Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Rants and Stuff => Topic started by: EUOL on October 24, 2003, 08:16:07 PM
-
So, here's my rant. Why do we have English programs, anyway? I mean, what do they do?
1) Analyze literature
2) Teach people to write
3) Analyze grammar
4) Teach people how to edit.
It just seems like that's too broad. English programs should be eliminated completely, and the following programs should take their place:
1) Comp lit for the literature.
2) Creative writing (as it's own department in the humanities or the arts) for the writers.
3) Linguistics for the language
4) Separate editing programs for the editors.
What would this do? Well, it would clear up a lot of confusion. When you say you have a degree in 'English,' it just doesn't say a lot. People really have no idea what you can do, or what you were trained in. Having these demarcations would help people to understand the purpose of the major.
Also, it would stop wasting everyone's time. Creative writers don't need comp lit classes, yet the bulk of my undergrad credits were really in this field. Creative writers need classes that look at writing, then analyze how the author achieved his purposes. That is completely different from analyzing a text to find its feminist themes, or some other mumbo-jumbo.
Let's call things what they are so that people can study what they need to.
-
The trouble with that idea is that most people don't have a focus--they study English because it's easy (much like a generic Humanities degree). Also, a lot of graduate programs really like the current English degree because it gives a solid background in all areas of the language, and thus serves as a base for further academic study.
-
Couldn't they just have an optional emphasis? For example, with my degree (political science) you could opt to just get the generic degree, or you get a certificate in Public Administration, Public Policy, International Relations, or Practical Politics. I don't see why the English department couldn't try the same thing.
-
Yes, but for getting jobs and even getting into prestigious academic programs, being well rounded isn't good. They want a specific understanding of what you do well.
I actually think there should be a core level of English classes that also includes the GE classes. The core would be the broad range of english skills that don't necessarily relate to the majors, but would be completed in a year or so and would allow the give broad mediocre training with less pain. Then for majors they should have to pick a particular kind of english major that is focused and will give them great skills in one area rather than a bunch of mediocre skills in a lot of areas.
I think EUOL is missing a couple of of Programs:
Technical Writing
English Education (which would be more detailed than english teaching being more than just a english degree with a teaching license.)
English History
I suspect we have so many english programs because it is so crucial to elemetary teaching. Learning to read and right makes up the majority of Elementary teaching. Unfortnately, I think most people grow out of that and don't really need it starting shortly after Junior High. I think literature is kind of a waste of time for the general public. Mostly because I see art history to be about as important, but I know a lot of people who know very little about it and seem to be getting by just fine. It's not the end of the world if someone hasn't read Jane Austin or Hemmingway. They don't offer many job skills and really are just leisure activities.
-
Fell, that "problem" sounds more like a solution.
I hated that so many people took "English" because they had no direction. I agree with Fell. They can actually all (mostly) be in the English dept, but the degrees be those specified above. The exceptions are linguistics and comparative literature, which aren't studying JUST English, but multiple languages.
-
When I was at school you could focus within the English department. You couldn't declare a focus or anything, but if you were studying editing you could take the editing courses. Or the creative writing focus if you wanted that. I myself did the teaching track, and so at least half of the courses I took in the English department were education classes that focused on English, and were taught by professors who specialized in education. I kind of missed taking creative writing or editing, because the requirements for my degree were pretty stringent. So there exists a teaching focus (and separate major) already.
I don't know the extent of the other focii. If it's such a big deal to have a declared focus then declare it. Put it on your resume. Who cares if the university doesn't put it in subtitles on your diploma.
-
My issue is, why should I have to take three university classes (Eng 115 equivalent, Eng 251, and 252) that basically covered what my AP 12th grade English class covered?
I, personally, loved my Eng Lit major. It offered the large spectrum of subjects I wanted to study. I couldn't have done Comp Lit, because my ability to learn another language is small, and having my major depend on my ability to read and understand a piece of literature in another language would have been mortally frustrating. Yes, my major did not lead into a job in my field, but neither (to my knowledge) does Comp Lit, or Communications.
I'm not sure that more specific majors are the answer either. Some of the majors EUOL suggested, like Editing and Creative Writing, wouldn't really benefit from more dedicated classes, imo. Editing and Creative Writing largely break down into practice. Alot of practice. Industry experience (I use EUOL and stacer as my examples) is what got them where they are today. They were willing to put in time at stupid jobs that didn't pay them what they were worth in order to gain experience (in stacer's case) or in order to pay the bills while still giving them time to work on their craft (EUOL's case).
