Article on the Decline of the English Major

[InHacSpeVivo]

My department chair sent this around over the weekend, and I thought it might be of general interest:

 

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/26/where-have-all-english-majors-gone

[Catria]

Would any of this account for the collapses we observed in graduate applicant pools in humanities disciplines like English?

[kurayamino]

I think this rings really true for my own school which seems to be in transition from liberal arts support to hard sciences. It seems as though they offer significantly fewer topics/classes in my senior year than they did when I transferred in three years ago. Some of that is due to a lot of people on sabbatical at the same time, but I would say more older professors are retiring and not all of those positions are being filled with TT faculty. At my school and to pretty much everyone I talk to I hear the same thing. "You're majoring in English? What are you going to do with that degree?"

[__________________________]

Interesting article -- I've seen a bunch of articles like this lately, this being among the better ones.

 

I think English IS a useful degree, but my UG department wasn't very good at teaching kids HOW it can be useful, and I suspect that that is the case at a lot of universities.  As someone who worked all through college and took steps to build my resume outside of just doing academic work, I also got awfully sick of the typical lackadaisical response from English majors when I would ask them about their plans -- it was like a lot of them had internalized the idea that their degree is going to be "useless" and they were resigned to it.  Meanwhile the only thing the department would tell us is that being able to do critical thinking and to write well is something universally applicable, but never really made any active effort to counsel kids on HOW to apply those skills and, perhaps even more importantly, how to talk about those skills and how to recognize what their own abilities are and how those can concretely apply to the post-B.A. world. 

 

Maybe it's just a class thing though?  I've always had to worry about staying employed and have known for a while what sort of work I don't want to go back to doing - maybe the kids I talked to just had moms and dads with jobs waiting for them, or who prepared them for things I had to learn on my own.  Or just were going with the flow of some ironic English major self-deprecation that I never caught on to.  I dunno.  I definitely have the impression that more could be done and the things I thought were lacking would be available at bigger schools.  For example, even though I'm trying to be an academic, I still wish I could have taken more "practical" courses in things like speech, technical writing, and grant writing alongside my literature courses. 

 

I'm not sure how my department has specifically been affected in terms of overall enrollment, though I do feel like there have been more and more creative writing (as opposed to lit studies) majors.  I did notice that I didn't know anyone in my graduating class applying for graduate schools from my department, and my graduating class only had like 300 people, which I think strange considering how academically-focused my UG institution is.

[1Q84]

Maybe it's just a class thing though?  I've always had to worry about staying employed and have known for a while what sort of work I don't want to go back to doing - maybe the kids I talked to just had moms and dads with jobs waiting for them, or who prepared them for things I had to learn on my own.  

 

I'm really glad you brought this up because it helps me to articulate my negative view of the "follow your passion!" schpeel that you hear from both, disturbingly, school guidance counselors and those who can't be bothered to consider that they need to make ends meet six years down the road. In reality, in this day and age, "following your dreams!" pretty much comes with the footnote: underwritten by mom and dad.

 

I don't want to get too polemical here but I think considering the way that the corporatization of higher ed has won so completely, it verges on irresponsible for advisers to tell students to follow their dreams. Maybe I'm just a doom-and-gloomer but the thought of shrugging and telling myself "not to expect a job" and that I'll "scrape by" somehow after I'm done my degree is just unthinkable--probably because I do have to provide for myself and my family. There's no "if" or romantically locking myself in a library and burying my nose in a book about it. Waxing poetical about my love of books was nice in college but it's not going to pay the bills.

Sorry for the rant and it's not directed at anyone in particular here. I just really, really think people need to think more about the end result of their degree, not less. 

[kurayamino]

 

I don't want to get too polemical here but I think considering the way that the corporatization of higher ed has won so completely, it verges on irresponsible for advisers to tell students to follow their dreams. Maybe I'm just a doom-and-gloomer but the thought of shrugging and telling myself "not to expect a job" and that I'll "scrape by" somehow after I'm done my degree is just unthinkable--probably because I do have to provide for myself and my family. There's no "if" or romantically locking myself in a library and burying my nose in a book about it. Waxing poetical about my love of books was nice in college but it's not going to pay the bills.

