Colleges Rescind Acceptance Offers

[ZeeMore21]

I have very serious issues with the said argument that English in nowway helps anyone in this world. I am not sure how many English departments you have been to, or if you have been in one...but there are many different projects and many different stakes out there. I am personally invested in what I study, which is African American literature. And as an African American, I see the work that I am doing as being something that can open the way to policies that could be implemented to make this world a better place for blacks today....but more importantly underrepresented groups in the broadest sense. Of course I know how important engineering and science are, my dad is an engineer and my mom is a nurse and I respect them SO much for the hard work they put into make life easier for everyone. But there are also others things such as racism, political corruption, and economic exploitation...and I think they are equally as serious. And I respect those in English who are trying to raise the standard of living for us all by interrogating the status quo through their pens. How dare anyone who isn't in English and who hasn't thoroughly examined what is going on in the field think its okay to come online and tell someone in English that their work doesn't matter or that they aren't helping people. I have devoted almost 6 years to trying to figure out how I can use my love for literature to change this world, and I am very proud to be entering a PhD this fall to continue that. People invest their lives into their work, and I would be VERY careful how I voice my opinions about a field that I am not in. I am tired of the crap that I hear from those outside of my field. We need to try to work together in this world, or we all fail. How dare you.

Edited February 11, 2011 by EnglishEnthusiast10

[qbtacoma]

SuperPiePie, I think what we are running up against here is an unspoken assumption on your part about what the study of the humanities serves in the end. I see your point about engineering etc. saving lives, being the main force ending physical suffering in the world. That is a point well made, but let's set that aside for now and see what study of being human has to offer.

Two examples. When Ann Bannon wrote softcore lesbian pulp fiction in the 1950s, her work was eagerly devoured by women even though the publisher intended the books as porn for straight men. The women who read her books were starving for portrayals of themselves - of women who had deep emotional and sexual connections with other women. Her books were the only contact many women, who were isolated from underground lesbian subcultures (and, for that matter, unexposed to a literary education which would have introduced them to non-normative sexualities that any classics person knows), had. The books were a positive cultural presence for these readers, who knew they were not alone in their feelings, despite the moralizing bad endings. This sense of isolation from peers remains one of the main drivers of queer teen suicide even today with all the unabashedly positive portrayals of all kinds of people available, suggesting how important it is that people see themselves represented.

When Alice Walker published The Color Purple in 1982, the presence of black women in popular culture was virtually nonexistent. Whoopi Goldberg, the biggest black female presence in popular culture of the 80s, was pushed into the popular spotlight by that film adaptation. Walker's exploration of black womanhood in general, not to mention the trauma of the aftermath of slavery, male abuse of wives, children, and partners, female sexual choices, mixed feelings of empowerment/colonialism inherent to Christian missionary work in Africa, the legacy of abuse and the struggle to rise above it all - these issues are explosive even thirty years later. Walker introduced to the popular consciousness certain discussions of gender, blackness, and the legacy of history which were incredibly unique and valuable - like Bannon (but better!), her work began a conversation which simply did not exist to the vast majority of people. Like Bannon, Walker gave voice to (in this case) black women in general and black lesbians in particular

When are students exposed to ideas like these? In English classes.

The study of the humanities can, like you imply, be just about creating art or exploring themes which are of particular interest to only a few. But English, film studies, theatre, history, and other fields all have the task of transmitting and reinterpreting the soul and, dare I say, morality of our day to day lives. YES, absolutely funding vaccine research is important! YES, funding research into making better bridges, better strains of wheat, better energy sources is important! But giving a voice to the voiceless is the reason that I myself research history, and teaching students to be better critical thinkers and writers is why teaching is social justice.

YES, there is more than a little selfishness to my area of study - no one's life is going to be saved (directly) from my work. (That's what volunteering is for!) YES, some of my work is masturbatory and not particularly useful even for social justice purposes - they are simply interesting topics to me. But then, some computer scientists end up working for Pixar instead of protecting the nation's defense systems from cyber attacks. Some engineers end up working for SpaceX (a private rocket company which will eventually send tourists into space) instead of designing more effective medical imaging equipment. Most chemistry Ph.Ds will end up making drugs for big pharma which manage symptoms instead of treating underlying causes (oops, did a little bias slip out there?).

I'd still fund the education for those non-life-saving science folks. It's still a net gain for society. But humanities research isn't inherently less valuable than anything these folks do.

