time to properly compare the two.
It's entirely possible that by the time I was into the second paragraph that I had simply adjusted to the writing style and was able to proceed without any issue; I haven't the time to properly compare the two.
To be fair, that kind of verbosity is an obvious belt onion: it was the style at the time.
That said, after struggling through it a couple of times, taking time to reread portions, it really painted a vivid picture, casting a Gothic pall over the scene in ways a more to-the-point passage might not.
That said, after struggling through it a couple of times, taking time to reread portions, it really painted a vivid picture, casting a Gothic pall over the scene in ways a more to-the-point passage might not.
> Like all that pertains to crime, it seemed never to have known a youthful era.
Poignant. Thanks for sharing.
Poignant. Thanks for sharing.
That's beautiful. It makes me want to re-read the Scarlet Letter.
When I graduated university, it was very clear to me that my peers couldn't communicate adequately at that time. A lot of essays are effectively cheated on and the students are taught mostly to pad as opposed to have serious consideration and thought on the literature. None of this contributes to mastering structure or craft in any way. There's a lot of pressure to graduate students by parents/the board/local government, especially in highschool, especially when English is continually marginalized as a field of study. Where do you, an English teacher at highschool, get off failing a rising star athlete, young mathematician, engineering passionate, or any number of categories that is "worth more" than the capacity to read and write intelligently?
My father taught at a local state university, nowhere near state flagship level but still a "university" in name, and he occasionally had kids in class who were close to functionally illiterate. His reading for the semester was very light (something you would get through in a competitive university in a week) but from helping kids who came to his office he could tell it would have been a hundred hours of reading for some of them, even if they skipped all the words they didn't know.
I think I approve of letting every kid take a crack at college. If they graduate high school, there should be a school somewhere that gives them a chance. The problem is that if they aren't ready, there's no place they can go. They can't go back to their old high school and demand to be taught what the teachers pretended to teach them. The best they can do is take remedial reading classes at the university, borrowing money to learn what their local schools were supposed to teach them for free.
Most (maybe all?) of the kids like this that my dad encountered came from rural schools where you have a similar range of preparedness and home situations that you see in an urban setting, but you only have enough kids the same age to fill one or two classrooms. A teacher can't personalize the curriculum for every single student, so a kid who falls significantly behind will, after a certain point, no longer receive a meaningful amount of instruction, because the curriculum that's appropriate for the bulk of the class is beyond what they can engage with. Schools that recognize the unfairness of failing a kid that they're not even teaching tend to pass these kids along from grade to grade and then graduate them, and it's hard to fault them for it. If you think of instructional level as a spectrum from remedial to advanced, rural schools only have the resources to cover the middle part of that spectrum where 90-95% of their students are. All they can do for the rest is give them an apology and a diploma.
I think I approve of letting every kid take a crack at college. If they graduate high school, there should be a school somewhere that gives them a chance. The problem is that if they aren't ready, there's no place they can go. They can't go back to their old high school and demand to be taught what the teachers pretended to teach them. The best they can do is take remedial reading classes at the university, borrowing money to learn what their local schools were supposed to teach them for free.
Most (maybe all?) of the kids like this that my dad encountered came from rural schools where you have a similar range of preparedness and home situations that you see in an urban setting, but you only have enough kids the same age to fill one or two classrooms. A teacher can't personalize the curriculum for every single student, so a kid who falls significantly behind will, after a certain point, no longer receive a meaningful amount of instruction, because the curriculum that's appropriate for the bulk of the class is beyond what they can engage with. Schools that recognize the unfairness of failing a kid that they're not even teaching tend to pass these kids along from grade to grade and then graduate them, and it's hard to fault them for it. If you think of instructional level as a spectrum from remedial to advanced, rural schools only have the resources to cover the middle part of that spectrum where 90-95% of their students are. All they can do for the rest is give them an apology and a diploma.
A lot of colleges now have what amount to transition classes for high school kids who can't hack it in college. The upside of these is that they seem to actually help students who went to shitty high schools or who needed a change of environment. The downside is that typically they don't count for credit but they still cost money.
Community colleges also deliver this kind of education, and can be quite affordable. Chris Rock may have made fun of community colleges, but they fill a glaring need in society that can be difficult for us smart, well-to-do people who went to good schools to understand.
That's great and all, but how did those kids get into real colleges, then?
That's a seat that could have gone to someone else.
Community college is a different story, but those are open for the greater public for the most part.
That's a seat that could have gone to someone else.
Community college is a different story, but those are open for the greater public for the most part.
Yes. I'm guessing it's because nearly every American needs to go to college nowadays (sure, there are other options, but college is the most practical) and as a result they had to lower standards. I mean, I've heard that some universities don't even require SAT/ACT scores anymore. That doesn't mean that "prestigious" universities don't exist, but generally speaking they've really dumbed-down things a lot.
Even 20 years ago, I had a class that was struggling to get through the introduction of a book. We spent a few weeks on it. I became frustrated and just checked the book out of the library and read it entirely one afternoon.
It took me awhile to realize that what most of the class were struggling with was not a grasp of the English language per-se, but the overwhelmingly majority of people in the class were dyslexic. And because of that, they were in an art and design college.
It took me awhile to realize that what most of the class were struggling with was not a grasp of the English language per-se, but the overwhelmingly majority of people in the class were dyslexic. And because of that, they were in an art and design college.
…if they had dyscalculia, they'd be studying elementary ed.
42.1% of American 18- to 24-year-olds are enrolled in college or graduate school
https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics
https://educationdata.org/college-enrollment-statistics
It's really that low? Ah, my bad. That's surprising to me.
And 41% is just enrollment -- many will never finish.
Maybe 30% of the US actually holds any sort of degree.
Maybe 30% of the US actually holds any sort of degree.
The college diploma is yet another victim of Goodhart's law.
A lot of pre-20th century writing is absolutely awful. Long, pretentious, rambling run-on sentences and authors seemingly in love with the sound of their own voice.
My biggest complaint with old books is I want them to STFU and get to the point!
My biggest complaint with old books is I want them to STFU and get to the point!
I think the literati of any age are a major source of bad writing, or at least, fluff. Many authors dedicate their efforts to writing stylishly, encumbering the reader to wade through excessive windy sentences and irrelevant minutia, or worse, obnoxious proselytizing. I have no love for any American writing before 1800, and little before 1900, especially the New England romanticists (e.g. Thoreau, Hawthorne, Melville, etc) or public men like America's Founding Fathers.
That said, the most brilliant writing I know came from the 1800s, especially the American Civil War: Abraham Lincoln, Sullivan Ballou, and popular novelists like Charles Dickens. Perhaps their extraordinary expressiveness arose because, for the first time in history, writing could be appreciated by many. Certainly authors of those times more often wrote from the heart, not just to entertain.
That said, the most brilliant writing I know came from the 1800s, especially the American Civil War: Abraham Lincoln, Sullivan Ballou, and popular novelists like Charles Dickens. Perhaps their extraordinary expressiveness arose because, for the first time in history, writing could be appreciated by many. Certainly authors of those times more often wrote from the heart, not just to entertain.
>authors seemingly in love with the sound of their own voice.
They should be. And if you’re not in love with the sound of the author’s voice too, you shouldn’t be reading their works.
Literature is a luxury. It’s not constrained by utilitarian purposes. Save the short and concise sentences for the newspapers. (Not to say that simple and clear sentences can’t ALSO be beautiful, of course; it’s just that that’s not the ONLY type of beauty to be found in literature.)
They should be. And if you’re not in love with the sound of the author’s voice too, you shouldn’t be reading their works.
Literature is a luxury. It’s not constrained by utilitarian purposes. Save the short and concise sentences for the newspapers. (Not to say that simple and clear sentences can’t ALSO be beautiful, of course; it’s just that that’s not the ONLY type of beauty to be found in literature.)
> They should be. And if you’re not in love with the sound of the author’s voice too, you shouldn’t be reading their works.
Please, tell that to my high-school English literature program directors
Please, tell that to my high-school English literature program directors
I agree. Scarlet Letter is an example on how not to write. It is steam of consciousness without a modicum of merit. I don't think I learned anything from it. I read half of the book and was completely lost on what the author was trying to say. Maybe that was the author's point. But the writing is god awful. Below is a passage where the dude who got Hester pregnant confessed? Or is it her husband who felt cheated? Uggh. Who cares.
“Hester,” said he, “I ask not wherefore, nor how, thou hast fallen into the pit, or say rather, thou hast ascended to the pedestal of infamy, on which I found thee. The reason is not far to seek. It was my folly, and thy weakness. I,—a man of thought,—the book-worm of great libraries,—a man already in decay, having given my best years to feed the hungry dream of knowledge,— what had I to do with youth and beauty like thine own! Misshapen from my birth-hour, how could I delude myself with the idea that intellectual gifts might veil physical deformity in a young girl’s fantasy! Men call me wise. If sages were ever wise in their own behoof, I might have foreseen all this. I might have known that, as I came out of the vast and dismal forest, and entered this settlement of Christian men, the very first object to meet my eyes would be thyself, Hester Prynne, standing up, a statue of ignominy, before the people. Nay, from the moment when we came down the old church-steps together, a married pair, I might have beheld the bale-fire of that scarlet letter blazing at the end of our path!”