Sorry for the rant and it's not directed at anyone in particular here. I just really, really think people need to think more about the end result of their degree, not less. 

Yes. I wish I could up-vote this more than once. I'm a non-traditional student and I worked for about ten years before going to get my BA, so when I made the decision to focus on applying to English PhD programs it wasn't all fairy tales and pipe dreams. I needed concrete advice on prospects and ways to utilize my skills if the TT doesn't appear. I mean, I think passion is key in this field to make it into the PhD and through the dissertation, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some thought about how to maximize the skills your gaining outside of the academy. There are jobs out there for English BAs and PhD's, but you certainly won't find them by living in a fantasy.

[__________________________]

Sorry for the rant and it's not directed at anyone in particular here. I just really, really think people need to think more about the end result of their degree, not less. 

 

 

Yeah, I mean, we've discussed elsewhere about the socioeconomic academic "bubble."  Honestly, I think these attitudes that are present in, presumably many, English departments could be a big turn-off for a lot of people.  It was for me -- but I stuck with my major because I had started it, wanted to graduate in four years, and really do love literature despite the fact that I was often dissatisfied with the atmosphere of my department.  With my current situation, I'm glad to be lucky enough that I don't have to be supporting a family right now (thus I've decided to take the time to try for a PhD), but I certainly came from circumstances where me going off to get a B.A. off a scholarship was perceived as 1.) a privilege and 2.) an avenue towards a career where I'd be making more money than my other option when I was graduating high school (being a maintenance person at a hotel).  That English departments like mine don't make an effort to appeal to folks who want practical skills and experience is, in my opinion, a real shame -- because there are really useful things they could be teaching that could prepare students for very real, legitimate careers straight out of undergrad.  Technical writing, for example, is one of the biggest growing job markets around!  And pretty much every non-profit needs at least one grant writer!  Just two examples.  There are graduate certifications and Masters programs for these sorts of things, but these are also the types of jobs that, if an English department were to accommodate, people could get good jobs right out of undergrad without, I think, sacrificing a more traditional course load of literary study.

[Dr. Old Bill]

Really great posts here, folks. I'm out of upvotes, but you have a bunch of head-nods from me.

 

I'm going into this with eyes wide open (sorry Kubrick) as well. I've had a few "careers," and a hell of a lot of jobs... I've had to relegate my passions to avocations, and have had to suck up my dislike of the mundane. Bearing all of that in mind, I have many reasons for pursuing a Ph.D. in English, and all of them are at least quasi realistic. The ideal is a TT job at a prestigious SLAC, but in my pre-Ph.D. heart of hearts, I suspect I'll be happy with a steady job at a low-prestige CC. Or at a non-profit doing work that involves writing. Or at a publishing house. Options, you know. The point is that I'm willing to be flexible when all is said and done, and I think that's sort of vital for graduate English hopefuls these days.

[Applemiu]

 

I don't want to get too polemical here but I think considering the way that the corporatization of higher ed has won so completely, it verges on irresponsible for advisers to tell students to follow their dreams. Maybe I'm just a doom-and-gloomer but the thought of shrugging and telling myself "not to expect a job" and that I'll "scrape by" somehow after I'm done my degree is just unthinkable--probably because I do have to provide for myself and my family. There's no "if" or romantically locking myself in a library and burying my nose in a book about it. Waxing poetical about my love of books was nice in college but it's not going to pay the bills.

Sorry for the rant and it's not directed at anyone in particular here. I just really, really think people need to think more about the end result of their degree, not less. 

 

You are perfectly right. What makes me upset is that the "follow your dream" advising policy could sometimes be motivated by convenience and profit. Students "following their dream" are happy, usually get good grades, graduate faster and get out of the way. The university gets the money. Who cares if the students can't find a job?

Edited January 27, 2015 by Applemiu

[echo449]

But at the same time, the more heady/theoretical aspects of these programs are maybe what inspired us to pursue them in the first place. I think, especially in my own institution, changes made to make the English major more appealing oftentimes make it less rigorous and leave people unprepared to go on to grad school. Now, going to grad school in English is a foolish decision which should only be made if one is sufficiently passionate about it, but at the same time, what is an undergraduate degree in the humanities if it does not graduate students who prepared to tackle more intense work either in a PhD program or in their own lives? 

