Live data from Hacker News

The Decline and Fall of the English Major

nytimes.com

31–40 of 160 posts

Re: The Decline and Fall of the English Major

#32
post #20

I agree. But it's ironic that the author never argues her case with clear writing. She asserts that "clear thinking, clear writing and a lifelong engagement with literature" is extremely extremely valuable. She asserts this as a fundamental "truth." She probably doesn't even realize she needs to explain why because it actually is considered a "truth" among English majors. That's too bad. Obviously it's not considered…

I think the decision to focus on writing was very specific. She is trying to convince people that studying the humanities can/does create a very real skill, an argument that drives a lot of STEM advocates.

Personally, I see the value of humanities as how we (a society) got here and why. I think it's important, but I don't think I will have the opportunity to use this knowledge. I do not know all the author's thoughts, but I would guess that she was writing to what would generate the most appeal, not necessarily her exact thoughts.

Re: The Decline and Fall of the English Major

#33
post #3

It's sad that the classical education is no more, but it's also true that the humanities rotted from within. Because carrying on the traditions of arts and letters was no longer considered valuable, the disciplines rushed to gut themselves in favor of far shallower and dodgier stuff, like political ideologies ("the only things that matter are race, class, and gender") and pseudo-technical gibberish. None of that has…

> It's sad that the classical education is no more, but it's also true that the humanities rotted from within

This really resonated with me. I find the concept of a classical education immensely important. I originally wanted to be a music major before diverting to CS. Even during my CS studies, I took extra liberal coursework to try and "round out" my education: history courses, literature, etc.

I found it troubling that as the liberal arts came into the modern age, I think they became more and more irrelevant to describing and enriching the world: philosophy, once a guide for humanity into the frontiers of law, ethics, science, has become a circus of irrelevant navel gazing; high-music became random and unpleasant fist slamming; literature because trite political regurgitation or stream-of-consciousness vomitus; sculpture and painting turned into talent and effort-free indecipherable and pointless enigmas that all talked about the same inconsequential nonsense; and architecture turned into collisional visages made of unlivable spaces and leaky roofs.

There seems frighteningly little of import, things that have honestly progressed and lifted up the species, that has come out of the humanities in recent decades -- at least as compared to everything post-Renaissance till the Industrial Revolution. There's highlights of course, but oh so much garbage. It's no wonder the general population is more interested in Pop Music than in what should be the modern equivalent of Bach.

There's an interesting experiment that's easy to conduct. Go to a classical art gallery and sit and watch the people, how they react to the art. Then do the same at a modern art gallery. I find that more people resonate and connect with work that's a millenia and a continent removed from them than they do with with the indecipherable "art" that was produced a month ago in the same city.

I remember touring the Vatican museum, which is setup basically as a long and winding path through Western History. There are works there dating back thousands of years and into modernity, many are the finest examples of their type. Being the Vatican there is of course a tremendous amount of devotional art through the ages. If you stop and look around, you see people from all over the planet, young and old, looking around jaws agape at some of the wonders.

Near the end of the tour you end up in a modern gallery. Most of it is devotional art, most of it looks like reassembled garbage and random tossings out of paint can. Nobody, not a person, stops and pays any attention to it. If you stop in these galleries and watch people as they move through it, the only sounds you hear are snickering and sighs as people try to escape the crushing irrelevance of it all.

Somehow high art lost its audience.

I try and visit modern galleries, hoping that something will speak to me the way other classical fine art speaks to me. On occasion I find something interesting or witty, something I can appreciate. But most of the time I end up in very tired "special showings" of 2 steel plates welded together, or an exploration of albedo, black square on black #47 or some similar nonsense.

I guess somebody gets this stuff, I don't, I find most of it vacuous and the work of borderline scam artists and flim-flam "artists". And I think most of the general public also feel that way. Sitting in a modern art installation and watching people as they view the work, there's an inevitable sadness. They've come to be enriched and to grow, to be moved and touched to the bottom of their soul, and instead they're met with the artistic equivalent of insults.