“Hester,” said he, “I ask not wherefore, nor how, thou hast fallen into the pit, or say rather, thou hast ascended to the pedestal of infamy, on which I found thee. The reason is not far to seek. It was my folly, and thy weakness. I,—a man of thought,—the book-worm of great libraries,—a man already in decay, having given my best years to feed the hungry dream of knowledge,— what had I to do with youth and beauty like thine own! Misshapen from my birth-hour, how could I delude myself with the idea that intellectual gifts might veil physical deformity in a young girl’s fantasy! Men call me wise. If sages were ever wise in their own behoof, I might have foreseen all this. I might have known that, as I came out of the vast and dismal forest, and entered this settlement of Christian men, the very first object to meet my eyes would be thyself, Hester Prynne, standing up, a statue of ignominy, before the people. Nay, from the moment when we came down the old church-steps together, a married pair, I might have beheld the bale-fire of that scarlet letter blazing at the end of our path!”
I mean this is a monologue though, and it’s specifically self indulgent self deprecating content, this poor guy is whining about how he’s so smart and so old and ugly and how could he have ever thought that someone as young and got as Hester would be satisfied with him. It’s character voice, and it’s illustrative - “without a modicum of merit?” Really? This passage tells a whole story in itself, and it’s a familiar, human story, that bitter men have always told and will always tell anyone with will listen. “I wasn’t good enough.”
My point is that Scarlet Letter is taught to students. Usually it is taught as an example of good writing. I would argue it is an example of what not to do. If you want to convince people. If you want to get your point across. It is absolutely the wrong thing to do. The reader is drowning is on the author's verbosity.
If it is an example of poetic literature. Ok sure.
If it is an example of poetic literature. Ok sure.
> steam of consciousness
I've got bad news about the 20th century- James Joyce, William Faulkner, Virginia Woolf, Jack Kerouac, the hits don't stop coming
I've got bad news about the 20th century- James Joyce, William Faulkner, Virginia Woolf, Jack Kerouac, the hits don't stop coming
I don't know if I can say it has no merit, but I also find this type of writing annoying.
You can be verbose and interesting without so much padding and flowery speech. When you have this much to say about something, you have this much to say about everything, and I don't care to read long-winded analogies that the writer thinks are cute or wait for them to paint the picture in much more words than necessary.
Maybe people who enjoy this get some sort of energy thinking about well-developed, stylish prose, and it's easy for them to see the scene or this character's anguish but for me it's distracting and takes me out of the moment to focus on the writers "poetry".
You can be verbose and interesting without so much padding and flowery speech. When you have this much to say about something, you have this much to say about everything, and I don't care to read long-winded analogies that the writer thinks are cute or wait for them to paint the picture in much more words than necessary.
Maybe people who enjoy this get some sort of energy thinking about well-developed, stylish prose, and it's easy for them to see the scene or this character's anguish but for me it's distracting and takes me out of the moment to focus on the writers "poetry".
Agreed. If I was the editor, I would have hacked this pompous paragraph into a concise form; the author would have hated it but I would tell him I was saving the reader from his PTSD inducing writing.
e.g., “Hester,” said he, “I ask not wherefore, nor how, thou hast fallen into the pit. It was my folly. Your youth and beauty! Misshapen from birth, how could I delude myself with the idea that my intellectual gifts might veil my physical deformity! Men call me wise. If sages were ever wise, I might have foreseen all this. I might have known that, the very first object to meet my eyes would be thyself, Hester Prynne, standing up, a statue of ignominy, before the people in this land. Nay, from the moment when we came down the old church-steps together, a married pair, I might have beheld that scarlet letter blazing at the end of our story!”
e.g., “Hester,” said he, “I ask not wherefore, nor how, thou hast fallen into the pit. It was my folly. Your youth and beauty! Misshapen from birth, how could I delude myself with the idea that my intellectual gifts might veil my physical deformity! Men call me wise. If sages were ever wise, I might have foreseen all this. I might have known that, the very first object to meet my eyes would be thyself, Hester Prynne, standing up, a statue of ignominy, before the people in this land. Nay, from the moment when we came down the old church-steps together, a married pair, I might have beheld that scarlet letter blazing at the end of our story!”
This is MUCH better!
Eh, I'm enjoying the excerpts in this thread. It would be annoying in a newspaper, but the imagery and metaphors are beautiful. If there ever's a place for poetic prose, surely it's in a novel.
I know, I'm enjoying the excerpts too. This whole thread seems to be split between readers of literature, and those who want to most-fully embody Sam Bankman-Fried's philosophy that every book ought to have been a "6 paragraph blog post."
"What's the one-liner on The Scarlet Letter? It's 'adultery is bad,' right? I'll just assume it is and stick it in my Second Brain on Notion, and it'll be like I've read it."
"What's the one-liner on The Scarlet Letter? It's 'adultery is bad,' right? I'll just assume it is and stick it in my Second Brain on Notion, and it'll be like I've read it."
The husband is complaining that he should have foreseen that adultery was the logical outcome of marrying someone who is much more physically attractive than him.
Funnily enough, it kind of applies to this article too.
Based on my son's freshman year at a big university, all the 101 and 102 classes assume no prior knowledge, of almost anything. Grammar, the desktop/filesystem metaphor (which, I'm told, a whole lot of students still didn't understand even after spend a couple of classes on these basics), what a cell is, and in physics classes... what a proton is. Just to name a few examples.
We can thank iOS and Android for the death of desktop/filesystem knowledge for people at large. Universities will need to start requiring a General Computing course to close that gap, if they aren't already.
And that's at Harvard! Wow.
"The Scarlet Latter" was an 11th grade book for me. I remember it being a typical difficulty level as other pre-20th century literature - reading and understanding it was work, but not unusually so.
"The Scarlet Latter" was an 11th grade book for me. I remember it being a typical difficulty level as other pre-20th century literature - reading and understanding it was work, but not unusually so.
Important context - that quote is attributed thus: "Amanda Claybaugh, Harvard’s dean of undergraduate education and an English professor".
Harvard's admission standards are seldom criticized for being too low. Though one might ask whether the struggling students were ones admitted on the basis of academic merit, vs. family connections...
Harvard's admission standards are seldom criticized for being too low. Though one might ask whether the struggling students were ones admitted on the basis of academic merit, vs. family connections...
Not to mention __________ ______.
Student athletes?
Affirmative action.
Admitting that it's been [cough] decades since I was anywhere near an English Lit. course...even back then, the workloads (hours/week of required reading) were notorious. Similar for the lackluster job market for English Lit. majors. That does not sound like a combination to attract many marginally-qualified students, regardless of affirmative action.
Major donors?
My extensive hangman experience leads me to believe that's not what the commenter is suggesting.
Legacy admissions?
Rorschach tests?
>Are the standards to get into university that low?
Universities aren't what they used to be.
In the modern world everyone has access to college, no one is denied, and it has become a necessity to get a degree. Something as simple as running a daycare requires several degrees or credentials in order to be competitive. [1]
In short, today you must pay an exorbitant sum of time and money for credentials simply to have access to the labor market. [2]
[1] https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/certifica...
[2] https://www.thoughtco.com/indulgences-their-role-in-the-refo...
Universities aren't what they used to be.
In the modern world everyone has access to college, no one is denied, and it has become a necessity to get a degree. Something as simple as running a daycare requires several degrees or credentials in order to be competitive. [1]
In short, today you must pay an exorbitant sum of time and money for credentials simply to have access to the labor market. [2]
[1] https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/finding-a-job/certifica...
[2] https://www.thoughtco.com/indulgences-their-role-in-the-refo...
Yes they are. Kids in lower schools are generally not taught how to read or write well at all. When they do read books, the books are either distilled into key ideas in class (so you don't really have to read them aside from the occasional quiz) or very easy reading material. When they write, it's usually a "5-paragraph" essay that is more about regurgitating the distilled points than any form of original thought. That is, if they don't cheat on the essay.
I recently did an MBA program (yes, pile on the hate) where the average student I worked with had a very hard time reading complex documents or stringing together sentences to form a coherent argument. They even struggled to read reports from consulting companies, which are full of pictures and written in very plain grammar, so I doubt most could tackle "Ulysses," "The Wasteland," or "The Scarlet Letter."
By the way, I think this is why the PG writing style is popular - it's very easy to understand the words and sentences, so you can convey an idea to a lot of people, albeit in a not-very-nuanced way. It also makes it fairly easy to write an argument - there is no flowery language around to distract you from the fact that you are saying nothing.
A lot of people attribute this to the fact that there are a lot of people who have English as a second language or speak a different dialect of English (Indian English is very common), but I'm not so sure. I have often found that many non-native speakers actually have larger vocabularies and a better understanding of grammar than typical native speakers.
I recently did an MBA program (yes, pile on the hate) where the average student I worked with had a very hard time reading complex documents or stringing together sentences to form a coherent argument. They even struggled to read reports from consulting companies, which are full of pictures and written in very plain grammar, so I doubt most could tackle "Ulysses," "The Wasteland," or "The Scarlet Letter."
By the way, I think this is why the PG writing style is popular - it's very easy to understand the words and sentences, so you can convey an idea to a lot of people, albeit in a not-very-nuanced way. It also makes it fairly easy to write an argument - there is no flowery language around to distract you from the fact that you are saying nothing.
A lot of people attribute this to the fact that there are a lot of people who have English as a second language or speak a different dialect of English (Indian English is very common), but I'm not so sure. I have often found that many non-native speakers actually have larger vocabularies and a better understanding of grammar than typical native speakers.