Also, the article is explicitly about a single circumstance (the restructuring of gen-eds at UM) and the consequences of this unique occurrence. It cannot be generalized; and if one were to do so, then one of the options is that students just don't think that English is a useful major because they aren't exposed to it in the first place. The implication of the article is that English majors drop when people no longer become exposed to English classes as such, not that people, full of accurate knowledge, refuse the major because they know they will not get anything out of it. 

Edited January 27, 2015 by echo449

[Ramus]

The ideal is a TT job at a prestigious SLAC, but in my pre-Ph.D. heart of hearts, I suspect I'll be happy with a steady job at a low-prestige CC. Or at a non-profit doing work that involves writing. Or at a publishing house. Options, you know. The point is that I'm willing to be flexible when all is said and done, and I think that's sort of vital for graduate English hopefuls these days.

 

This is absolutely the right mindset.  The inflexibility of graduates and the stigma of failure associated with non-academic jobs have contributed to the glut of contingent faculty and the inhumane pay and conditions that go with those jobs.

 

In general, I say shoot for the dream job, whether it be R1, SLAC, etc., but for the love of god, don't accept a 5/5 contingent job w/o benefits just so you can teach college. And this is not to shame adjuncts, far from it. I think we all need to expand the realm of job possibilities; a PhD in English would leave you well prepared for publishing, teaching in community colleges or high schools, government work, non-profits, and private sector work. Chances are, many of us will end up happier in those fields than we will with teaching at the university level.

[kurayamino]

As one of my mentors told me, "you can always do your research. They can't ever take that away from you."

[Catria]

Speaking of alternatives to academic work that can be obtained with an English PhD, are there alternatives that are sensitive to prestige (either school-wide or in-field) as far as hiring is concerned (other than for maybe high school teaching)?

 

I would be tempted to say that, even in some of these alternative jobs, Ivy League PhDs will get the upper hand over non-elite degree holders but is that actually the case?

[Ramus]

Speaking of alternatives to academic work that can be obtained with an English PhD, are there alternatives that are sensitive to prestige (either school-wide or in-field) as far as hiring is concerned (other than for maybe high school teaching)?

 

I would be tempted to say that, even in some of these alternative jobs, Ivy League PhDs will get the upper hand over non-elite degree holders but is that actually the case?

 

Possibly, but I'm inclined to think that those with Ivy League degrees are going to be the last to pursue non-academic work, as the stigma against it is strongest in the top tier programs.

[t1racyjacks]

I wouldn't mind doing non academic work, but in Singapore it's so hard to get that with an academic degree (and english will be viewed as that). I have an MA too, which complicates matters. I hate 'education' programmes which are like, you know, degrees in education. Their notion of pedagogy totally clashes with mine. I tried one and failed one. But in Sg you can't get a teaching job without one. Frankly if worst comes to worst I wouldn't mind working in another country if they gave me the chance. Even as a checkout girl. As long as I get a job. But I can't even get a job here as a checkout girl because they think I'm 'overqualified'. I was a science major (in uni) and switched expecting to fail, so I'm perversely sanguine about my future homelessness. I faced that prospect when I changed my major without any (high school equiv) to English, so.... it's been staring at me in the face for a long time. I didn't even expect to pass. Of course, romantics end up starving. So I think I will. The bright side is I suppose it might improve my overall health, given how plump I am now

 

ed: this is me

Edited January 27, 2015 by t1racyjacks

[Man in the black hat.]

Possibly, but I'm inclined to think that those with Ivy League degrees are going to be the last to pursue non-academic work, as the stigma against it is strongest in the top tier programs.

 

While maybe that is true at a Masters/PhD level, I can attest from experience that's not the case out of ugrad. Before realizing I cherished my work/life balance and being home for dinner and playing with my dogs more than my bank account, I had a previous life as a strategy consultant at a top tier firm.  They specifically targeted the ivy schools for entry level analyst hiring, and specifically, students in the humanities; the thinking behind it is that they were taught to think critically, and they could always teach them how to make a spreadsheet. You had to be above average with mental math and such as well, but it was more about the critical thinking and being able to concisely present answers and take things away from looking at data patterns, and they could then teach them how to be a "consultant".