And I don't think that studying English is completely pointles. I have learned how to look at a work of fiction or film more critically which allows me to better appreciate the work of art. That ability to look at a written piece of information critically stands in good stead for law and business students, who will spend the rest of their lives relying on those skills. Not that an English major is the only place to learn those skills, but if you enjoy reading Shakespeare and Poe, then why not learn an important skill while enjoying yourself?
-
I think English is a horrible subject that should be murdered with red hot irons and pointy pieces of chocolate. It stinks.
And the first person to crack a "makes sense for a scotsman to hate english" dies. Via use of a taco.
-
mmm, chocolate
tacos . . .
-
Makes sense for a Scotsman to hate Welsh.
-
Academic Programs that encourage a lots of practice are usually called vocational and tend to be highly desirable to employers.
As for a greater appreciation of the arts? I kind of wonder about the value of that and how that can be taught. My english and art classes have actually caused me to feel less appreciative of the arts. Learning to criticize has kind of taught me to be ungrateful and dissatisfied with art and mostly has robbed the enjopyment for me that I used to have before I started critical analysis of works.
-
I go the opposite route. Having taken classes in aesthetics and criticism allow me to see lots of stuff in art, film, and literature that I never would have before. Without my Grail Literature class I would just think the Joe Versus the Volcano is another goofy movie instead of the goofy soul-searching epic it is. Without my CmLit 310 class I still wouldn't have a single nice thing to say about Thoreau. Etc. Etc.
-
Yeah. I can look at movies like What a Girl Wants . . .
/me waits for laughter to subside
and I appreciate the small things like camera choices and facial expressions. Eileen Atkins's performance in that movie was really amazing, and she has like four actual lines. It's her facial expressions at events in the movie that really build the character.
-
MoD makes some interesting points. I would note, however, that I do think that creative writing could stand some more specialized classes. In particular, I think that lit majors and writing majors should study literature differently. Lit majors want to know why they wrote what they wrote, or perhaps what effect that writing produced. They look for metaphors, symbolism, and deeper meanings. Creative writing majors want to know HOW they wrote what they wrote, what tools they used--and most importantly how to emulate them. I see this as a major difference.
-
Having just done two years of three and four unit advanced English at school, I would say my appreciation has been increased. I now can no longer enjoy a film simply for action or exciting plots. I take far more enjoyment in analysing the cinematography of the piece. I get less excited over the climax of the film than a well used film-noir style light/shadow juxtaposition. And any text needs to discuss deep ideas and make social comment.
Hmm...I can no longer enjoy a non-art movie...does that really count as"increasing appreciation?"
-
It's okay JP, your appreciation for braindead entertainment returns somewhat after you graduate.
And I think you're right EUOL about more specialized classes for creative writing. I remember being very disappointed by the class suggestions for a creative writing emphasis in the English major. 218R and 318R where about it as I remember. I think another thing the CW classes should do is look at modern day, popular fiction. John Grisham, Danelle Steele, James Michner, etc., since the point of being a CW is usually not to write a fantastic piece of literature.
-
I don't think that you can boil writing down to that level, EUOL, at least not without losing something. If I hadn't gone through so many traditional literature classes I wouldn't appreciate what literature can do or say, and I wouldn't have the drive to write stuff of my own. In other words, if all you focus on is how to say something, what you end up saying won't be worth the trouble.
-
I don't think that EUOL means to imply that literary criticism is useless to a writer. After all, some of the most significant literary critics were successful (and now canonized) writers in their own right (T.S. Eliot, just to throw out one name). Just that they don't need as much of it as a CmLit major would.
-
I actually think that's exactly what he was implying. He's often said, on the forum and in person, that a writer looks for completely different things in a text than a literary critic does. But I suppose we won't know for sure until he gets back from WFC and tells us.
I have to admit, though, that some literary study classes aimed at writers would be very helpful.
-
ok, maybe he is implying it. In that case, I'll say that my comments were what I feel to be a more realistic approach to his ideas.
-
I'm not saying that a creative writer shouldn't take lit classes. A creative writer should take a broad range of classes, from the visual arts, to history, to literature. However, I think there should be a division as I've mentioned so that there can be specialized classes to help the writer.