My Philosphy 101 was me having a conversation with the grad student lecturer over Plato's dialogues. After class one day, this STEM student, likely taking the course for the easy credit as I don't believe anyone failed the course, asked me "How do you read this stuff?" in what I interpreted as a mixed tone of condescension ("why would you read this stuff") and surprise ("how do you read this stuff").
Luckily for me I competed in high school policy debate where I learned (the hard way, by losing a lot) how to assess text within the framework of constraints it implies, as well as how to challenge those specific constraints.
Lotta people can't do that and end either up being that person in a philosophy course going on a long, idiosyncratic rant that's based on word associations they're making, or just remain silent and merely endure the course for the credit.
Luckily for me I competed in high school policy debate where I learned (the hard way, by losing a lot) how to assess text within the framework of constraints it implies, as well as how to challenge those specific constraints.
Lotta people can't do that and end either up being that person in a philosophy course going on a long, idiosyncratic rant that's based on word associations they're making, or just remain silent and merely endure the course for the credit.
>"having trouble identifying the subject and the verb"
In my experience English class was primarily about reading literature with the goal of teaching morals and values. There was very little information about the structure of the English language. I actually learned far more about grammar, syntax, articles, etc. through learning Spanish.
In my experience English class was primarily about reading literature with the goal of teaching morals and values. There was very little information about the structure of the English language. I actually learned far more about grammar, syntax, articles, etc. through learning Spanish.
The impression that I get from my brother, who teaches as an adjunct at a couple of state schools in the Midwest, is that yes the standards are that low.
[deleted]
To be fair, I found that an extremely tedious book, probably my least favorite required high school reading.
If standards are this low we need English requirements in university more than ever.
Standards can also act as a gatekeeper, discriminating against the underprivileged. So i'm glad that everyone gets the same chance, if rich or poor.
> So i'm glad that everyone gets the same chance, if rich or poor.
They don't, though?
> The median family income of a student from Harvard is $168,800, and 67% come from the top 20 percent. About 1.8% of students at Harvard came from a poor family but became a rich adult.
From a NYTimes analysis [1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...
They don't, though?
> The median family income of a student from Harvard is $168,800, and 67% come from the top 20 percent. About 1.8% of students at Harvard came from a poor family but became a rich adult.
From a NYTimes analysis [1].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit...
I suppose this is trolling, but if it's not everybody doesn't really "get a change", you are just turning an english major into a different thing while keeping the name and trying to keep the prestige, though that won't last for long.
English majors (and other liberal arts majors) do not build "critical thinking" any better than science majors. That skillset comes down to your natural intelligence and curiosity.
But you do spend a half decade practicing writing convincing essays regarding said thinking and that too has value. There's no use being able to say something is wrong if you can't get others to agree.
It's funny because at least where I live, critical thinking is (rightly) associated with STEM. STEM is also harder for affluent people to get in without putting in work.
I think you're expressing an unhealthy resentment here. I work as a SWE and I appreciate the critical thinking involved in the types of problems I get to solve. I'm also in graduate school for something that often borders on humanities and I am amazed at the complexity of thought that goes into the field due to how limitless the scope is and the way in which the humanity of the field allows anybody to participate. The STEM students I teach often struggle with exactly that, as well as with having well-developed communication skills. Turns out that choosing either STEM or humanities and forsaking the other leaves students deficient.
> I think you're expressing an unhealthy resentment here.
Just an observation. In a developing country anyone with better academic performance is compelled to pursue fields that pay well. So that statistically skews the other fields to people of lower academic performance up to high school. Academic performance correlates to cognitive abilities.
STEM grads I see around me have no problem with communication or anything a humanities degree claims to "teach". I think it all boils down to people and their cognitive abilities.
Second factor is subjectiveness of humanities fields; in STEM fields there are often objective measurements. It's much easier to bullshit your way to and through a non-STEM degree, especially when you have money and background.
Edit: I have heard "humanities" as solution to engineers not writing proper docs or bug reports. That is missing the real reason, which is pretty boring. We don't have conceptual foundations of many things we use. Fresh grads even more so, due to abysmal education system.
Just an observation. In a developing country anyone with better academic performance is compelled to pursue fields that pay well. So that statistically skews the other fields to people of lower academic performance up to high school. Academic performance correlates to cognitive abilities.
STEM grads I see around me have no problem with communication or anything a humanities degree claims to "teach". I think it all boils down to people and their cognitive abilities.
Second factor is subjectiveness of humanities fields; in STEM fields there are often objective measurements. It's much easier to bullshit your way to and through a non-STEM degree, especially when you have money and background.
Edit: I have heard "humanities" as solution to engineers not writing proper docs or bug reports. That is missing the real reason, which is pretty boring. We don't have conceptual foundations of many things we use. Fresh grads even more so, due to abysmal education system.
You can't bullshit your way through a math test.
Probably not, but definitely more than the most popular major: Business.
I know my wife majored in English in the 90’s, when she graduated the job prospects were very weak. She got a job in book publishing that was barely above minimum wage.
She hated it so much that she went back to school to become a physical therapist, and she had been happily doing that for decades.
So it begs the question - can you live on an English degree, and be happy in the real world?
She hated it so much that she went back to school to become a physical therapist, and she had been happily doing that for decades.
So it begs the question - can you live on an English degree, and be happy in the real world?
A lot of popular youtube content creators have english or literature degrees actually. It's almost like being really good at writing for a given audience, and being able to write stuff that will be interpreted as genuine and good is a useful tool that we really should be using more.
Any technical degree that doesn't include some sort of technical writing class is deficient IMO, and degree programs that get closer to needing to work with other people more than math should have stronger writing classes as well. So many adult americans can't read at a highschool level. It's an essential skill, and has been since society first developed written language.
Any technical degree that doesn't include some sort of technical writing class is deficient IMO, and degree programs that get closer to needing to work with other people more than math should have stronger writing classes as well. So many adult americans can't read at a highschool level. It's an essential skill, and has been since society first developed written language.
The problem is those are pyramid fields. In OPs example almost anyone with a physiotherapy degree is doing well economically; probably not wealthy unless they open their own chain of clinics but that's going into business major territory not physio anyway.
Pyramid fields are those like pro football quarterback or famous youtube personality where a handful of people with world wide famous names make 99.9% of the income in that field, and almost everyone else working in the pyramid is at minimum wage or volunteer income status.
As a concrete example of a pyramid field, the 1900th best football player in the USA is a wealthy NFL pro ball player, but the 2000th best football player in the USA is probably selling used cars right now, maybe coaching, maybe unemployed. On the other hand essentially 100% of physio degree holders are doing physio and not getting rich but not getting poor. I'm sure the number of men willing to play pro football somewhat exceeds 2000... there's over 73000 NCAA college football players right now so I would guess that the "20K or so" who graduate this year would all love to get pro ball salaries, but the entire pyramid is less than 2K total, so even if 10% of pro players retire each year that would be 100 applicants for every paid position, everyone else can become a barista.
Pyramid fields are those like pro football quarterback or famous youtube personality where a handful of people with world wide famous names make 99.9% of the income in that field, and almost everyone else working in the pyramid is at minimum wage or volunteer income status.
As a concrete example of a pyramid field, the 1900th best football player in the USA is a wealthy NFL pro ball player, but the 2000th best football player in the USA is probably selling used cars right now, maybe coaching, maybe unemployed. On the other hand essentially 100% of physio degree holders are doing physio and not getting rich but not getting poor. I'm sure the number of men willing to play pro football somewhat exceeds 2000... there's over 73000 NCAA college football players right now so I would guess that the "20K or so" who graduate this year would all love to get pro ball salaries, but the entire pyramid is less than 2K total, so even if 10% of pro players retire each year that would be 100 applicants for every paid position, everyone else can become a barista.
My mother and my sisters all have degrees in English. My mother had a good career as a high school English teacher and one of my sisters is doing the same. My other sister works as an editor for an educational publishing company.
Outside of education, there is a need for clear and well structured communication across every field. Copy writing/editing for marketing and sales campaigns, internal and external corporate communications, technical writing. These are all areas I've worked on with English majors.
I once spoke with a law professor who said that English majors often make the best lawyers. Their undergrad experience prepared them for the volume of reading, analysis and writing that is required to successfully complete a law degree.
Outside of education, there is a need for clear and well structured communication across every field. Copy writing/editing for marketing and sales campaigns, internal and external corporate communications, technical writing. These are all areas I've worked on with English majors.
I once spoke with a law professor who said that English majors often make the best lawyers. Their undergrad experience prepared them for the volume of reading, analysis and writing that is required to successfully complete a law degree.
"So it begs the question - can you live on an English degree, and be happy in the real world?"
Yes, publishing and communications professions can be perfect for English majors.
But how many jobs vs how many applicants is the problem.
Yes, publishing and communications professions can be perfect for English majors.
But how many jobs vs how many applicants is the problem.
This is more or less what I was getting at. They’re some very nice jobs at the Editor level, but damn few of them. Many people seem to have to settle for peripheral jobs (my wife was in the physical book manufacturing and shipping end) that pays about as well as Burger King.
My college roommate was an English major. Now he is a professor of English at a university and is quite happy with it.
Of course the joke always was that he was majoring in English to teach future majors in English.
Of course the joke always was that he was majoring in English to teach future majors in English.
That's the dirty secret of the whole education-leading-to-PhD system -- it's only real and useful purpose is to create more educators.
