4 ms·

But your comment already takes for granted that there's no purpose in studying literature other than a career in academia (presumably because education is only

by gruseom 13y ago

But your comment already takes for granted that there's no purpose in studying literature other than a career in academia (presumably because education is only about careers to begin with). I'd say the battle for the things worth caring about here was lost long before that assumption became not-even-worth-bothering-to-make-explicit. And sure, the economics are pathetic and the profession is rife with horseshit. The reason I studied literature for a while was that I wanted to learn what literature could teach me, because I wanted to connect with a noble tradition, and things like that. At the time, if anyone had asked me "what are you going to 'do' with that? what about the economics?" (and I know this, because they did), I would have said that economics aren't everything. Are they? Edit: come to think of it, that battle was probably already lost when people tried to pretend that there was a viable middle-class career path in any of it to begin with. Traditionally, this stuff was produced by the leisure classes, entertainment professionals, and poor bohemians. I'm not sure the marriage with academia turned out to be a very good or a very long-lasting thing. I'm quite sure that tying this cultural tradition to any short-term notion of economic utility is pointless; might as well shoot it in the head.

patio11 13y ago
I have the utmost respect for literary traditions, education as a means of self-improvement, and the intangible values of persuing mastery over a broad field of human experience. And if English degrees had anything to do with that, I'd probably like them, too. That ship has sailed and then was burnt on distant shores, long before I was born. (I don't think there's a whole lot of daylight between the two of us, honestly.)
sliverstorm 13y ago
Traditionally, this stuff was produced by the leisure classes Spot-on, IMO.
mechanical_fish 13y ago
I also want to learn what literature can teach me. So: I read it. It's designed for that. Literary critics can also be very enlightening. But, by a strange coincidence, most of their work is written down, and often collected by libraries and websites. To admire their ideas is just a matter of time and coffee. If I were inclined I could even try to write some literature, and thereby connect with the noble tradition – one which dominates the canon and is far older than university literature programs – of "learning to write by practicing reading, writing, and publishing stuff instead of by jumping through expensive hoops to get a formal degree." It is true that economics aren't everything. But when the fifty thousand dollars in student loans comes due one begins to realize that they are something.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
If getting a degree were the only way to acquire knowledge in humanities or literature then the world would be a sad place indeed. Fortunately that's not the case. It's easy to appreciate literature. Cheap even. And I would argue that colleges actually do more to harm the practice than to help it.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
rsingel 13y ago
My undergrad degree in literature might not have gotten me a high-paying job out of college, but it helped me live a life that I wanted. I had the privilege of doing my final two years of college at a school where grades weren't given out for papers in the English department. You'd write a one-page response paper to a Shakespeare play, where you'd have to make a cogent argument/close reading and in response, you'd get 300 words from the professor engaging with your argument. My classes wandered across Irish literature, non-fiction writing seminars, 18th century literature, modern and post-modern theory, and hyper-text literature. I learned to engage with the classics, learned to hear the poetry in James Joyce's initially inscrutable Ulysses, and was forced to confront the problems of loving Pound's words while abhorring his politics. I learned tech later, as I went. I probably would have made more money studying computer science or cognitive science (which was fascinating mix of technology and theory), but I don't regret at all being a liberal arts major. The world is big, fascinating and hard to think through -- and that's not getting any easier. I owe to my liberal arts education the limited skills I have for finding beauty in a true sentence or the mismatched typography of a local business's sign. That education has driven me to understand why I need to live in the world an open heart, to understand things that I naturally want to dismiss and to forge a life built on an ethically-driven approach to politics, literature and art. I've got lots of arguments about how our education system works - starting way before college. But if the new reality is that college is only good for pushing out technicians and a liberal arts education is only for suckers, then we've just added one more depressing symptom pointing to a diagnosis that there's something deeply awry in our nation's economic system and social priorities.
- chc 13y ago
  > But if the new reality is that college is only good for pushing out technicians and a liberal arts education is only for suckers, then we've just added one more depressing symptom pointing to a diagnosis that there's something deeply awry in our nation's economic system and social priorities. I think the problem is more that people expect to be employable after going to college. If you are independently wealthy and are just going for laughs, sure, the lack of concrete utility in an English degree is not a problem. But I don't think that's the position of most college students. They want all those intangible benefits you discussed (live with an open heart, understand things, etc.), but they also intend to put themselves on the path to a comfortable life, and they don't find out until after graduating with an English degree and a ton of debt that they only get the intangible benefits and are on roughly the same career trajectory as they were before they went to college.

