<p>i honestly don't know all that much about ucsc beyond the information on the website. can someone enlighten me on how solid their arts and humanities departments are--specifically, literature and visual arts?</p>
<p>thanks.</p>
<p>Performing and visual arts are outstanding. Literature is as bad as it gets. If you really want to be a Literature major, go someplace else.</p>
<p>I have a daughter at UCSC now who just switched from Literature to Psychology, and a son who graduated in June. My daughter was shocked at my reply when she asked my opinion of her change of major - I told her I'd have been very surprised if she had stuck with Lit given that UCSC's program was so bad. She asked why I hadn't warned her, and I replied that she wouldn't have believed me (she's stubborn) - that only her personal experience would convince her.</p>
<p>My son's comment was that the lower division Lit classes, particularly the introductory one required of all Lit majors, are notoriously bad and that even die-hard Lit majors hate them.</p>
<p>Visual arts is first-rate. Only UCLA is better in that regard, though Irvine and San Diego are comparable to UCSC's program.</p>
<p>Humanities overall suck, save for the arts in general, and the performing/visual arts in particular. UCSC has had the best undergraduate performing arts program of any UC campus for many, many years. Its visual arts program is improving fast, but I expect UCLA will retain its lead due to proximity to Hollywood.</p>
<p>I was interested in applying to UC Santa Cruz for English. I also noticed at the Princeton Review site that one of the most popular majors at UCSC is literature so I assumed that maybe the subject was pretty strong there.</p>
<p>You seem to feel pretty strongly against the English program there. What's so bad about it? What's wrong? The professors? Curriculum? Class size?</p>
<p>Can you elaborate on why your daughter hated it so much?</p>
<p>I don't want to not apply for English just because some person online said it was terrible (no offense to you).</p>
<p>My then sophomore daughter at UCSC dropped out of the Literature major in the winter 2005 quarter after taking the introductory course required for all Lit majors, which she felt was horrible. My son who graduated from UCSC in June says that this opinion was shared by all the Literature majors he knew - none of them liked the introductory course and most of them hated it.</p>
<p>The universal comments were that the introductory Lit course (theory as I recall) is dry, sterile, and so theoretical and jargon-ridden as to maddening - some compared it to a math course. This may simply be that it is designed to weed out non-serious students, but my personal information from past majors is that the UCSC Lit faculty are thoroughly into deconstructionism and other trendy politically correct & post-modern nonsense.</p>
<p>Deconstructionism is a real Lit theory, but has at least been overdone and is under considerable attack even in the Lit academic community - my drama instructor friend says deconstructionism is on the way out among Literature academics.</p>
<p>It is certainly open to ridicule - go to this link for an example:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern%5B/url%5D">http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern</a> </p>
<p>Here are the comments on a random post-modernist deconstructive essay generated by this site, from my drama instructor friend:</p>
<br>
<p>Yow! That site is hilarious, and as a real live pomo academic, I <em>can</em> read that stuff and actually tell what's meaningful and what's not (my own estimate was that about a quarter of my colleagues couldn't, and about half who could lacked the self-confidence to say "This is meaningless.") Wonder how many other sublanguages -- some of finance, some of administration, etc. come to mind -- the same thing could be done for. (I think it's the extreme recursiveness that makes it possible, which is why I suspect those areas would also be vulnerable. Probably some branches of psychology too, and almost certainly some esthetics. Any field that 's turned into "pure discourse", i.e. where there's no longer an objective relation .... or where the ability to use the jargon has become prized above the ability to perceive.) </p>
<br>
<p>My son says that any actual study of literature, by UCSC Lit majors, is pretty much up to the students without help from the faculty. There are a few Lit instructors who actually teach real literature and will help guide self-motivated students teach themselves. Courses not taught by the few non-idiots are at best ticket-punching to graduate, and won't help with grad school applications.</p>
<p>I have to disagree with Tom's assessment of the UCSC literature program and have to add that I think it's unreasonable for someone to pass judgement on a program based on second hand reports of one undergraduate literary theory course. That being said, as a graduate of the UCSC literature program, I have to agree that this particular course is sterile, dry, and overly theoretical as is the upper level required counterpart; however, I find that's the case with most literary theory courses and it's much worse at other universities where deconstuctionist readings are not emphasized. Tom is also right that deconstructionalism is emphasized, although I can't agree with his findings that deconstructionalism is on it's way out among literary academics. How can you study literature without deconstructing it? With deconstructionalism, all texts are open to interpretation. Without it, all you have is the assumption that each text is to be read as if the author's word is his/her intent without regard to subconscious societal, cultural, or linguistic influences. Sorry Tom, your judgement of the program rubbed me the wrong way. </p>