Whether happy or not, an English major would know that it "raises the question" not "begs the question."
"Begs the question" is an idiomatic phrase in English that works in that context.
Languages change, especially idioms. The objection here doesn't even make any sense, since begging the question is grammatically and logically reasonable. I accept "I could care less" with some disdain, but at least there there's a reason to oppose the change.
It does make sense. "Begging the question" is a term of art from philosophy meaning to assume the thing you set out to prove--e.g. God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible must be right because it is the literal word of God.
This shift towards using the phrase to mean "raise the question" makes it harder for a writer to tag a claim as being guilty of that particular logical fallacy.
But your first point is right: language changes, and we have to accept new usages, even bad ones.
This shift towards using the phrase to mean "raise the question" makes it harder for a writer to tag a claim as being guilty of that particular logical fallacy.
But your first point is right: language changes, and we have to accept new usages, even bad ones.
> This shift towards using the phrase to mean "raise the question" makes it harder for a writer to tag a claim as being guilty of that particular logical fallacy.
No, it doesn't; the petitio principii fallacy sense is inherently intransitive in structure (with no direct object), the “raises the question” sense is necessarily transitive (has a direct object, specifically, the question raised). They are unambiguous (and the intransitive sense cam be rationalized as a special case of the transitibe sense where the unstated object is the justification for the original claim, which is convenient since otherwise that sense is completely opaque in terms of any relation between the constituent words in current English and the meaning of the phrase.)
No, it doesn't; the petitio principii fallacy sense is inherently intransitive in structure (with no direct object), the “raises the question” sense is necessarily transitive (has a direct object, specifically, the question raised). They are unambiguous (and the intransitive sense cam be rationalized as a special case of the transitibe sense where the unstated object is the justification for the original claim, which is convenient since otherwise that sense is completely opaque in terms of any relation between the constituent words in current English and the meaning of the phrase.)
So put more simply, what you're saying is that the reader can tell by the context. When the writer says "this begs the question", if that phrase is followed by an actual question, the reader knows the writer is using it in the newer sense. If it isn't, the reader knows the writer meant it in the older, logical fallacy sense. I understand that. My claim that it makes it harder still stands. The reader must use context to determine meaning when he didn't have to before.
I don't think pendantry is a required course anymore.
Sorry, absolutely not intending to call you in particular out. I know that correct usage, grammar, and spelling are lost causes on the Internet, but it's always more amusing when the root topics of the article are things like humanities and English majors.
For all intensive purposes, "begs the question" is acceptable these days.
"Queue" the language prescriptivists! We need to be "weary" of these folks. They are just trying to "flout" their English knowledge. Don't let them "effect" you. Personally, I'm "bemused" of all this. This "could of" been a good thread, too.
There are two questions here really:
Can you thrive in a job that requires an English degree (Writing, teaching English, publishing or the like)? Yes, but struggle is likely.
Can you, with (just a tiny bit of) creativity, find a job where the skills trained by an English degree (reading critically and writing effectively and effortlessly) are valuable? Absolutely. PR, marketing, law and many parts of the management world would suit anyone with those skills.
The engineering and science world has made everyone think that the only jobs for a degree have to closely match the degree from a subject perspective; they've forgotten that the goal of a liberal arts education is to train generalists with a set of skills that can be applied to a wide range of tasks.
Can you thrive in a job that requires an English degree (Writing, teaching English, publishing or the like)? Yes, but struggle is likely.
Can you, with (just a tiny bit of) creativity, find a job where the skills trained by an English degree (reading critically and writing effectively and effortlessly) are valuable? Absolutely. PR, marketing, law and many parts of the management world would suit anyone with those skills.
The engineering and science world has made everyone think that the only jobs for a degree have to closely match the degree from a subject perspective; they've forgotten that the goal of a liberal arts education is to train generalists with a set of skills that can be applied to a wide range of tasks.
It depends on the individual; your college degree gets you your first job after college. After that, it's experience and relationships/contacts.
I know of English and Liberal Arts majors that are doing very well in tech fields doing work other than development: program management, developer relations, customer success, sales, marketing. Some in development too, just not as many.
The difference with those folks is that all of them kept a broad understanding of where they wanted their career to go, and allowed themselves to take on broader responsibilities and deeper challenges as time went on.
I know of English and Liberal Arts majors that are doing very well in tech fields doing work other than development: program management, developer relations, customer success, sales, marketing. Some in development too, just not as many.
The difference with those folks is that all of them kept a broad understanding of where they wanted their career to go, and allowed themselves to take on broader responsibilities and deeper challenges as time went on.
> So it begs the question - can you live on an English degree, and be happy in the real world?
I have two friends who did English at university. One (who started doing Geography and switched after a year) is an editor of a major (niche) national magazine. The other is a senior journalist at a national broadcaster.
How much their English degree is needed for those jobs is rather meaningless really, I suspect their tenures on the university newspaper (former) and radio station (latter) were more relevant, but they are happy.
I don't think you get an English degree with the idea that you'll use it to go into a particular career, but then degrees shouldn't be like that anyway in most subjects.
I have two friends who did English at university. One (who started doing Geography and switched after a year) is an editor of a major (niche) national magazine. The other is a senior journalist at a national broadcaster.
How much their English degree is needed for those jobs is rather meaningless really, I suspect their tenures on the university newspaper (former) and radio station (latter) were more relevant, but they are happy.
I don't think you get an English degree with the idea that you'll use it to go into a particular career, but then degrees shouldn't be like that anyway in most subjects.
"Women's studies lost eighty per cent."
I welcome this change. The less grievance studies majors there are, the better off society will be.
I welcome this change. The less grievance studies majors there are, the better off society will be.
Taking that particular topic aside, are there any other "grievance" studies majors that you can think of?
"poor science in categories of gender, feminist, race, sexuality, fat, queer, cultural studies and sociology"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
Poor "science" exists in any discipline. Look at these articles and tell me how many named studies are in gender studies, for instance. I don't really think you'll find bigger critics of the academy in other fields either. These disciplines also don't classify themselves as "sciences" either as you would have it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
>Poor "science" exists in any discipline.
No True Scotsman fallacy.
>Look at these articles and tell me how many named studies are in gender studies, for instance.
It has an entire "social science" section. Google "replication crisis gender studies" for articles covering this.
>I don't really think you'll find bigger critics of the academy in other fields either.
Anecdotal non sequitur.
>These disciplines also don't classify themselves as "sciences" either as you would have it.
I didn't classify them as science, I copied a quote from the linked Wikipedia page above. They're poorly attempting to hop on the social/political science bandwagon but there's a problem. Grievance studies are not science to begin with. They're not an academic discipline at all. It's an activist community masquerading as an academic discipline.
No True Scotsman fallacy.
>Look at these articles and tell me how many named studies are in gender studies, for instance.
It has an entire "social science" section. Google "replication crisis gender studies" for articles covering this.
>I don't really think you'll find bigger critics of the academy in other fields either.
Anecdotal non sequitur.
>These disciplines also don't classify themselves as "sciences" either as you would have it.
I didn't classify them as science, I copied a quote from the linked Wikipedia page above. They're poorly attempting to hop on the social/political science bandwagon but there's a problem. Grievance studies are not science to begin with. They're not an academic discipline at all. It's an activist community masquerading as an academic discipline.
You can throw out Reddit guy words all you want but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I didn't exclude any discipline I said it extends to all of them. That's not how "no true scotsman" works. I gave you sources to back that up. Also, gender studies is not really classified as a social science and I did Google "replication crisis gender studies" and didn't find much--I'm not sure how a replication crisis can extend to a largely theoretical discipline that doesn't really conduct classical scientific studies? You just said you don't classify the field as a science so clearly it wouldn't. I was supporting my first point which you seem to have misunderstood.
"Anectdotal non sequitur" no, I'm qualifying a larger trend I have observed. It's not a non-sequitur, it's based on the article you shared which covers a project that critiques academic structures like journals. You're the one who started this discussion about your own feelings towards the field--you just didn't qualify your comment as subjective, which it is.
"It's an activist community masquerading as an academic discipline."
If I were you I'd say strawman :-)
"Anectdotal non sequitur" no, I'm qualifying a larger trend I have observed. It's not a non-sequitur, it's based on the article you shared which covers a project that critiques academic structures like journals. You're the one who started this discussion about your own feelings towards the field--you just didn't qualify your comment as subjective, which it is.
"It's an activist community masquerading as an academic discipline."
If I were you I'd say strawman :-)
>You can throw out Reddit guy words all you want but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
But in this case you are wrong, and this isn't reddit.
>I didn't exclude any discipline I said it extends to all of them. That's not how "no true scotsman" works.
"A true discipline has poor science". This is a variation of No True Scotsman. QED.
>I gave you sources to back that up
You gave no sources that backed anything up. You came in with a huge non sequitur that doesn't even follow the original posts. The GP asked for what other fields are considered "grievance studies" and I copied and pasted a quote from the article that covers the inventors of the term: The trio referred to several academic fields—postcolonial theory, gender studies, queer theory, critical race theory, intersectional feminism, and fat studies—as "grievance studies" because, according to Pluckrose, such areas begin "from the assumption of a grievance" and then bend "the available theories to confirm it".
>Also, gender studies is not really classified as a social science
It's not a science at all, but it regularly falls in the sphere of social science as related/integrated.