 

Now it takes a certain type of english (or poli-sci, or history, etc) to want to leave that world and enter into consulting (which, most of the time, ultimately leads to them getting an MBA), but they do exist out there, and they are being hired... but generally, it's very specific folks from very specific programs

[1Q84]

You are perfectly right. What makes me upset is that the "follow your dream" advising policy could sometimes be motivated by convenience and profit. Students "following their dream" are happy, usually get good grades, graduate faster and get out of the way. The university gets the money. Who cares if the students can't find a job?

 

So true. I dealt with this during my Bachelor of Ed. The various schools in Toronto and surrounding area accepted, all told, nearly 2500 incoming students to a one year program. The secondary education market had actually been letting people go for three straight years by the time I entered. I mean, part of that is my own arrogance in applying for a B.Ed during a down period in the hiring market, but I mean the glut of teachers was just out of this world. It basically became a diploma mill (and these are not shady institutions doing this).

 

This is absolutely the right mindset.  The inflexibility of graduates and the stigma of failure associated with non-academic jobs have contributed to the glut of contingent faculty and the inhumane pay and conditions that go with those jobs.

 

In general, I say shoot for the dream job, whether it be R1, SLAC, etc., but for the love of god, don't accept a 5/5 contingent job w/o benefits just so you can teach college. And this is not to shame adjuncts, far from it. I think we all need to expand the realm of job possibilities; a PhD in English would leave you well prepared for publishing, teaching in community colleges or high schools, government work, non-profits, and private sector work. Chances are, many of us will end up happier in those fields than we will with teaching at the university level.

 

100% agreed. It's shameful what schools put adjuncts though and I certainly understand and sympathize with why many will lower themselves to that level to make ends meet. It's certainly not the only choice, though.

 

I'll add that I believe that a flexible path after an English Ph.D. should be the #1 prerequisite for attempting one. I, for one, am not even going to attempt to find a job in America (or North America, for that matter) after I'm done. I'm flexible enough to want to go overseas and I'm thinking that'll help me avoid the adjunct fate.

[doc1]

That was a very interesting article and I agree with what everyone here has been saying about the importance of flexibility in thinking about your post degree options. When I was talking to the director of composition during my MA program about grad school options, she definitely mentioned needing to be more interdisciplinary within even the program of study itself--so flexible during the program, flexible outside of it as well. But I'm thinking this breakdown of the "traditional" english major is related to the greater interdisciplinary reach within many universities and that also seemed to be what my DOC was talking about during that conversation as well. I'm not saying this would help with the post-phd job search, but it might open up some different avenues outside of english departments in the university. (Not sure I added anything there haha) 

 

Anyway, I don't want to derail the discussion about class and the english major (and feel free to ignore my response!), but did anyone else get kind of sad when reading the section about "zombie courses" in that article? 

 

 

 

One of the more controversial departmental reform topics is how to change the English program itself, including by creating more recruitment-oriented, lower-level courses. Cartwright said there’s a demonstrated interest in updated versions of Great Books courses, but also in what he said some have called “zombie courses” – pejoratively, not descriptively. Those include courses on such popular genres as science fiction, fantasy literature, J.R.R. Tolkein, regional literature or children’s literature.
 
Cartwright said there’s some feeling among his colleagues that such offerings equate to “dumbing down” the curriculum. But he said others feel there’s value in meeting students “where they are.” And of course there are professors whose areas of expertise are in those fields and vouch for their importance. Asked about common claims among some critics of the liberal arts that they’ve lost students’ interest with agreater focus on theory than on the canon, Cartwright said he was “suspicious” of the idea.

 

One of my main research interests is popular culture, so these courses seem perfectly fine to me. I'm also slightly surprised to see an article that makes such stark distinctions between high and low culture like this, but I'm not sure about the author's background, so... I am wondering if anyone else feels similarly or do most people here see these courses as pandering to undergraduates? 