by gruseom 13y ago

patio11 13y ago

I have the utmost respect for literary traditions, education as a means of self-improvement, and the intangible values of persuing mastery over a broad field of human experience. And if English degrees had anything to do with that, I'd probably like them, too. That ship has sailed and then was burnt on distant shores, long before I was born. (I don't think there's a whole lot of daylight between the two of us, honestly.)

sliverstorm 13y ago

Traditionally, this stuff was produced by the leisure classes Spot-on, IMO.

mechanical_fish 13y ago

I also want to learn what literature can teach me. So: I read it. It's designed for that. Literary critics can also be very enlightening. But, by a strange coincidence, most of their work is written down, and often collected by libraries and websites. To admire their ideas is just a matter of time and coffee. If I were inclined I could even try to write some literature, and thereby connect with the noble tradition – one which dominates the canon and is far older than university literature programs – of "learning to write by practicing reading, writing, and publishing stuff instead of by jumping through expensive hoops to get a formal degree." It is true that economics aren't everything. But when the fifty thousand dollars in student loans comes due one begins to realize that they are something.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

If getting a degree were the only way to acquire knowledge in humanities or literature then the world would be a sad place indeed. Fortunately that's not the case. It's easy to appreciate literature. Cheap even. And I would argue that colleges actually do more to harm the practice than to help it.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

rsingel 13y ago

My undergrad degree in literature might not have gotten me a high-paying job out of college, but it helped me live a life that I wanted. I had the privilege of doing my final two years of college at a school where grades weren't given out for papers in the English department. You'd write a one-page response paper to a Shakespeare play, where you'd have to make a cogent argument/close reading and in response, you'd get 300 words from the professor engaging with your argument. My classes wandered across Irish literature, non-fiction writing seminars, 18th century literature, modern and post-modern theory, and hyper-text literature. I learned to engage with the classics, learned to hear the poetry in James Joyce's initially inscrutable Ulysses, and was forced to confront the problems of loving Pound's words while abhorring his politics. I learned tech later, as I went. I probably would have made more money studying computer science or cognitive science (which was fascinating mix of technology and theory), but I don't regret at all being a liberal arts major. The world is big, fascinating and hard to think through -- and that's not getting any easier. I owe to my liberal arts education the limited skills I have for finding beauty in a true sentence or the mismatched typography of a local business's sign. That education has driven me to understand why I need to live in the world an open heart, to understand things that I naturally want to dismiss and to forge a life built on an ethically-driven approach to politics, literature and art. I've got lots of arguments about how our education system works - starting way before college. But if the new reality is that college is only good for pushing out technicians and a liberal arts education is only for suckers, then we've just added one more depressing symptom pointing to a diagnosis that there's something deeply awry in our nation's economic system and social priorities.

chc 13y ago
> But if the new reality is that college is only good for pushing out technicians and a liberal arts education is only for suckers, then we've just added one more depressing symptom pointing to a diagnosis that there's something deeply awry in our nation's economic system and social priorities. I think the problem is more that people expect to be employable after going to college. If you are independently wealthy and are just going for laughs, sure, the lack of concrete utility in an English degree is not a problem. But I don't think that's the position of most college students. They want all those intangible benefits you discussed (live with an open heart, understand things, etc.), but they also intend to put themselves on the path to a comfortable life, and they don't find out until after graduating with an English degree and a ton of debt that they only get the intangible benefits and are on roughly the same career trajectory as they were before they went to college.