I know that there's a number of historical reasons for this, largely a reaction to the World Wars and a desire to detach from the normal vernacular of power that often gave voice to art. And I'm starting to see some new art in the last decade or so that's really interesting. But I can't help but feel that the pendulum swung too far and too fast away from relevancy for too long and we've lost generations of would be art supporters. And it'll be generations before our civilization learns a new "language" of expression that can reflect and resonate with people's spirits and capture and enrapture people en masse again.

I leave you with this: It's very hard to see something like this http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/0... (and it really looks like that in person) and then this http://i-cdn.apartmenttherapy.com/uimages/ny/3rdChurchChrist... and not feel like we've lost something in our art.

Re: The Decline and Fall of the English Major

#34
I'm one of those English majors who pops up in interesting places (in this case, software engineering).

After more than a decade in the field, I continue feeling that my degree was excellent preparation for writing code. Allow me some bullet points:

* The typical English major is drilled in taking an impenetrable text and constructing an interpretive narrative (an essay). Much of the major involves writing essay after essay and having it critiqued by professors. The progression of the English major is that typically you go from thinking you're a hotshot writer to understanding that you are a bag of presuppositions and ill considered narratives. With that understanding can come depression or the knowledge that there is never a single interpretation, and that you are looking at one facet of an ineffable infinite. If you are not overcome by dread, this skill comes in handy when it comes to interpreting business requirements.

* A well trained English major is the first to point out that their precious interpretation is probably not correct -- that it is but one of several paradigmatic interpretations, and is, furthermore, culturally situated. Once again, this either brings nihilistic paralysis or a 'skillful means'-type approach where you tend to respect and incorporate other peoples' viewpoints. A piece of programming is ultimately the synthesis of many viewpoints, and the skillful developer must understand that they are channeling the viewpoints of all the project stakeholders when they put pen to paper.

* The close reading of poetry, especially poetry across multiple cultures and viewpoints, is excellent preparation for reading and appreciating other peoples' code--the most lacking skill in the industry today. You adopt the same mindset as a reader of poetry--first and foremost, trying to understand the situation of the author. Secondly, examining and critiquing your own visceral response -- are you irritated because the code is stupid, or is it perhaps written in a way that is consistent with an approach you do not yet understand? Thirdly, understanding that you are reading highly structured text -- what is the discipline behind the programming language you're encountering? How do its keywords and cadences lend themselves towards certain modes of expression and functionality?

* In a more theoretically oriented English degree, there is much focus on language as a construct -- as the lens through which you view the world. This is incredibly true in software development, where the narrative of the code can be so oblique to the narrative on the server (for example, the way in which most modern languages behave implicitly through inheritence, and the way in which structural code can only begin to point at the interaction between threads, processes, and servers).

* As an English major, I understand that I am coming from my own experiences, and I believe that the understandings I mentioned above can be gotten in any field of study. I do feel that my English major was valuable in particular because of the emphasis on the critique of the student's writing. Over the course of several years, my fundamental assumptions about anything and everything were repeatedly and effectively critiqued by my professors.

Re: The Decline and Fall of the English Major

#35
The first paragraph would be improved by the economic reality that dare not speak its name: adjunct. Most people who pursue the PhD in English will fail to join the one profession which actually needs English PhDs (training future English PhDs) and instead, if they want to continue putting to use the last 7+ years of their life dedicated to mastering the reification of privilege and construction of the other as demonstrated by 18th century American advertising, end up as later-day itinerant minstrels. The career has little to recommend it by the standards of Harvard undergrads: poor material conditions ($3,000 for teaching a course, typically no benefits), little impact, no stability, and (perhaps most cutting of all) the social slight of being a second class citizen in academia and constantly forced, in ways large and small, to acknowledge that fact.

English PhDs should come with a disclaimer: "90% of you will be unemployable. Your professor who says that you are special and such a good writer that you deserve to give this a go is lying to you. You are not a particularly good writer. You have just internalized the art of flattering English PhDs, which is unfortunate, because they expect to get that done for free and have more than enough takers. Many people who are as talented as you are unemployed or underemployed, and their only opportunity to appreciate Foucault and Kafka is when they're applying for welfare benefits."