 

I could say more on this, but it's still early in the morning for me and I need more coffee 

[kurayamino]

 

Anyway, I don't want to derail the discussion about class and the english major (and feel free to ignore my response!), but did anyone else get kind of sad when reading the section about "zombie courses" in that article? 

 

 

One of my main research interests is popular culture, so these courses seem perfectly fine to me. I'm also slightly surprised to see an article that makes such stark distinctions between high and low culture like this, but I'm not sure about the author's background, so... I am wondering if anyone else feels similarly or do most people here see these courses as pandering to undergraduates? 

 

 

 

 

I can see how, as the the shifting ranks in English professors could cause this stark distinction. The debate between high/low culture is unending in the humanities though. I can remember being at a conference when a very well respected (for his work... not so much his acerbic nature) 18th professor railed against studying material culture in the middle of someone's presentation. Not only was it embarrassing for everyone who witnessed it, but it was also eye-opening into how divided English scholarship is.

I think that studying popular genre is just as relevant and valid as looking at Pride and Prejudice for the millionth time. The difference is in how it is presented and studied. There's also nothing wrong with creating introductory courses with popular material in order to garner more interest in literature as a field of study. Every person who reads critically has the opportunity to produce enlightening original ideas about any piece of work because any work of writing is a representation of who we are, in my opinion. I recognize that other people's mileage may vary.

[doc1]

The debate between high/low culture is unending in the humanities though. I can remember being at a conference when a very well respected (for his work... not so much his acerbic nature) 18th professor railed against studying material culture in the middle of someone's presentation. Not only was it embarrassing for everyone who witnessed it, but it was also eye-opening into how divided English scholarship is.

 

I'm both surprised and not surprised by this. I clearly do come from programs (undergrad at university of washington, grad at western washington) where the integration of popular culture was more encouraged, I guess. I can see how this might be uncomfortable for some, as it generally takes a different form than much of what has been traditionally studied in english literature (specifically). Personally, I see no (fundamental) difference between studying a Charles Dickens novel, for example, and studying a season of one of the Real Housewives of X. It just depends on purpose and methodology, in other words, 

 

The difference is in how it is presented and studied. 

 

 

I guess I'm also bothered by the article's assumption that these "zombie courses" aren't coming from the interests of the faculty or TAs who are teaching them as well. I feel like once you start critically and ideologically analyzing texts, it's hard to stop this process and most of the english majors and other grads I know are interested in talking about contemporary culture with the same critical eye as we talk about that which is likely to turn up on the gre subject test. 

[bhr]

 

Sorry for the rant and it's not directed at anyone in particular here. I just really, really think people need to think more about the end result of their degree, not less. 

 

 

Yeah, I mean, we've discussed elsewhere about the socioeconomic academic "bubble."  Honestly, I think these attitudes that are present in, presumably many, English departments could be a big turn-off for a lot of people.  It was for me -- but I stuck with my major because I had started it, wanted to graduate in four years, and really do love literature despite the fact that I was often dissatisfied with the atmosphere of my department.  With my current situation, I'm glad to be lucky enough that I don't have to be supporting a family right now (thus I've decided to take the time to try for a PhD), but I certainly came from circumstances where me going off to get a B.A. off a scholarship was perceived as 1.) a privilege and 2.) an avenue towards a career where I'd be making more money than my other option when I was graduating high school (being a maintenance person at a hotel).  That English departments like mine don't make an effort to appeal to folks who want practical skills and experience is, in my opinion, a real shame -- because there are really useful things they could be teaching that could prepare students for very real, legitimate careers straight out of undergrad.  Technical writing, for example, is one of the biggest growing job markets around!  And pretty much every non-profit needs at least one grant writer!  Just two examples.  There are graduate certifications and Masters programs for these sorts of things, but these are also the types of jobs that, if an English department were to accommodate, people could get good jobs right out of undergrad without, I think, sacrificing a more traditional course load of literary study.