> I did Google "replication crisis gender studies" and didn't find much--I'm not sure how a replication crisis can extend to a largely theoretical discipline that doesn't really conduct classical scientific studies?
You must be terrible at Google because apparently you didn't even come across the original article I posted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
"highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and eroding criteria in several academic fields. Taking place over 2017 and 2018, their project entailed submitting bogus papers to academic journals in cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine whether they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention."
>You just said you don't classify the field as a science so clearly it wouldn't.
A subject does not have to be classified as a "science" to have studies with replication issues. This being a prime example. You just proved my point. QED.
>I was supporting my first point which you seem to have misunderstood.
You haven't made any points, or you tried and failed.
>I'm qualifying a larger trend I have observed.
Anecdotal non sequitur as I stated. Nothing to do with the GP or my reply.
>You're the one who started this discussion about your own feelings towards the field--you just didn't qualify your comment as subjective, which it is.
I didn't start the discussion, the OP did. You're fractally wrong. And it's not my feelings, it's objective fact.
>If I were you I'd say strawman :-)
No you wouldn't because you're wrong, I'm not.
But in this case you are wrong, and this isn't reddit.
>I didn't exclude any discipline I said it extends to all of them. That's not how "no true scotsman" works.
"A true discipline has poor science". This is a variation of No True Scotsman. QED.
>I gave you sources to back that up
You gave no sources that backed anything up. You came in with a huge non sequitur that doesn't even follow the original posts. The GP asked for what other fields are considered "grievance studies" and I copied and pasted a quote from the article that covers the inventors of the term: The trio referred to several academic fields—postcolonial theory, gender studies, queer theory, critical race theory, intersectional feminism, and fat studies—as "grievance studies" because, according to Pluckrose, such areas begin "from the assumption of a grievance" and then bend "the available theories to confirm it".
>Also, gender studies is not really classified as a social science
It's not a science at all, but it regularly falls in the sphere of social science as related/integrated.
> I did Google "replication crisis gender studies" and didn't find much--I'm not sure how a replication crisis can extend to a largely theoretical discipline that doesn't really conduct classical scientific studies?
You must be terrible at Google because apparently you didn't even come across the original article I posted: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
"highlight what they saw as poor scholarship and eroding criteria in several academic fields. Taking place over 2017 and 2018, their project entailed submitting bogus papers to academic journals in cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine whether they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention."
>You just said you don't classify the field as a science so clearly it wouldn't.
A subject does not have to be classified as a "science" to have studies with replication issues. This being a prime example. You just proved my point. QED.
>I was supporting my first point which you seem to have misunderstood.
You haven't made any points, or you tried and failed.
>I'm qualifying a larger trend I have observed.
Anecdotal non sequitur as I stated. Nothing to do with the GP or my reply.
>You're the one who started this discussion about your own feelings towards the field--you just didn't qualify your comment as subjective, which it is.
I didn't start the discussion, the OP did. You're fractally wrong. And it's not my feelings, it's objective fact.
>If I were you I'd say strawman :-)
No you wouldn't because you're wrong, I'm not.
Thanks for this--it's like a performance art piece on what happens if you don't take any humanities classes. No notes!
>Thanks for this--it's like a performance art piece on what happens if you don't take any humanities classes.
You're hilariously correct: this is what happens when you use facts, logic, and reason. You don't have to take humanities courses to understand how shallow and steeped in wokeism they've become. Much like you don't need to taste dog shit on the street to identify that it is indeed dog shit. Nice self-own.
You're hilariously correct: this is what happens when you use facts, logic, and reason. You don't have to take humanities courses to understand how shallow and steeped in wokeism they've become. Much like you don't need to taste dog shit on the street to identify that it is indeed dog shit. Nice self-own.
Truly; there is only the experiences of one half of humanity worth studying.
Women's Studies isn't an academic discipline at all. It's an activist community masquerading as an academic discipline.
On the contrary, you should study the experiences and products of all of humanity and not just the ones that _appeal to you_ based on your own ideas and mindset.
When it comes to learning, never take the narrow view.
When it comes to learning, never take the narrow view.
> When it comes to learning, never take the narrow view.
Every PhD thesis would like to have a word with you.
Every PhD thesis would like to have a word with you.
I’m referring to education, not professional specialization. And yet, isn’t the latter’s deleterious effect on the former a clear symptom of the problem?
Is that how you'd describe every other major, studying males?
Actually, I think male bias is a problem in other academic fields. For example, we spent a long time thinking girls rarely have ADHD or Autism, and didn't even test drugs on women in case they might be pregnant. It's important to take a critical and objective look on why a women's studies would exist historically, in a setting where academics may not consider women worth studying.
[To be clear: I'm not saying that women's studies is some kind of objectively valid hard-proof field of study or whatever. I do think however it is true that historically women have been excluded in academic study populations, which might explain why there may have been a legitimate desire to have a field of study for that underserved population.]
[To be clear: I'm not saying that women's studies is some kind of objectively valid hard-proof field of study or whatever. I do think however it is true that historically women have been excluded in academic study populations, which might explain why there may have been a legitimate desire to have a field of study for that underserved population.]
> historically women have been excluded in academic study populations
That may have once been true, but it is no longer the case. Since the 90s, women have earned more post-graduate qualifications than men. Women have parity in obtaining medical doctorates. They dominate the medical and life sciences, the humanities, psychology and social sciences, human resources, education, veterinary medicine, and many other fields. Computer science and some other math and engineering disciplines are rare exceptions.
https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/interactive-data...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185160/number-of-masters...
https://www.zippia.com/biological-scientist-jobs/demographic...
https://www.vetxinternational.com/male-vs-female-veterinaria...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/240141/us-doctorate-reci...
That may have once been true, but it is no longer the case. Since the 90s, women have earned more post-graduate qualifications than men. Women have parity in obtaining medical doctorates. They dominate the medical and life sciences, the humanities, psychology and social sciences, human resources, education, veterinary medicine, and many other fields. Computer science and some other math and engineering disciplines are rare exceptions.
https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/workforce/interactive-data...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185160/number-of-masters...
https://www.zippia.com/biological-scientist-jobs/demographic...
https://www.vetxinternational.com/male-vs-female-veterinaria...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/240141/us-doctorate-reci...
I think you're misreading my point. You're arguing as if I'm saying that women's studies is still vital today because academia is still women-hostile. I'm arguing that women's studies may have at one point had a legitimate purpose, and outright dismissal and handwaving of their existence is un-intellectual. I'm therefore arguing for a more nuanced analysis of whether or not women's studies is still necessary, against the cynical dismissal in a forum whose membership is mostly men working in a field that's also mostly men.
Stands to reason. Most of the working population is borderline illiterate in English anyway, why would anyone want to major in it?
One thing some of the STEM-is-the-only-way-to-keep-the-wolves-from-the-door advocates might not realize is that generally at top schools humanities majors have to write a lot, which is good preparation for, well, anything that involves writing, ranging from writing for the hell of it to law and business consulting. Not a bad life if you can wrangle it.
One thing some of the STEM-is-the-only-way-to-keep-the-wolves-from-the-door advocates might not realize is that generally at top schools humanities majors have to write a lot, which is good preparation for, well, anything that involves writing, ranging from writing for the hell of it to law and business consulting. Not a bad life if you can wrangle it.
Considering the PR for most humanities majors being paraded around is that you can become a full time activist and work for a government institution or non profit it's no surprise as people in general are becoming increasingly annoyed with the non-stop pearl-clutching activist caricature being portrayed in all aspects of society, that people aren't lining up to make less money and be around people that the general populous abhors.
> It was late autumn, and the sunsets came in like flame on thin paper on the way to dusk.
This is the most annoying sentence I've ever read.
This is the most annoying sentence I've ever read.
It sounds like the journalist set out to be a novelist, but had to settle for something else.
I agree, it reads like an ill-fated attempt at parody.
I wouldn't blame STEM. English departments did this to themselves when they bought into post-structuralism and postmodernism and so on, and in so doing tacitly assented to the proposition that they themselves could have nothing valuable to teach, because there wasn't any concrete truth to be had. After that, English just became a centrifuge where the core ideas lost cohesion, and everything flew outward to more and more distant, disconnected edges. There is no discipline of English to study at this point.
When I enrolled in 2000, I thought "well, I already know how to program, I can always get a job in software. Let's see what a liberal arts education can teach me," but even back then it was all about problematizing, casuistry, and twisted little factions of hateful goblins ruling over their tiny kingdoms. Nobody was teaching how to really read and comprehend a text, other than a couple of ancient Associate Professors who would never, ever make tenure. Nowadays, I'm sure that breed is nearly extinct, and I can't even imagine what's left. It could have just been my university, but nothing I've seen (including this article) makes me think that was an isolated case.
For the record, English has a ton of value in the software industry. Programming is easy enough, you can just learn that on your own. On the other hand, reading comprehension and critical thinking are incredibly rare in our industry, and they are differentiators. The problem for English departments is that they don't teach these very well anymore, and you'd be better off just learning them yourself as well.
When I enrolled in 2000, I thought "well, I already know how to program, I can always get a job in software. Let's see what a liberal arts education can teach me," but even back then it was all about problematizing, casuistry, and twisted little factions of hateful goblins ruling over their tiny kingdoms. Nobody was teaching how to really read and comprehend a text, other than a couple of ancient Associate Professors who would never, ever make tenure. Nowadays, I'm sure that breed is nearly extinct, and I can't even imagine what's left. It could have just been my university, but nothing I've seen (including this article) makes me think that was an isolated case.
