Why you shouldn't major in English?

College Majors
1

<p>I myself am planning on majoring in english, but I read this article and I was wondering what current or graduated english majors thought:</p>

<p>Advice to College Students: Don't Major in English
by Phyllis Schlafly </p>

<p>10/01/2007 </p>

<p>The bad news is that Shakespeare has disappeared from required courses in English departments at more than three-fourths of the top 25 U.S. universities, but the good news is that only 1.6 percent of America's 19 million undergraduates major in English, according to Department of Education figures.</p>

<p>When I visit college campuses, students for years have been telling me that the English departments are the most radicalized of all departments, more so than sociology, psychology, anthropology, or even women's studies.</p>

<p>That's why it was no surprise that Cho Seung-Hui, the murderer of 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech, was an English major.</p>

<p>In the decades before "progressive" education became the vogue, English majors were required to study Shakespeare, the pre-eminent author of English literature. The premise was that students should be introduced to the best that has been thought and said. </p>

<p>What happened? To borrow words from Hamlet: "Though this be madness, yet there is method in it." Universities deliberately replaced courses in the great authors of English literature with what professors openly call "fresh concerns," "under-represented cultures," and "ethnic or non-Western literature."</p>

<p>When the classics are assigned, they are victims of the academic fad called deconstructionism. That means: pay no mind to what the author wrote or meant; deconstruct him and construct your own interpretation, as in a Vanderbilt University course called "Shakespearean Sexuality," or "Chaucer: Gender and Genre" at Hamilton College.</p>

<p>The facts about what universities are teaching English majors were exposed this year by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. English majors are offered a potpourri of worthless courses.</p>

<p>Some English department courses are really sociology or politics. </p>

<p>Examples are "Gender and Sociopolitical Activism in 20th Century Feminist Utopias" at Macalester College; "Of Nags, *****es and Shrews: Women and Animals in Western Literature" at Dartmouth College; and "African and Diasporic Ecological Literature" at Bates College.</p>

<p>Many undergraduate courses focus on extremely specialized subjects of interest only to the professor who is trying to "publish or perish," but of virtually no value to students. Examples are: "Beast Culture: Animals, Identity, and Western Literature" at the University of Pennsylvania; and "Food and Literature" at Swarthmore College.</p>

<p>Some English departments offer courses in pop culture. Examples are: "It's Only Rock and Roll" at the University of California San Diego; "Animals, Cannibals, Vegetables" at Emory University; "Cool Theory" at Duke University; and "The Cult of Celebrity: Icons in Performance, Garbo to Madonna" at the University of Pennsylvania.</p>

<p>Of course, English professors now love to teach about sex. Examples are: "Shakesqueer" at American University; "Queer Studies" at Bates College; "Promiscuity and the Novel" at Columbia University; and "Sexing the Past" at Georgetown University.</p>

<p>Some English-department courses really belong in a weirdo department. Examples are: "Creepy Kids in Fiction and Film" at Duke University, which focuses on "weirdoes, creeps, freaks, and geeks of the truly evil variety"; "Bodies of the Middle Ages: Embodiment, Incarnation, Practice" at Cornell University; "The Conceptual Black Body in Twentieth-Century and Contemporary Visual Culture" at Mount Holyoke College; and "Folklore and the Body" at Oberlin College.</p>

<p>Replacing the classics with authors of children's literature is now common. Assigned readings for college students include Dr. Seuss, J.K. Rowling, The Wizard of Oz, and Snow White.</p>

<p>Twenty years ago, University of Chicago Professor Allan Bloom achieved best-seller lists and fame with his book "The Closing of the American Mind." He dated the change in academic curricula from the 1960s when universities began to abandon the classic works of literature and instead adopt multicultural readings written by untalented, unimportant women and minorities.</p>

<p>Bloom's book showed how the Western canon of what educated Americans should know - from Socrates to Shakespeare - was replaced with relativism and the goals of opposing racism, sexism and elitism. Current works promoting multiculturalism written by women and minorities replaced the classics of Western civilization written by the DWEMs, Dead White European Males.</p>

<p>Left-wing academics, often called tenured radicals, eagerly spread the message, and students at Stanford in 1988 chanted "Hey hey, ho ho, Western civ has got to go." The classicists were cowed into silence, and it's now clear that the multiculturalists won the canon wars.</p>

<p>Shakespeare, Chaucer and Milton have been replaced by living authors who toe the line of multicultural political correctness, i.e., view everything through the lens of race, gender and class based on the assumption that America is a discriminatory and unjust racist and patriarchal society. The only good news is that students seldom read books any more and use Cliffs Notes for books they might be assigned.</p>

<p>The American Council of Trustees and Alumni says "a degree in English without Shakespeare is like an M.D. without a course in anatomy. It is tantamount to fraud." </p>

<p>College students: Don't waste your scarce college dollars on a major in English.</p>

<p>.....</p>

<p>what do you guys think?</p>

2

<p>I only read about three paragraphs. This person could benefit from a critical thinking class. Their arguments are ridiculous.</p>

<p>I actually agree people should think twice before choosing an English major. Most English majors I know plan to teach English. If they did some research they would find out that there is a massive surplus of English teachers, which means difficulty finding jobs and low wages. The media is constantly pushing this line that teachers are in high demand, which is true in some disciplines and regions, but not in most.</p>

<p>So, I agree to an extent, don't major in English. Or, at least, don't major in English because you think you can become a teacher and be in high demand. But, nothing I see in this article is based on anything real, only anti-intellectualism and prejudice.</p>

3

<p>At my school, a shakespear class is required for all english majors. I like the fact that new writing is getting looked at though, makes for a more interesting class in my opinion.</p>

4

<p>If this is the same Phyllis Schafley as the anti-gay Florida orange juice spokesperson from the 60's and 70's, then I'd advise you to read what she says and do the opposite. Then go see the movie, "Milk."</p>

5

<p>Yeah this is ridiculous. The VT murderer was an English major, so don't major in it! English profs love to teach about sex! I mean, come on. The whole article is complete nonsense.</p>

6

<p>
[quote]
If this is the same Phyllis Schafley as the anti-gay Florida orange juice spokesperson from the 60's and 70's, then I'd advise you to read what she says and do the opposite. Then go see the movie, "Milk."