A painting major will study art differently from a humanities major. What more and more schools are realizing is that creative writing is really closer to painting than it is to literary analysis. That isn't to say that lit classes are useless, but tell me this, Fell: What about those lit classes helped you most? Was it understanding feminist criticism of the texts, or was it simply reading the texts themselves?
-
Not that this has any relevance to EUOL's post, but you all are forgetting that there should also be a special section for folklore. It is also a valid area of study which should get more attention (says the one getting her master's in English with a folklore emphasis).
-
I dunno, you'd have to make a better case for me that folklore studies are something other than specialized literary analysis. I'm not saying that there are some very specialized concepts invoved in folklore, but the Medieval Romance brings with it such considerations as well. Even just poetry v. drama v. narrative, and specialized types of poetry, etc.
-
Actually, there are 4 PhD programs in the U.S. in folklore, and many more master's. For the PhD programs, one's in California, one's in Texas, one's in Pennsylvania, and one's in Indiana. I've actually been thinking about going on to one of these programs. Given my interest in children's literature and folk and fairy tales, it might be a good career move, as there are few children's critics with formal folklore training.
But I don't know if you'd want to major in it as an undergrad. I'd think you'd want more of a broad education, and then narrow down as you go to higher degrees. But maybe that's my own personal bias, as my undergrad is in marriage, family, and human development, and my master's will be in children's literature. And to get my MFHD degree--well, not as part of the degree, but along the road--I took classes in animal science, agriculture, biology, family history, editing, art history, and photography. So I feel like I have a pretty broad background academically, none of which involves folklore or even English literature beyond one children's literature survey class.
Wait, no--I did take two writing classes my last semester. Okay, looking back on those two classes and looking at my purely literary masters, I agree with EUOL on the English thing. Writers do need writer's craft classes. I think that's the thinking behind MFA programs in writing, though--you get a background in whatever you want as an undergrad, then do a 1 1/2 to 2 year program that teaches you the craft of writing (and MFA is a terminal degree). My roommate has a degree in technical writing from her undergrad at Weber State, so some schools do offer some specialization.
-
I guess I see a difference between a few degree programs in it and it being a whole section of the department. We're talking about these programs replacing a program in "english." I just don't see it as significantly different from a literature major to make it something other than a specialized focus. <shrug> I suppose I'll be disagreed with though on that point.
-
Understanding the different forms of literary analysis (feminist, marxist, formalist, deconstructionist, etc.) was an enormous benefit to me as a writer, because it taught me what writers do and what readers look for. Some targeted classes that teaches HOW a writer does what he does would certainly be appreciated, but I wouldn't want to lose the first part.
-
I guess one question that should be asked before creating different specializations is, "How much is their to study in that field?"
I'm thinking of programs like engineering. If you didn't have an undergrad in engineering there is almost no way that can study it in graduate school. You would just be completely lost and it would take too much time get caught up.
A lot of humanities subjects and some social sciences are not this way. English is a prime example because of how it has been taught. So far, it doesn't take much to get up to speed with what is going on in the english community if you are a native speaker and have completed college. Is there really so much that needs to be learned in a specialization that is requires being a seperate area of study?
I think what EUOL would like to see is some aspects of English being treated like a fine art discipline. BFA, BM, MFA and MM degress require that you have a certain amount of skill before entering the program like unto a engineering or medical degree. However, there is a very snobbish, club type attittude in fine art degrees. Each fine art program tends to be built on the premise that the instructors are more knowledible than the students. However, the "when you are as experienced as I am you will know." kind of attittude to teaching kind of falls apart when it come under scrutiny. The largest example being that there are many, many people ho have become successful in these fields without the guidance of a experienced instructor. Unfortunately, many fine art programs in the US are have become nothing more than vanity projects. That's not something that you usually find in the hard sciences.
Course, this comes back to something I am painfully realizing. Not all college degrees are worthwhile investments. So how would specialized English programs become worthwile investments and not vanity projects?
-
That is definitely something worth considering: after all, except in academics, the only thing a degree in the Humanities does is show you're capable of completing the degree. No one needs an English major specifically, just a degree holder (yes, it's a generalization, but it's generally true, even if not so under certain specific cases).
-
Course if you want a career in academics, the humanities seems to be the way to go. Humanities academics usually don't require you to have lots of vocational experience like a lot of sciences require.
Otherwise, humanities and a lot of social sciences seem to be rather directionless as to what they intend their students to do with their knowledge.