For the record, English has a ton of value in the software industry. Programming is easy enough, you can just learn that on your own. On the other hand, reading comprehension and critical thinking are incredibly rare in our industry, and they are differentiators. The problem for English departments is that they don't teach these very well anymore, and you'd be better off just learning them yourself as well.
I agree. I was an English major. Luckily, I had one teacher who taught us how to really read the base text and extract as much meaning from that as you could, without extrapolating at all. It turned out that there was an enormous amount of information that was latent in every text, once you knew how to analyze it. By this, I mean, from little details you could learn different characteristics of the narrator or setting, etc. Sentences that seemed like they were simply nice sentences actually were conveying very specific information that you could use to create a more vivid and accurate picture of the world that the text was creating.
I think this has turned out to be an incredibly useful skill for me, much more than any algorithm I’ve learned. I learned out to read deeply and consider my words very carefully when I write. Programmers are not really engineers. What we do is applied logic, yes, but ultimately we’re writers, and we’re readers. We write code and documentation, and we read code and documentation. Most programmers don’t consider their audience when they write. They just write for the computer. But the most important audience of your code is your team, who has to read it. I wish most engineers had the English class I did. I think it would help them immensely.
I think this has turned out to be an incredibly useful skill for me, much more than any algorithm I’ve learned. I learned out to read deeply and consider my words very carefully when I write. Programmers are not really engineers. What we do is applied logic, yes, but ultimately we’re writers, and we’re readers. We write code and documentation, and we read code and documentation. Most programmers don’t consider their audience when they write. They just write for the computer. But the most important audience of your code is your team, who has to read it. I wish most engineers had the English class I did. I think it would help them immensely.
This is a stretch. The article title says English, but there's a lot more to the humanities than just English. The article talks about how history for example has also dropped considerably.
I only studied English, and cannot speak to other branches of the humanities. My comment was pretty clearly about my own experience.
You only studied some English, at one department, at one point in time in past, and then go on to claim, waving broadly, "There is no discipline of English to study at this point."
The sad truth is that if you want to make big bucks with a humanities degree alone, you should go to a prestigious / top school, get your degree, and then join the workforce doing something completely different.
This was written 7 years ago and I think works pretty well as a response to this new one from The New Yorker.
The End of the English Major? Not So Fast (April 13, 2015)
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/end-engli...
The End of the English Major? Not So Fast (April 13, 2015)
https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/end-engli...
When college, medical and housing are as expensive as they are in the US, is it a surprise that people want to do everything in their power to avoid becoming destitute? There is no obvious path to middle class prosperity with a degree in English, but you'd almost have to try to not reach a comfortable living as a programmer.
At some point your aspirations of being a well-rounded well-read cosmopolite have to take a back seat to not being one mistake away from medical bankruptcy, to not spending half of your life paying off your school loans, and to being able to afford a home and a family without 14 hour Uber shifts.
We crank out something like 25,000 history majors every year in the US. At the same time there are (don't quote me on this) only 1000 jobs in the whole country that require a history degree. Everybody else will have to end up doing something entirely unrelated to history.
At some point your aspirations of being a well-rounded well-read cosmopolite have to take a back seat to not being one mistake away from medical bankruptcy, to not spending half of your life paying off your school loans, and to being able to afford a home and a family without 14 hour Uber shifts.
We crank out something like 25,000 history majors every year in the US. At the same time there are (don't quote me on this) only 1000 jobs in the whole country that require a history degree. Everybody else will have to end up doing something entirely unrelated to history.
As a former graduate student in the humanities, this part really struck me:
> Today, the academic profession of the humanities is a notoriously haywire career track, with Ph.D. programs enrolling more students than there are jobs, using them for teaching, and then, years later, sending them off with doctoral gowns and no future in the discipline.
> of fifteen people who began Princeton’s English Ph.D. program in 2012, only two have landed on a tenure track
Of course, not everyone who majors in the humanities as an undergrad needs to go on to a career in academia, but it was a hope, a dream for many. Now there's seemingly no hope, and thus no reason for academically-inclined people to pursue it, when only the very lucky few survive. The students who would be most enthusiastic about the humanities are scared away by the hopelessness and lack of investment. Humanities are becoming a dead end not only in terms of getting a job in industry but also in terms of getting a job in academia. Indeed, ironically, a humanities degree may end up being more useful now for industry than for academia.
> Today, the academic profession of the humanities is a notoriously haywire career track, with Ph.D. programs enrolling more students than there are jobs, using them for teaching, and then, years later, sending them off with doctoral gowns and no future in the discipline.
> of fifteen people who began Princeton’s English Ph.D. program in 2012, only two have landed on a tenure track
Of course, not everyone who majors in the humanities as an undergrad needs to go on to a career in academia, but it was a hope, a dream for many. Now there's seemingly no hope, and thus no reason for academically-inclined people to pursue it, when only the very lucky few survive. The students who would be most enthusiastic about the humanities are scared away by the hopelessness and lack of investment. Humanities are becoming a dead end not only in terms of getting a job in industry but also in terms of getting a job in academia. Indeed, ironically, a humanities degree may end up being more useful now for industry than for academia.
People who went to Harvard always manage to slyly communicate they went to Harvard. Including the author of this article. Good for you, dear!
An English degree from Harvard is nearly adjacent to the trajectory of Conan O'Brien. One should be so proud. This person could have written for the Lampoon.
Are we possibly becoming a post-English society in the same sense that we became post-Latin? Latin was once the language you needed to know to access knowledge and learning. Now it is of little use to most outside of the Classics. In the future it will be possible to conduct science without full literacy.
With the rise of large language models, apps, APIs, handheld computation, video content, and finger gestures, it seems that our daily interface with the world is moving from logocentrism. Furthermore, with the coming abundance of generated junk text from generative models, the relative value of language (English) looks to continue to diminish.
With the rise of large language models, apps, APIs, handheld computation, video content, and finger gestures, it seems that our daily interface with the world is moving from logocentrism. Furthermore, with the coming abundance of generated junk text from generative models, the relative value of language (English) looks to continue to diminish.
Or perhaps we are simply seeing the emergence of the Eloi and the Merlocks.
I've encountered people who gleefully celebrate this ("why would you study something so 'useless'?") -- but surely a genuinely affluent society should allow people to pursue their interests, instead of funneling them into the same roles? Isn't this a failure of political economics?
It's also unfortunate that majors that teach people how to write and think critically are panned. Those are very useful skills and give people a better ability in normal life. I understand college is so expensive that people feel a need for it to prepare you for a job, but I still hold onto the ideal that college should be a place that allows people to grow as a person and learn to communicate and think.
This is the thing I find really puzzling. Being able to read between the lines of virtually any kind of communication (but especially business communications) is kind of a superpower. I can only come up with cynical reasons why it’s deprecated.
Such as the comment below you
a key point is that these skills - soft skills if you will - can be learned on the job, even with minimal background knowledge. It is much harder to learn programming or electrical engineering on the job if you lack the educational base.
Communication is a critical skill today as are information skills. Truly sad that they are often derided as being worth less than technical skills.
Communication is a critical skill today as are information skills. Truly sad that they are often derided as being worth less than technical skills.
brewdad(1)
This is fair, and this may be a question of branding.
Let's call it not English major, a mostly literary scholar, but a master of natural language communication and epistemology. Definitely it's a set of skills useful in a wide variety of positions.
It takes an exceptionally affluent society to let everyone pursue their interest as their full-time occupation. I expect the few of exceptional ability to make a living off literary research pursuits, via grants and book sales, with others who love it doing it as a hobby, or after retirement. This is roughly how it worked for many centuries in the past, and the results are impressive.
Let's call it not English major, a mostly literary scholar, but a master of natural language communication and epistemology. Definitely it's a set of skills useful in a wide variety of positions.
It takes an exceptionally affluent society to let everyone pursue their interest as their full-time occupation. I expect the few of exceptional ability to make a living off literary research pursuits, via grants and book sales, with others who love it doing it as a hobby, or after retirement. This is roughly how it worked for many centuries in the past, and the results are impressive.
It's now assumed that anyone who doesn't treat it as a vocational school is a fool. That's unfortunate, but it's how the whole institution has changed - it's too costly to NOT focus on something that has an immediate and obvious ROI.
Agree but with major caveat that students in those majors may be actually improving those skills less than you may be assuming. It’s generally true of most colleges and students that they seem to learn strikingly little as measured by pre/post tests.
It's the hidden implication that only financially unviable jobs can teach people to communicate and think deeply.
I'm sure your average psychiatrist graduate can communicate and think logically, despite having a high paying job. Or airline pilot, or naval officer, or air traffic controller, or scientist, or businessman etc.
I'm sure your average psychiatrist graduate can communicate and think logically, despite having a high paying job. Or airline pilot, or naval officer, or air traffic controller, or scientist, or businessman etc.
American colleges are ideologically captured. If you think the humanities department is teaching critical thinking, you are sorely mistaken.
I find that a lot of people dishonestly conflate the avoidance of critical thinking with finding an argument lacking. These two things are very much not the same thing.
There's a line you have to draw somewhere on what kind of interests you can pursue as a career. A person who is full-time writing bad poetry that nobody wants to read provides about as much value as someone who majors in Drinking and Recreational Drugs.
