3 ms·

"100-level English classes were about punctuation and grammar" They are--which is, luckily, one of many reasons I placed out of them. "A good professor wants

by Crake 13y ago

"100-level English classes were about punctuation and grammar" They are--which is, luckily, one of many reasons I placed out of them. "A good professor wants to teach you that Frankenstein is an allegory for the Industrial Revolution, or the creation of Man; a great professor knows the conversation that Shelley had with Chaucer and Milton and everyone in between..." Or they could write a book and you could read it for free at the library, or online. Why limit knowledge to people who have $50,000/year to blow on college? Not everyone is rich and upper class. Can only people from well off families become "properly" educated? I've met a lot of educated people from all walks of life, and all levels of education. To me, at least, intelligence and a drive to learn are far greater indicators of someone's likely degree of sophistication than how much their parents spent on their four year vacation to some over priced campus. Well taught classes are a nice idea, but most people will never have access to a good teacher, much less a good classroom environment. I've had good teachers but a ruined class experiment by sufficiently unprepared or even just unintelligent classmates. There's nothing magical about college. You can do just as well with finding informed and (likely more enthused, even) peers at a open access book club, if not the often maligned internet forums dedicated to literature. I've seen too many english and other writing intensive liberal arts majors graduate without knowing the difference between your and you're, its and it's, to really have any respect for the degree. Oddly, my scientist friends have few problems with attention to detail and understanding basic syntax, despite not spending four years on mastering the subject. I suspect this is because they already mastered it in high school, if not earlier, much like myself. If you have to go to college to learn, you're doing it wrong. (And these days--also very expensively.)

jmduke 13y ago
Or they could write a book and you could read it for free at the library, or online. Because, as I said in my original comment, the value of good English courses lies less in the dissemination of information and more in the underlying discourse. To borrow a weak metaphor: reading a lot of criticisms and interpretations is like having someone lift the barbell while you're on the bench. Sure, you might tax your arms a little bit but you're not actually working out. Why limit knowledge to people who have $50,000/year to blow on college? Not everyone is rich and upper class. Can only people from well off families become "properly" educated? ... To me, at least, intelligence and a drive to learn are far greater indicators of someone's likely degree of sophistication than how much their parents spent on their four year vacation to some over priced campus. This is completely irrelevant to the point I made, and it appears you're just trying to rail against the college system as a whole. Which is cool, I guess. I've seen too many english and other writing intensive liberal arts majors graduate without knowing the difference between your and you're, its and it's, to really have any respect for the degree. Oddly, my scientist friends have few problems with attention to detail and understanding basic syntax, despite not spending four years on mastering the subject. I suspect this is because they already mastered it in high school, if not earlier, much like myself. I don't want to disparage your anecdotal evidence, but I -- and imagine many, many others -- have had the exact opposite experience. The average literacy and communication ability of a STEM graduate is far below that of a humanities grad. Also, the implication of this passage is that anyone who goes into a liberal arts major is less intelligent than anyone who goes into a science. I'd like you to qualify that because it sounds condescending as hell.

by Crake 13y ago

jmduke 13y ago

Or they could write a book and you could read it for free at the library, or online. Because, as I said in my original comment, the value of good English courses lies less in the dissemination of information and more in the underlying discourse. To borrow a weak metaphor: reading a lot of criticisms and interpretations is like having someone lift the barbell while you're on the bench. Sure, you might tax your arms a little bit but you're not actually working out. Why limit knowledge to people who have $50,000/year to blow on college? Not everyone is rich and upper class. Can only people from well off families become "properly" educated? ... To me, at least, intelligence and a drive to learn are far greater indicators of someone's likely degree of sophistication than how much their parents spent on their four year vacation to some over priced campus. This is completely irrelevant to the point I made, and it appears you're just trying to rail against the college system as a whole. Which is cool, I guess. I've seen too many english and other writing intensive liberal arts majors graduate without knowing the difference between your and you're, its and it's, to really have any respect for the degree. Oddly, my scientist friends have few problems with attention to detail and understanding basic syntax, despite not spending four years on mastering the subject. I suspect this is because they already mastered it in high school, if not earlier, much like myself. I don't want to disparage your anecdotal evidence, but I -- and imagine many, many others -- have had the exact opposite experience. The average literacy and communication ability of a STEM graduate is far below that of a humanities grad. Also, the implication of this passage is that anyone who goes into a liberal arts major is less intelligent than anyone who goes into a science. I'd like you to qualify that because it sounds condescending as hell.