Edited February 11, 2011 by qbtacoma

[ZeeMore21]

Well said qbtacoma.

[jprufrock]

Well said qbtacoma.

Agreed. Thank you for taking the time to reply in such an eloquent way.

[Kathiza]

If you look to the future science and engineering have larger chances of changing out world and helping people who are sick or in need of food and water. That is why most people put money into these fields.

That's naive. There are already so many developments that no one in the world should be hungry or in the need of water. Those developments you are talking about are of course important and necessary and brought us to where we are now. But it's a myth that it's because of "helping people". It's about profit, not about helping the poor and hungry. Why are there still so many people in the world that are hungry/thirsty, can't read, die because of diseases which could be cured in an instant, etc. - It's because science and knowledge is not shared. Because there is no huge profit in giving knowledge/development to people who need it.

[Medievalmaniac]

Firstly, thank you for actually presenting an argument

There are more spots but there are also more of us. Our departments are massive yes, but the amount of people trying to get in is ridiculous as well. You have to realize some people in basic sciences and math are trying to get into the same engineering programs as well.

As for training people from other nations. Although graduate schools give citizens priority, qualified people from other countries are welcome. Many countries have very strong engineering and math because a lot of this is universal around the world. I know that in certain humanities it is not as diverse as far as international students. Many of the people trained from different countries like to stay here at work. My father is an example. The pay here is better and there are more opportunities. Furthermore, the research done by these qualified international students is beneficial to the school and department. The money is given to help those individuals who show a desire to pursue a degree in applied sciences. I don't see why we discriminate.

Dear SuperPiePie....I hope you won't mind, but I just need to...well, I need to help you out, here. I hope you won't mind. See below.

There are more spots but there are also more of us. Our departments are massive[,] yes, but the amount NUMBER of people trying to get in is ridiculous(,) as well. You have to realize [that] some people in basic sciences and m(M)ath are trying to get into the same engineering programs as well.

As for training people from other nations[This is a fragment; make certain your statements are phrased in complete sentences]. Although graduate schools give citizens [of what country? Ambiguous; consider revising for clarity] priority, qualified people from other countries are welcome. Many countries have very strong engineering and math because a lot of this is universal around the world[This statement negates your original premise; if many countries around the world have very strong engineering and Math programs then why is that a justification for U.S. graduate programs giving numerous spots to people from other countries? Also, "a lot of this is universal to the world" is a deeply general and ambiguous statement. Be specific - a lot of WHAT is universal, to whom, specifically?]. I know that in certain humanities[programs] it [ "it" here is an ambiguous modifier - do you mean the department, or the graduate student population within the department? Make certain your meaning is clear] is not as diverse as far as international students. Many of the people trained from different countries like to stay here at[to?] work.[consider using a semi-colon here to create a more unified statement; also, how is this statement relevant to your argument that humanities programs don't fund as many international students? You need to make certain your argument is organized logically.] My father is an example. The pay here is better and there are more opportunities. Furthermore, the research done by these qualified international students is beneficial to the school and department. The money is given to help those individuals who show a desire to pursue a degree in applied sciences. I don't see why we discriminate[against...? You need to make certain each statement is a finished one.].

Doggone it...where were your English teachers when you needed them? This statement could have been so much more persuasive than it currently is, if only you had known tha (and I am only going to enumerate the glaring errors, for want of time):

1. You use the word "number" rather than "amount" for anything that can be counted; amount is for things that can be measured but not individually counted.

2. Every statement in English needs to have a subject and predicate. In "As for training people from other nations" you need to have a subject clause; this could be remedied simply either by your phrasing it as a question - "As for training people from other nations?" or by inserting a subject clause into the statement - "As for YOUR COMMENT concerning training people from other nations..." although, "as to" would be better; but really this would be best handled by combining this statement with the statement following it with either a colon or a dash.

3. Math, as a discipline, is always capitalized; ditto for History, English, and so forth.

4. A good argument is logically and clearly organized, rather than doubling back on itself.

5. It is important to use specific modifying words and phrases in order to avoid ambiguity and fuzzy meaning in your statements. Expressions like "I know in many humanities it is not as diverse as far as international students" are weak because that "it" could be modifying either the department(s) or the students being named. A little sentence organization goes a long way towards clarifying and strengthening your argument.

[Medievalmaniac]

Also, Superpiepie, to counter your arguments about the legitimacy and importance of literary studies....