<p>On a more positive note, there is an exceptional stable of literature professors at UCSC. In my own experience, I really enjoyed the vast array of less mainstream courses that UCSC offered such as South African Literature, Science Fiction, Chicano Lit, and Contemporary American Fiction. At the same time, professors like John Jordan and Murray Baumgarten have encyclopedic knowledge and passion for Dickens and Shakespeare and other more mainstream writers. Those mainstream courses are your ticket to grad school and will stick with you forever. The less mainstream courses are what made my UCSC education special and different. Though I felt my education was well rounded, some grad schools will frown on UCSC's tradition of treating contemporary and less mainstream literature in such high regard and I will freely admit that my study in more classical forms of literature was lacking (although you can tailor your coarseload accordingly). If that is a concern, you may want to look elsewhere. Personally, UCSC lit professors fostered in me an appreciation for literary variety that I wouldn't trade for admission to any stuffy grad school.</p>
<p>My information on UCSC's Literature program comes from three UCSC graduates plus my daughter - my son who graduated last June, and two people in my area of whom one graduated about ten years ago and the other about 15 years ago.</p>
<p>Here's a repeat of what I got from my son, who was a Politics major. His Lit major aquaintences said that the faculty is at best mediocre though there are some instructors who both enthusiastic about the subject and capable instructors. They all said the introductory course was horrible, and most felt that deconstructionism was overemphasized. They had low opinions of grad school prospects for UCSC Lit majors.</p>
<p>The two older graduates I know said about the same thing - one had dropped his Lit major while the other finished it and became a high school teacher - he never intended to go to grad school. Both felt strongly that UCSC's Lit program during their time there was rife with trendy and politically correct nonsense.</p>
<p>My information about a nationwide trend in Lit/English programs away from deconstructionism comes from two sources - I read it somewhere, and my drama instructor friend, who says this sort of thing is normal. I have no idea if this is the case in UCSC's Lit program.</p>
<p>What Tom calls trendy and politically correct nonsense I call experimental and progressive and don't see that as a bad thing. There is a political element to the disagreement Tom and I are having and it is a legitimate one if you are considering a Literature major at UCSC. The professors definitely do tend to lean heavily to the left and it may not be your cup of tea if that does not jive with your own political persuasion. I think as long as you are aware of that you can make an educated decision on whether or not the UCSC Lit program is for you. It is different from other universities, especially in it's course offerings, so even though you can tailor your courseload to just traditional canonical literature you won't be making the most out of your UCSC experience. If you'd like to sample a wider variety of literature and hone your critical analysis skills by applying theory to works that are not widely studied, UCSC is an excellent choice.</p>
<p>Deconstructionism is not trendy politically correct nonsense. It's an analytical tool.</p>
<p>The problem with deconstructionism is that it has significant weaknesses, especially when used outside its normal English Lit role, and has been carried to ludicrous extremes both in English Lit. and other fields which make it quite open to ridicule - see <a href="http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern%5B/url%5D">http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern</a> above.</p>
<p>Those who misuse deconstructionism have almost always been trendy politically correct types. THAT was my point.</p>
<p>And, as my drama instructor friend (writer John Barnes) explains, trends are always coming and going. There is now a distinct trend in academia away from deconstructionism, just as there was a trend towards it earlier. Regretably, he says the trend away from deconstructionism is due mostly to it being "passe" aka "yesterday's news". I'd rather the trend away from deconstructionsm was due to it being flaming nonsense outside the fairly narrow uses it was originally developed for.</p>
<p>As for UCSC's Lit. faculty being lefty, most academics are lefty. What counts is whether that affects their ability to teach undergraduates and, more importantly, how well they can teach undergraduates period. With a few exceptions, UCSC's Lit. faculty are allegedly poor to mediocre in teaching undergraduates, and that seems to been the case for some time. There are other UCSC departments like that.</p>
<p>What is more the problem with the Lit. faculty is a lack of professionalism in keeping their personal political and social views out of the classroom. The good ones do. Too many of the rest allegedly don't, to a degree exceptional even by UCSC standards.</p>