 

 

This is one of the things that really bothered me about this article when I read it this weekend. Yes, English majors have gone down, but that doesn't mean that fewer students are studying what would have been called an English degree a decade or more ago. For a variety of reasons (and I put a lot of this on the traditional lit folks), PW/Rhet/Writing Studies programs have either split off of English departments, developed parallel to them, or been merged with Communications or another field. Those are all growing fields at the undergraduate and graduate level, in part because they prepare students for jobs that actually exist outside the classroom.

 

I did my BA in an English department, and was constantly an afterthought as part of the PW track. My degree required 12 credits of lit, I had to do a literary analysis as part of my capstone, and most of the funding and outside activities were based on literature or creative writing (we had a cw clubs, STD, and a reading group, but no RSA chapter or the like).

[rococo_realism]

This is one of the things that really bothered me about this article when I read it this weekend. Yes, English majors have gone down, but that doesn't mean that fewer students are studying what would have been called an English degree a decade or more ago. For a variety of reasons (and I put a lot of this on the traditional lit folks), PW/Rhet/Writing Studies programs have either split off of English departments, developed parallel to them, or been merged with Communications or another field. Those are all growing fields at the undergraduate and graduate level, in part because they prepare students for jobs that actually exist outside the classroom.

 

I did my BA in an English department, and was constantly an afterthought as part of the PW track. My degree required 12 credits of lit, I had to do a literary analysis as part of my capstone, and most of the funding and outside activities were based on literature or creative writing (we had a cw clubs, STD, and a reading group, but no RSA chapter or the like).

 

Sorry for the rant and it's not directed at anyone in particular here. I just really, really think people need to think more about the end result of their degree, not less. 

 

 

Yeah, I mean, we've discussed elsewhere about the socioeconomic academic "bubble."  Honestly, I think these attitudes that are present in, presumably many, English departments could be a big turn-off for a lot of people.  It was for me -- but I stuck with my major because I had started it, wanted to graduate in four years, and really do love literature despite the fact that I was often dissatisfied with the atmosphere of my department.  With my current situation, I'm glad to be lucky enough that I don't have to be supporting a family right now (thus I've decided to take the time to try for a PhD), but I certainly came from circumstances where me going off to get a B.A. off a scholarship was perceived as 1.) a privilege and 2.) an avenue towards a career where I'd be making more money than my other option when I was graduating high school (being a maintenance person at a hotel).  That English departments like mine don't make an effort to appeal to folks who want practical skills and experience is, in my opinion, a real shame -- because there are really useful things they could be teaching that could prepare students for very real, legitimate careers straight out of undergrad.  Technical writing, for example, is one of the biggest growing job markets around!  And pretty much every non-profit needs at least one grant writer!  Just two examples.  There are graduate certifications and Masters programs for these sorts of things, but these are also the types of jobs that, if an English department were to accommodate, people could get good jobs right out of undergrad without, I think, sacrificing a more traditional course load of literary study.

 

You two are so right on.

 

It wasn't until I was about 4/5 through university that I realized that, while I do enjoy literary analysis, I was intrigued by different types of writing: professional writing and rhet/comp. I realized that there are many sub-disciplines filed under the rubric of English, and I started (and still am) exploring those areas. As you say, mollifiedmolloy, technical writing is growing,and I think that many English majors would not only be good at it, but they'd quite enjoy it, as well.

 

I find that many English departments have a very old-fashioned, "art for art's sake" mentality that is not only a little pernicious in today's academic climate, but also rigid. On her blog, an old professor of mine penned an essay about how our department resembled the one that one of her colleagues experienced...in the '60s! She also remarked that writing, which is one of the most practical, employable skills, is where it's at. Sure, there's literary criticism/analysis, but she was talking about professional/expository/creative writing. (She is a creative writing professor.) She meant that, for departments to grow, they need to change with the times. Students are just not taken by simply writing what many see as glorified book reports; they want to create and/or "sell" their writing to prospective employers. (She also remarked that our department has a disproportionately large amount of professors who teach literature, but that's something else again.)

 

Bottom line: English departments need to be poised to change with the times. Reading canonical works is great and all, and should be a part of the curriculum, but let's grow, shall we?

 

I hope that this makes any sense! (Just finished working two jobs...)