In Western Europe in the heavily-Christianized medieval era, any and all texts from the Classical world dealing with aspects of Classical (pagan) religions were considered unfit and destroyed. It wasn't until after the Crusades, and the sacking of major cities and libraries in the East, that manuscripts heavily encrusted with jewels and gold leaf were brought back to the Western world. They were stolen and brought to Europe for their physical worth, but scholars translating the texts into Latin and, ultimately, into English, realized that these were Arabic translations of ancient Greek texts by philosophers that had long since disappeared from the Western world - Aristotle, and Plato, chief among them.

Had it not been for these scholars and their translation and transmission efforts, we would not have our current Democratic government in America, because no one would have heard of the democratic principles espoused by the Greek writers.

Also, in the medieval period, anyone who wasn't trained in a University as a doctor was not allowed to practice medicine - this despite the fact that midwives and village wise men knew vast amounts of information about the medicinal properties of native plants. Women who practiced traditional folk remedies were labeled as witches. Yet, today, doctors trained at places such as those you have listed in your signature, themselves, tout the effectiveness of natural medicine and "alternative medical approaches" and they're working on legalizing Marijuana for medicinal use. Why? Because despite all our best efforts in technological advancements as regards pharmaceuticals, ultimately most of the medicines on the market are derived from the knowledge of plant properties. And that knowledge was begun, expanded, and passed down in books that were written in Latin, in Chinese, in languages other than English, hundreds of years ago, and translated to English by people working in literary studies and trying to preserve the rapidly-disappearing knowledge of earlier peoples as regards the health benefits of plants and minerals.

I reiterate: without the (usually English and Comp. Lit.) people who do this sort of work, advancements in other fields just don't happen.

[40 Rounds]

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Pardon me if you consider this a personal attack, SuperPiePie, but you strike me as being just a lil' bit insecure. Why do you feel the need to repeatedly proclaim the primacy of science and engineering over English? So humanities folks complain sometimes. I'm sure you'll be able to laugh all the way to the bank one day with your gillion-yen hydroelectric dam contract. In the meantime, we in the humanities are perfectly aware that our stature is slipping in what a previous poster so excellently described as the "utilitarian, 'tangible benefits', results-based paradigm" of the 21st century world. No need to kick us when we're down!

[FingersCrossedX]

We're all in the same boat. Everyone is sitting around pressing the refresh button on their email hoping to be accepted, hoping to be wanted. Its like a middle school dance and looking around this forum it seems we have reverted back to middle school behaviors. We are putting each other down for no reason but a glimmer of hope that we will feel superior and no longer rejected. All of us were dumb enough to spend hundreds of dollars in application fees for this torture. No one is better than anyone else.

Let's all take a moment step back and realize that the broad range of our interests and studies isn't a hierarchy but diversity.

Edited February 11, 2011 by FingersCrossedX

[waddle]

This reminds me of my continual frustration with Obama and other policymakers who, when speaking of funding higher education, always and only talk about STEM fields, i.e., those fields which are seen as commercially/economically 'useful' to society. Whenever there are cutbacks, the first place they look is 'soft' fields like philosophy, languages, etc. I'm in a 'social science', so we're somewhat less denigrated, I guess, but it's still annoying.

Again, your overly long and pompous post does nothing but further evidence your ignorance of the humanities and their impact.

I'd like to spell it out for you, but if you honestly think the fine arts are reduced to reading, writing and communication, then I doubt any rhetoric in the history of the world could convince you otherwise.

I love your personal attacks. If I consider you ignorant and you consider me ignorant, at least I will not do not launch personal attacks. But whatever it doesn't matter, to each is own. If you want to argue against me that is fine, but at least use argument or provide examples. Regardless, as I have said I respect the people and the field just as much as any other. But there are reasons why most people, even many of those highly educated put science and engineering above humanities. I don't know if it's right or wrong, but that is just the way it is. They are not equal as of now and they never have been, either one way or the other.

You mad?

They mad.

Seriously, though, flamewars suck.

Edited February 11, 2011 by waddle

[qbtacoma]

You know, I actually think this was a good debate, apart from the tone.

[cesada]

Ah, yes, wonderful scientific advancements... those of us in the humanities are far too unimportant to contribute to all those bombs, products that kill the earth, and experiments on low-income populations!

My literature research is never going to be used to kill anybody. Just saying.