So I guess if we're talking about a utopia where all our food and clean drinking water and maintenance and every other essential service is perfectly automated with no need for human intervention, then sure. Pursue whatever you want. As it is, it makes more sense for people to pay for stuff that they find is generating some value. If your passion is producing something really good and people want it, they'll pay you. But that's not the case for most people.
So I guess if we're talking about a utopia where all our food and clean drinking water and maintenance and every other essential service is perfectly automated with no need for human intervention, then sure. Pursue whatever you want. As it is, it makes more sense for people to pay for stuff that they find is generating some value. If your passion is producing something really good and people want it, they'll pay you. But that's not the case for most people.
> A person who is full-time writing bad poetry that nobody wants to read
The only difference between that and our own industry is that there are plenty of people full-time writing bad code that no one wants to use, except there are procurement departments, execs, and the like who ring up million-dollar contracts for that software, leading to long-term vendor lock-in.
The only difference between that and our own industry is that there are plenty of people full-time writing bad code that no one wants to use, except there are procurement departments, execs, and the like who ring up million-dollar contracts for that software, leading to long-term vendor lock-in.
Hey, it ain't a perfect system but that's a lot of people working jobs that keep them housed and fed. I don't see how that could work if all those people just did their hobbies all day.
The larger point is that industrial civilization (or post-industrial) is probably at a point where you can feed, clothe, and shelter every human being on the planet, but our moribund systems do not permit it to. Hence the rise of critiques such as Graeber's Bullshit Jobs, and the rise of alternate proposals such as UBI, federal job guarantees, even revival in interest in land value tax. As William Gibson said, "The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed."
We probably could support a system where we have a creative class of people doing hobbies all day- after all, we did in past-industrial epochs with wealthy aristocratic patrons and so forth. But we don't because there's not sufficient incentive to build that world, yet. In the meantime we get a lot of corporate make-work and capital being thrown away at enterprises that probably don't actually create lasting value.
So what I'm getting at that what you deride as profitless passion is low value because of entirely arbitrary reasons. There's a ton of bad enterprise software out there, to pick one thing that's monetarily highly-valued, yet they don't seem to provide humanity with lasting value.
We probably could support a system where we have a creative class of people doing hobbies all day- after all, we did in past-industrial epochs with wealthy aristocratic patrons and so forth. But we don't because there's not sufficient incentive to build that world, yet. In the meantime we get a lot of corporate make-work and capital being thrown away at enterprises that probably don't actually create lasting value.
So what I'm getting at that what you deride as profitless passion is low value because of entirely arbitrary reasons. There's a ton of bad enterprise software out there, to pick one thing that's monetarily highly-valued, yet they don't seem to provide humanity with lasting value.
People should feel free to pursue whatever interest they want - encouraging them to go into 6 figure debt for an 'interest' is not very wise however.
I studied business and computer science in college - that now pays the bills.
I study European History in my free time, and even with all the hundreds of books I have read and own, probably haven't spent $1000 on that 'interest'.
"You just spent 150 grand on an education you could have gotten for $1.50 in late fees at the public library." - quote from Good Will Hunting.
I studied business and computer science in college - that now pays the bills.
I study European History in my free time, and even with all the hundreds of books I have read and own, probably haven't spent $1000 on that 'interest'.
"You just spent 150 grand on an education you could have gotten for $1.50 in late fees at the public library." - quote from Good Will Hunting.
As others have pointed out - you could have not spent money on computer science as well - if anything that's a field that has no problem at all with the self taught.
I'd also like to propose that reading history novels isn't the same as a history education, in much the same way that reading those novels isn't the same as an English degree.
I'd also like to propose that reading history novels isn't the same as a history education, in much the same way that reading those novels isn't the same as an English degree.
A society is always in some kind of balance between pursuing interests (for the lack of a better word) and pursuing needs (or pursuing usefulness, as put by the people you've encountered). The difference between an "interest" and a "useful need" is not always clear cut.
> genuinely affluent society should allow people to pursue their interests
I am not sure if everyone was pursuing their interests, certain degrees will be much more populous than others.
Many people do STEM, especially CS / SWE for money (which is fine), and affluent people do Arts degrees because they probably just want a degree.
I am not sure if everyone was pursuing their interests, certain degrees will be much more populous than others.
Many people do STEM, especially CS / SWE for money (which is fine), and affluent people do Arts degrees because they probably just want a degree.
I think the only way we could allow this is through some sort of UBI or other government/state/community backed right to your needs being met.
Maybe that's what you mean by genuinely affluent society, and I'd agree one of those societies would not only allow people to pursue but reap the benefits of its populace pursuing those things.
However I don't think it's possible with the current incentives in place. While being educated and pursuing your interests are allowed and in some circles lauded, your basic needs being met far outweighs any other incentive any actor has.
Maybe we should focus on allowing building that society but I don't think that means in the current society we can even begin to pretend people are encouraged to pursue their interests at the costs of their basic needs being met.
Maybe that's what you mean by genuinely affluent society, and I'd agree one of those societies would not only allow people to pursue but reap the benefits of its populace pursuing those things.
However I don't think it's possible with the current incentives in place. While being educated and pursuing your interests are allowed and in some circles lauded, your basic needs being met far outweighs any other incentive any actor has.
Maybe we should focus on allowing building that society but I don't think that means in the current society we can even begin to pretend people are encouraged to pursue their interests at the costs of their basic needs being met.
Free will/choice is one thing. I think there are also plenty of people that grow up totally obsessed with their art and feel they need to be a part of it, like they have to go to Columbia Uni to write or act, or be a historian, etc. It's an interest gone out of control.
Even if they do that and rack up the loans, they may go into the real world naively and end up not making it big. Ever.
I guess my thought is, there's something creating that desire or urgency too. As System of a Down put it, "Advertising causes need."
Even if they do that and rack up the loans, they may go into the real world naively and end up not making it big. Ever.
I guess my thought is, there's something creating that desire or urgency too. As System of a Down put it, "Advertising causes need."
Philosophy is equally useless.
Until you need a philosopher to help you solve a problem...
I'm definitely in the camp of, "All knowledge has value, no knowledge will ever go to waste if you find where it is needed".
English studies is like Philosophy in a way - it lets us turn a critical lens on ourselves, our past selves, and examine how we think and what we value. There's many applications for such knowledge.
Surely a more noble pursuit than building dark UI patterns into websites.
Until you need a philosopher to help you solve a problem...
I'm definitely in the camp of, "All knowledge has value, no knowledge will ever go to waste if you find where it is needed".
English studies is like Philosophy in a way - it lets us turn a critical lens on ourselves, our past selves, and examine how we think and what we value. There's many applications for such knowledge.
Surely a more noble pursuit than building dark UI patterns into websites.
When everyone is reduced to their "Value", things with indirect value, a la societal arts and culture, are viewed as worthless.
Marvel movies make tons of money, but do they have value as art? Do they really say anything or regurgitate quips and simple plots that could just as well come from ChatGPT?
From the opposite end, does a rogue artists self published book of avant garde poetry have much of a monetary value? Probably not, but it possibly has more original thought than the Marvel movies.
The starving artist trope has been around for a long time but the push for STEM coming from the cold war has devalued the average person's ability to make art to an all time low. We tell high schoolers that caring about literature or art will ensure they're destitute. We treat teachers and professors who continue teaching the arts like absolute trash, because its a field where the joy and personal value taken from the work allows the devaluation to continue because its still a worth while endeavor.
But hey, the stock market will go up forever so we'll never run out of Marvel slop.
Marvel movies make tons of money, but do they have value as art? Do they really say anything or regurgitate quips and simple plots that could just as well come from ChatGPT?
From the opposite end, does a rogue artists self published book of avant garde poetry have much of a monetary value? Probably not, but it possibly has more original thought than the Marvel movies.
The starving artist trope has been around for a long time but the push for STEM coming from the cold war has devalued the average person's ability to make art to an all time low. We tell high schoolers that caring about literature or art will ensure they're destitute. We treat teachers and professors who continue teaching the arts like absolute trash, because its a field where the joy and personal value taken from the work allows the devaluation to continue because its still a worth while endeavor.
But hey, the stock market will go up forever so we'll never run out of Marvel slop.
people forget how recent the switch from a humanities dominated education to a stem dominated education took place people forget that this is an ongoing experiment not some manifest destiny towards Reason - and I am far from convinced this is exclusively for the better in terms of producing a stable and good society whatever that might mean - we have yet to see what happens when you raise 2 or 3 subsequent generations primarily teaching them hard sciences and also those humanities that have successfully branded themselves as "science adjacent" (econ, political science, management theory etc...) I think people who "gleefully celebrate" this cannot imagine that there is some scenario in which we overdo this or that there is no way you could have a population that is "too rational" and I worry that the history of our next century will be what proves them wrong
There are endless free and low-cost education options online if people wish to pursue it.
In my experience there's often a wide gulf between what you want to learn and what you should probably learn. If you're a software dev think about what you were interested in when you started the career and what you ended up having to learn that you may not have wanted to but you still needed to know just the same. That's the same with other disciplines. It's hard to get those areas being self taught.
Interesting, that’s not been my experience.
I’m a self-taught developer and I’ve only focused on areas I’ve been interested in, which has been fun for me.
I wouldn’t be hired as a Sr. Engineer at a FAANG but I was able to build a successful development agency by just following what I wanted to learn about.