[__________________________]

 

That was a very interesting article and I agree with what everyone here has been saying about the importance of flexibility in thinking about your post degree options. When I was talking to the director of composition during my MA program about grad school options, she definitely mentioned needing to be more interdisciplinary within even the program of study itself--so flexible during the program, flexible outside of it as well. But I'm thinking this breakdown of the "traditional" english major is related to the greater interdisciplinary reach within many universities and that also seemed to be what my DOC was talking about during that conversation as well. I'm not saying this would help with the post-phd job search, but it might open up some different avenues outside of english departments in the university. (Not sure I added anything there haha) 

 

Anyway, I don't want to derail the discussion about class and the english major (and feel free to ignore my response!), but did anyone else get kind of sad when reading the section about "zombie courses" in that article? 

 

 

One of my main research interests is popular culture, so these courses seem perfectly fine to me. I'm also slightly surprised to see an article that makes such stark distinctions between high and low culture like this, but I'm not sure about the author's background, so... I am wondering if anyone else feels similarly or do most people here see these courses as pandering to undergraduates? 

 

I could say more on this, but it's still early in the morning for me and I need more coffee 

 

 

I was getting ready to respond to bhr's post about rhet/comp and saw this too and wanted to affirm that I did notice this too.  While I agree that distinctions between "high" and "low" literatures are usually BS (I'm trying to be a medievalist, half the shit I read is pulp fiction, just written like 700 or more years ago), I also saw the point they were trying to make.  What I saw in my program was these "zombie" courses getting offered as remedial writing classes for students coming into college not being able to put a sentence together.  Which is fine.  Yeah, cool.  But I agree that there should be upper-level courses for those things too, of course.  Science Fiction Studies, for example, is like, an actual academic field (and journal). 

 

To address PW and Rhet/Comp and bhr's wonderful post, I saw the Rhetoric major at my college get completely shut down because no one knew what it really was about and it was perceived as "Lit Studies lite."  Which was the department's own damned fault if you ask me.  I feel like if I had been able to take just one or two professional writing classes as an undergrad, my job prospects out of UG would have doubled or tripled, even as a lit studies person.  Just because I have more "literary" academic aspirations, doesn't mean I don't value easing my job search.  Or fucking getting able to work with rhetorical theory and stuff!  That stuff is legitimately interesting, demanding, and nuanced in its own right!

[__________________________]

You two are so right on.

 

It wasn't until I was about 4/5 through university that I realized that, while I do enjoy literary analysis, I was intrigued by different types of writing: professional writing and rhet/comp. I realized that there are many sub-disciplines filed under the rubric of English, and I started (and still am) exploring those areas. As you say, mollifiedmolloy, technical writing is growing,and I think that many English majors would not only be good at it, but they'd quite enjoy it, as well.

 

I find that many English departments have a very old-fashioned, "art for art's sake" mentality that is not only a little pernicious in today's academic climate, but also rigid. On her blog, an old professor of mine penned an essay about how our department resembled the one that one of her colleagues experienced...in the '60s! She also remarked that writing, which is one of the most practical, employable skills, is where it's at. Sure, there's literary criticism/analysis, but she was talking about professional/expository/creative writing. (She is a creative writing professor.) She meant that, for departments to grow, they need to change with the times. Students are just not taken by simply writing what many see as glorified book reports; they want to create and/or "sell" their writing to prospective employers. (She also remarked that our department has a disproportionately large amount of professors who teach literature, but that's something else again.)

 

Bottom line: English departments need to be poised to change with the times. Reading canonical works is great and all, and should be a part of the curriculum, but let's grow, shall we?

 

I hope that this makes any sense! (Just finished working two jobs...)

Didn't see this when I posted, but yeah!  Right on, man!  Totally going to bring up this idea when I go in to try and teach 18 year olds how to write sentences and paragraphs tomorrow!  These are intrinsically useful things that also happen to be beautiful, fun, and powerful. 

[rococo_realism]

Didn't see this when I posted, but yeah!  Right on, man!  Totally going to bring up this idea when I go in to try and teach 18 year olds how to write sentences and paragraphs tomorrow!  These are intrinsically useful things that also happen to be beautiful, fun, and powerful. 

You're teasing me?