Okay, I'm joking, obviously. I know most scientists and engineers want to cure diseases, build useful stuff, provide clean water, and on and on. Still, I think those disciplines can be worse than useless without the ability to empathize, to understand other cultures, to develop a system of ethics... all the stuff that the humanities, at their best, teach students.

[Kathiza]

My literature research is never going to be used to kill anybody.

You may be joking, but I think that's a valid point. Who were the people that developed the weapons of mass destruction? Not the English majors or historians. So many things in the world were just developed to harm each other. It's really sad.

[Langoustine]

There is a lot of bad stuff out there. Technology, weapons, chemicals, things done in the name of science are not always for the betterment of humanity.

And just so everyone feels included, let's not forget there are philosophies, books, thoughts in general and the creative expressions of these thoughts, that are not for the betterment of humanity too. Take the Twilight books for instance. (Harhar sorry couldn't help myself!)

I'm just saying it's kind of silly to argue which is worse when the answer is obviously....PEOPLE SUCK A**. People believe in things, and sometimes this drives them to produce terrible stuff. Like chemical warfare or the Tea Party. (OK, OK I'll stop) So whatever avenue you choose to do your career, just try and be a decent person eh?

Edited February 13, 2011 by Langoustine

[UnlikelyGrad]

You may be joking, but I think that's a valid point. Who were the people that developed the weapons of mass destruction? Not the English majors or historians. So many things in the world were just developed to harm each other. It's really sad.

Yes, BUT...genocide does not exist unless fed by propaganda. Go back and read the sorts of stuff people used to write about _________ (fill in the blank with favorite oppressed or formerly-oppressed groups: Jews, blacks, gays, etc.)--that people still write about those groups--that foster the hatred/malice/violence which led to genocide.

Words can be effective weapons, which is why I have such a healthy respect for English majors!

It does not matter what your gift is, be it words or chemistry; you can use it for good or ill. Words can be used to inflame passions or heal centuries-long feuds. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors of various sorts can be used as chemical weapons, pesticides, or Alzheimer's drugs.

Stop arguing about whose field is more important and start asking yourself what you can do to use your own chosen field to benefit humanity.

[Vacuum]

My literature research is never going to be used to kill anybody. Just saying.

Literature can be a very powerful thing that influences the public and it can 100% result in the killing of people. Nazi propaganda anyone?

It would be foolish to say that literature is not as dangerous as a physical weapon. Words can be more powerful than any weapon built by 'engineers and scientists'.

[MoJingly]

Good Lord. I just learned so much from this discussion. Is this what grad school is like??

[harpyemma]

Literature can be a very powerful thing that influences the public and it can 100% result in the killing of people. Nazi propaganda anyone?

It would be foolish to say that literature is not as dangerous as a physical weapon. Words can be more powerful than any weapon built by 'engineers and scientists'.

Right, but you seem to be missing the point: literature research has not, to my knowledge, been used to kill anybody. Scientific research, of course, has.

Literature may be--indeed is--a dangerous weapon. That's why experts are needed: we're the literary bomb squad.

[qbtacoma]

Good Lord. I just learned so much from this discussion. Is this what grad school is like??

I hope so!

[Kathiza]

"literary bomb squad" - I love it.

But I have to admit: Communications research has been being used to get people to support the killing of other people. Every country that is or ever has been involved in a war knows how to do this. How else would they get the population to support their actions? It's propaganda (just nowadays we don't call it propaganda any more).

So I have to say: UnlikelyGrad has made a good point. Not only "hard sciences" get people killed. "Soft sciences" may also get people killed in the long run. At least when it comes to propaganda, manipulation, PR or whatever you wanna call it.

I know I might have seemed to denigrate natural sciences. That was not my intention at all. I am used to always have to defend myself when it comes to why I chose my field of study. Especially in front of students of natural sciences. So I sometimes choose to attack instead of defence. I've always been interested in Physics particularly and wanted to get another degree in this field of study (It's easier to get a second or even third degree where I come from). I have huge respect for all of you. I'm just used to always being seen as the "useless" one. And I hate it when people try to rank sciences according to "usefulness".

[Langoustine]

"literary bomb squad" - I love it.

But I have to admit: Communications research has been being used to get people to support the killing of other people. Every country that is or ever has been involved in a war knows how to do this. How else would they get the population to support their actions? It's propaganda (just nowadays we don't call it propaganda any more).