But I could see how at enterprise scale how that might not work. But at startup scale it’s been really effective for me.
I’m a self-taught developer and I’ve only focused on areas I’ve been interested in, which has been fun for me.
I wouldn’t be hired as a Sr. Engineer at a FAANG but I was able to build a successful development agency by just following what I wanted to learn about.
But I could see how at enterprise scale how that might not work. But at startup scale it’s been really effective for me.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Education for education's sake seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird. That's a sad state of affairs.
Education for education's sake seems to have gone the way of the dodo bird. That's a sad state of affairs.
We are not living in a post scarcity world where you are free to pursue whatever you like. We were closer to that perhaps 20+ years ago but the world is different now.
That's a simple matter of fact. That's the reason these courses are plummeting in enrollment. The economy sucks.
That's a simple matter of fact. That's the reason these courses are plummeting in enrollment. The economy sucks.
The economy sucks
Based on what metrics? Unemployment in the US is low. Wages have gone up. Inflation is up as well. Companies are mostly profitable (despite layoffs).
At worst, we're seeing some mixed signals, and might be heading into a recession. But, we aren't there yet.
Based on what metrics? Unemployment in the US is low. Wages have gone up. Inflation is up as well. Companies are mostly profitable (despite layoffs).
At worst, we're seeing some mixed signals, and might be heading into a recession. But, we aren't there yet.
Interesting that no one's trying to argue against humanities being a bad choice in a poor economy. Instead you're trying to argue that the economy isn't doing too badly. Even the OP made the point that enrolling in these courses is something you do due to your own interests rather than for an economic reason.
So now take the uncertainty you acknowledge combined with the reality that yourself and OP acknowledge (even if implicitly) that humanities is not something you do for economic reasons and you have your answer.
If humanities could make a case that it's a good idea financially that might help enrollment but no on in this thread is even trying to make such a case. Instead the case being made is that you should do it out of passion, not for economic reasons. Such an argument won't win you any enrollments when things such as housing are unaffordable.
So now take the uncertainty you acknowledge combined with the reality that yourself and OP acknowledge (even if implicitly) that humanities is not something you do for economic reasons and you have your answer.
If humanities could make a case that it's a good idea financially that might help enrollment but no on in this thread is even trying to make such a case. Instead the case being made is that you should do it out of passion, not for economic reasons. Such an argument won't win you any enrollments when things such as housing are unaffordable.
>Instead you're trying to argue that the economy isn't doing too badly.
Yes, because you brought the subject up and used it to support your overall point.
Yes, because you brought the subject up and used it to support your overall point.
Why would you praise inflation being up if increased interest rates leading to corporate layoffs is driven by inflation
I wasn’t praising it. That was just a list of metrics, which are currently mixed.
>The economy sucks
Are you talking about the US economy? Because it is doing extremely well right now, click-bait headlines notwithstanding.
Are you talking about the US economy? Because it is doing extremely well right now, click-bait headlines notwithstanding.
Compare the costs of housing, healthcare, and higher education itself with how it was 20+ years ago. You can argue the current economy is healthy (but then why did that previous post cite inflation being up as a good thing?) but that has nothing to do with cost of living's affordability.
If the future of AI is LLMs like ChatGPT, which are trained on literature and other things that people create, you're going to need humanities scholars like you need computer scientists to understand the AI. Microsoft gave their chatbot, which has probably almost every published work of science fiction in its training set, a human name and then were surprised that it imitated the fictional poorly-behaved named AIs that it was exposed to in its training.
The issue is that humanities majors should be priced differently than other classes. The fact that "pre-professional" path classes cost the same as "frivolous" classes didn't matter much when college didn't cost THAT much.
Now? It's a stark decision of cost-benefit analysis.
I almost think that humanities need to be like hermit satellite institutions attached to the universities. You know, like universities were back in the day. Reduced expectations of funding and costs for attending those. The university gets the prestige, but doesn't have to shoulder as much cost. Or, they are separately endowed.
Humanities don't need the management that college administration uses to justify its explosive expansion. It doesn't have grants and all that. It just needs classrooms, some offices, and libraries. The dorms can be old-school if you want, part of the "academic experience".
The rest of the university, with its sport facilities, lavish living quarters, frats, grant-seeking labs, etc, whatever. Go exist. Over there. Grade inflation, cheatable classes, over there.
So there's two university experiences: the one where people go to get the job rubberstamp, and much cheaper but traditional (as in millenia old) experience of actual academic interest. Those can have separate admissions criteria.
I guess this is like what graduate students go through, which is what "real college" is kind of like, but why not provide a track that bypasses the crappy undergrad phase for those students (and they do exist) that demonstrate the academic interest? The key difference is that grad students have a massive undergrad debt, but then in grad school pay nothing or get paid subsistence wages.
Let's get rid of the massive undergrad debt for those that actually demonstrate academic interest. And let's be real, even in places like Harvard, that is probably a small minority of people going there.
Now? It's a stark decision of cost-benefit analysis.
I almost think that humanities need to be like hermit satellite institutions attached to the universities. You know, like universities were back in the day. Reduced expectations of funding and costs for attending those. The university gets the prestige, but doesn't have to shoulder as much cost. Or, they are separately endowed.
Humanities don't need the management that college administration uses to justify its explosive expansion. It doesn't have grants and all that. It just needs classrooms, some offices, and libraries. The dorms can be old-school if you want, part of the "academic experience".
The rest of the university, with its sport facilities, lavish living quarters, frats, grant-seeking labs, etc, whatever. Go exist. Over there. Grade inflation, cheatable classes, over there.
So there's two university experiences: the one where people go to get the job rubberstamp, and much cheaper but traditional (as in millenia old) experience of actual academic interest. Those can have separate admissions criteria.
I guess this is like what graduate students go through, which is what "real college" is kind of like, but why not provide a track that bypasses the crappy undergrad phase for those students (and they do exist) that demonstrate the academic interest? The key difference is that grad students have a massive undergrad debt, but then in grad school pay nothing or get paid subsistence wages.
Let's get rid of the massive undergrad debt for those that actually demonstrate academic interest. And let's be real, even in places like Harvard, that is probably a small minority of people going there.
The problem is we already have that. The market has spoken and if you get that English degree from Yale you'll be permitted to get one of the few jobs in the field with decent pay, but if you get the same degree from the same curriculum from reading the same texts and the same research journals at the state satellite campus down the road from my house, that more or less fully implements your suggestion, there are no jobs after graduation beyond Starbucks or maybe selling real estate. The price of the state satellite campus is lower than sticker for ivy leagues, but its still too high.
The real mystery is why non-credit Japanese taught by the same instructor in the same room using the same text and same syllabus on a different night of the week has a tuition of $45 but the for-credit class version of the same class is around $2K. I would guess the ivy league tuition equivalent of the same class would be $15K? The irony is the grads of all three expense levels are roughly equally skilled.
The real mystery is why non-credit Japanese taught by the same instructor in the same room using the same text and same syllabus on a different night of the week has a tuition of $45 but the for-credit class version of the same class is around $2K. I would guess the ivy league tuition equivalent of the same class would be $15K? The irony is the grads of all three expense levels are roughly equally skilled.
https://archive.is/m3y8B to break out of the paywall
Good.
Many humanities departments went fully woke over the past decade and that alienates students. See purity spirals.
Humanities departments have been hyper-liberal since the 70s. The only thing that's changed is what hyper-liberal means (much the same as hyper conservative now implies the MAGA militia). Society has polarized, in large part because the two party system each party wants to differentiate itself, and first past the post voting with party primaries rewards extremists.
The English major, as with most humanities, is a Veblen good. It is socially valuable precisely because it is useless, by getting one you are demonstrating your family is so rich you need not trifle with the petty concerns of the hoi polloi like getting a job.
It doesn't help that in the turf battles between university departments, clout comes with enrollment and so they have incentives to exaggerate the career opportunities available to gullible post-grads. We have mandatory nutrition labels on food, it's long past universities were required to give objective numbers on career opportunities and salaries for the various majors.
It doesn't help that in the turf battles between university departments, clout comes with enrollment and so they have incentives to exaggerate the career opportunities available to gullible post-grads. We have mandatory nutrition labels on food, it's long past universities were required to give objective numbers on career opportunities and salaries for the various majors.
Good. 18 year olds shouldn't be given the option to put themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for no career prospects.
I absolutely understand the point of view of the top comments saying that it people should be allowed to pursue their interests, and I agree, but it shouldn't come to the detriment of the basic quality of life of people that are barely old enough to take those decisions.
The title of the article is perfect. It's the end of the English MAJOR. Study it as a Minor. Go back to school at 40 once you have your career built if that's what you want. But don't shoot yourself in both feet when you're 18.
Otherwise I should have been allowed to do - and be respected for doing - a Major in video game playing and TV series watching, because that's where my interests laid when I finished highschool.
I absolutely understand the point of view of the top comments saying that it people should be allowed to pursue their interests, and I agree, but it shouldn't come to the detriment of the basic quality of life of people that are barely old enough to take those decisions.
The title of the article is perfect. It's the end of the English MAJOR. Study it as a Minor. Go back to school at 40 once you have your career built if that's what you want. But don't shoot yourself in both feet when you're 18.
Otherwise I should have been allowed to do - and be respected for doing - a Major in video game playing and TV series watching, because that's where my interests laid when I finished highschool.
[1] https://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/archive/doc?id=L178005...