English undergrad is almost worse. Even by the standards of the humanities, which chiefly exist to certify that certain students managed to be mostly literate by senior year of high school, it tries to beat any love of the language out of you. By twist of fate and changing departmental policy, my sister (3 years my junior and a genuinely talented writer) and I ended up in the same "freshman" composition class. I phoned it in and got As and A+s, she slaved away on every essay and squeaked out a B-. She hadn't learned the bemused sneer yet. ("The author believes that the poor would better themselves through honest labor. One imagines an elf in Santa's workshop, quite appropriate since the benevolent employer is a myth but the unwavering sweatshop labor in the service of fulfilling the bourgeoises' consumerist desires is very real." our alma mater in a position which was, frankly, secretarial work, and was told, when she attempted to move into a permanent position, that secretaries at our alma mater should have graduate degrees because it would reflect poorly on the institution if they had just graduated in English.)

Re: The Decline and Fall of the English Major

#36
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow you. To complete a major you take a certain number of courses in a subject. Or are you suggesting that English majors don't learn anything?

If a major is a program of study, then to study a major is to study a program of study. It's possible, of course, but I don't think that's what most majors do. And English ones especially would see the subtle language implications here. (As you can see we're both already abusing the term: majors are also those that enroll in a particular program of study, but I'm quite sure he didn't mean to study them.) It just seem…

Thanks for illuminating the conversation by demonstrating pedantry of the type so often heard from English majors. You've done so to cleverly illustrate part of the reason the major is on its way to irrelevance, no doubt.

Re: The Decline and Fall of the English Major

#37

"What many undergraduates do not know — and what so many of their professors have been unable to tell them — is how valuable the most fundamental gift of the humanities will turn out to be. That gift is clear thinking, clear writing and a lifelong engagement with literature." I seem to have acquired all three of these gifts, and I majored in computer science. Also, if English dies as an academic discipline, it may ve…

I would say that those gifts aren't determined by the content (For you, CS, for others, business or whatever) as they're underlying gifts someone either has naturally and 'easily' or for others still it takes more learning and practice to acquire them. I studied design and now software engineering and I too would say I've acquired these gifts—to an extent—but also not only from university did I learn these but from my parents (We've always had a lot of books and my parents are happy readers) and situational circumstances. :) In that last sentence I was thinking that these things are hopefully taught not only at university but elsewhere and earlier too.

Re: The Decline and Fall of the English Major

#38
The necessity of studying one's own language is the problem. Most of what is read in English should have been read before college begins. And what's left? There is no language to master as there is with a French or Classics major, save some specialty work in old/middle English. The interesting linguistics are covered by that field. Education majors cover the pedagogical aspects just fine. So, the only thing that can be left is remedial reading or inventing new fields of study, and the invented fields aren't rewarding ends or means financially or intellectually.

Re: The Decline and Fall of the English Major

#39
post #33
post #3

It's sad that the classical education is no more, but it's also true that the humanities rotted from within. Because carrying on the traditions of arts and letters was no longer considered valuable, the disciplines rushed to gut themselves in favor of far shallower and dodgier stuff, like political ideologies ("the only things that matter are race, class, and gender") and pseudo-technical gibberish. None of that has…

> It's sad that the classical education is no more, but it's also true that the humanities rotted from within This really resonated with me. I find the concept of a classical education immensely important. I originally wanted to be a music major before diverting to CS. Even during my CS studies, I took extra liberal coursework to try and "round out" my education: history courses, literature, etc. I found it troubling…

I disagree. Tourists in museums are generally bored by the classical/baroque/renaissance art section and entertained by the weird stuff in the contemporary section. If their jaws are agape it's because they are falling asleep, or because they weren't expecting the Mona Lisa to be so small.

Re: The Decline and Fall of the English Major

#40
post #23

I'll say this: more so than any other department or discipline (yes, including computer science), I think a person would benefit most from a few properly taught college English classes. Well-taught classes (and I took enough good and bad English classes to recognize the distinction) are completely irreplaceable by Google or MOOCs. They focus overwhelmingly on the art of discourse: sure, there are papers and exams but…

Well, more than anything it sounds like you had a good teacher. I think the essence of this experience is possible with any material, provided the teacher is good. I mean, your description almost reads like the kind of martial arts training you see in movies. (This is not a bad thing.) But, I'll agree that it's more likely in the humanities, in a small class, with a passionate teacher. The advisor/advisee relationship in grad school seems like a great place for it, in an ideal world.
Post reply on HN