So I have to say: UnlikelyGrad has made a good point. Not only "hard sciences" get people killed. "Soft sciences" may also get people killed in the long run. At least when it comes to propaganda, manipulation, PR or whatever you wanna call it.

I know I might have seemed to denigrate natural sciences. That was not my intention at all. I am used to always have to defend myself when it comes to why I chose my field of study. Especially in front of students of natural sciences. So I sometimes choose to attack instead of defence. I've always been interested in Physics particularly and wanted to get another degree in this field of study (It's easier to get a second or even third degree where I come from). I have huge respect for all of you. I'm just used to always being seen as the "useless" one. And I hate it when people try to rank sciences according to "usefulness".

My good friend is a Sociology major and is ALWAYS having to defend her major not only to hard science people but those in business, law, etc. But she is working with immigrants, poor people, and kids. Her success may not be as obvious as inventing a new a new seizure drug or something but I feel as long as you know you are improving lives that ought to be enough right? I mean she definitely ain't in it for the money!

[qbtacoma]

"literary bomb squad" - I love it.

But I have to admit: Communications research has been being used to get people to support the killing of other people. Every country that is or ever has been involved in a war knows how to do this. How else would they get the population to support their actions? It's propaganda (just nowadays we don't call it propaganda any more).

So I have to say: UnlikelyGrad has made a good point. Not only "hard sciences" get people killed. "Soft sciences" may also get people killed in the long run. At least when it comes to propaganda, manipulation, PR or whatever you wanna call it.

I know I might have seemed to denigrate natural sciences. That was not my intention at all. I am used to always have to defend myself when it comes to why I chose my field of study. Especially in front of students of natural sciences. So I sometimes choose to attack instead of defence. I've always been interested in Physics particularly and wanted to get another degree in this field of study (It's easier to get a second or even third degree where I come from). I have huge respect for all of you. I'm just used to always being seen as the "useless" one. And I hate it when people try to rank sciences according to "usefulness".

Any field which creates/interprets cultural value has, I think, the burden of responsibility for creating cultural attitudes. Propaganda is the most direct example of a negative effect, but cultural values are created in every field. Think, for example, of the current canonization of the Founding Fathers, which is supposed to provide guidance about modern day moral issues ("The Founding Fathers were Christians who created a Christian nation and to really inherit the nation's spirit we've gotta make life shit for everyone else!" "No, the Founding Fathers respected Islam!" "No, the Founding Fathers were secretly atheist!").

[was1984]

The number of lives saved or improved by science and engineering research vastly outnumber the lives taken. That said, liberal arts research is just as important as scientific research. Do we really want to be a society of ignorant techno-whizzes that have no concept of our own identity?

[wtncffts]

Any field which creates/interprets cultural value has, I think, the burden of responsibility for creating cultural attitudes. Propaganda is the most direct example of a negative effect, but cultural values are created in every field. Think, for example, of the current canonization of the Founding Fathers, which is supposed to provide guidance about modern day moral issues ("The Founding Fathers were Christians who created a Christian nation and to really inherit the nation's spirit we've gotta make life shit for everyone else!" "No, the Founding Fathers respected Islam!" "No, the Founding Fathers were secretly atheist!").

This is totally incidental to the discussion, but my problem with the "current canonization of the Founding Fathers" isn't that it's unwarranted, necessarily; I think that founding generation included some of the most brilliant thinkers and statesman in American history (by the way, I'm Canadian). It's more that I doubt whether the "Founding Fetishists", as it were, have ever read or really know anything about the period and the people. I'm skeptical that Sarah Palin spends her time reading Gordon Wood, Joseph Ellis, etc. and I'm guessing the only way she's acquainted with the Federalist Papers is if one of her advisors gave her point-form, Coles notes talking points.

[qbtacoma]

This is totally incidental to the discussion, but my problem with the "current canonization of the Founding Fathers" isn't that it's unwarranted, necessarily; I think that founding generation included some of the most brilliant thinkers and statesman in American history (by the way, I'm Canadian). It's more that I doubt whether the "Founding Fetishists", as it were, have ever read or really know anything about the period and the people. I'm skeptical that Sarah Palin spends her time reading Gordon Wood, Joseph Ellis, etc. and I'm guessing the only way she's acquainted with the Federalist Papers is if one of her advisors gave her point-form, Coles notes talking points.

Indeed. Did you hear the Michelle Bachmann scandal recently where she claimed that the Founding Fathers had "solved," which I think she meant "abolished," slavery? Ick.