[/quote]

that was Anita Bryant, but close. Phyllis Schlafly is equally despicable in my opinion, but she was more outspoken as an anti-feminist.</p>

7

<p>Jarsilver--Youre right! I got my villains confused. Schafley was more articluate, smarter, but just as hateful. The Ann Coulter of her day.</p>

8

<p>The Western canon is as it is today because of centuries of White European Male dominance. If we keep teaching a curriculum confined to this canon, the elitist tradition will just go on.</p>

<p>"multicultural readings written by untalented, unimportant women and minorities."</p>

<p>Firstly, I don't believe the majority of English professors would choose to read untalented authors. These works are deemed untalented by Phyllis Schlafly only because they do not share the high status that DWEM authors do. Secondly, these women and minorities are probably unimportant only because elitists like Phyllis Schlafly write crazy articles like this when a new kind of literature tries to breach the canon.</p>

9

<p>It is important to become disenthralled by the merely contemporary. Hence it is very important to read out of one's country and time. We will all live in this century, in these decades, hence reading the Dead White Males, so to speak, is one way of placing ourselves in a different century, in a different country or culture. In theory one could read Sima Quan and then on to the Chinese philosophers or Indian etc etc. But there is only so much time, we live in this culture, one whose founding authors are Homer, the Bible, Shakespeare, etc. We know English, these authors are accessible in wonderful translations, and more than Egyptian, Chinese or Indian classic writings, the Greek and Latin writings have been well preserved. One can get the Loeb classics for example.</p>

<p>Shakespeare contributed nearly half the words to the English of his day. Every device known to literature is used by him with great effect. As Bloom so elegantly puts it, he invented the human, what it means to be human. V.S. Naipaul, to use a contemporary West Indian writer, in order to emphasize the minority, exiled voice, does not hold a candle. It is extraordinarily difficult to write an epic which is why there are so few. To read Milton is to immerse oneself in the sheer beauty of the universe and creation itself. Those of you who read a contemporary writer, a female or minority don't have any idea what you are missing. In fact, you forget that Milton and Shakespeare created the language and the possibility that is used by contemporary writers. </p>

<p>We all read against the clock. Time will take its toll on us. We have to yield. The books that have stood the test of time are more important to read first. Let me put it another way: you are given a choice, you must read a book and that book will shape you, and you can choose Shakespeare or Gore Vidal, whom will you choose? Milton or Paul Theroux?</p>

<p>There will always be some ism in writings, you don't read Shakespeare to dig out his racism or sexism, you do so for the majesty of language, for poetry. And finally you read the canon because it will teach you to read well the contemporary writers you want to read so badly, it will teach us detached irony. Try Thucydides, and no contemporary historian will sound the same. If you read St .Augustine, then Chaucer, then Dante, you will discern the eternal predicament of man in all the centuries. Sorry for this defense of the DWM from a former colonial.</p>

10

<p>Good to see you around again!! ^ I thoroughly enjoyed the above post, and think it's a great point.</p>

<p>I am somewhat astonished that people are so quick to bash this article. I don't believe that all English courses are "infected" by sociology or politics, as in</p>

<p>
[quote]
English majors are offered a potpourri of worthless courses.</p>

<p>Some English department courses are really sociology or politics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My good English major friend has read many hundreds of pages of middle English, e.g. Chaucer in its original form, and it's up to students to take the right courses at the right departments, perhaps. Maybe not all schools are infected to the same degree. </p>

<p>I wouldn't claim that it's bad to major in English, but the reasons the author says to avoid English seem to be in many senses good ones, if her claims about what's going on in English departments are actually true. I think her concerns may apply less in some places than in others.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
There will always be some ism in writings, you don't read Shakespeare to dig out his racism or sexism, you do so for the majesty of language, for poetry.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I read him for the bawdy jokes. Every high school teacher who teachs Shakespeare and doesn't point out the bawdy jokes and sexual inneundo should be shot. Shakespeare loved that stuff. Shakespeare's audience loved that stuff. He wrote an entire sonnet based on the fact that "will" was both his name and a slang term for the genitalia (both female and male) in his day. And bragged about his plus-size . . . "will" . . . as he asked a lady to "hide my will in thine." Oh Shakespeare, you cad!</p>

<p>Class and gender (and occasionally race) were all themes in Shakespeare's work, so I'm not sure why it would be so shocking to look at his plays and find them there. I mean, what does this lady think? That he just threw random words on the page without any thematic elements and they just happened to arrange themselves into a play? Or does she think that class and gender were magically non-issues in Shakespeare's day? No, no they weren't.</p>

<p>
[quote]

[quote]
Some English department courses are really sociology or politics.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>My good English major friend has read many hundreds of pages of middle English, e.g. Chaucer in its original form, and it's up to students to take the right courses at the right departments, perhaps.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Again . . . how can you read Chaucer and not see politics? Do you think it's just a giant coincidence that ALL of the many religious pilgrims, except I believe one humble country preacher, were lecherous and/or corrupt? Riding around with golden "loveknot" brooches, having "broad foreheads" (a sign of libido) and eating rich food? It was a political response to his times, when rich monasteries lived it up while ignoring the founding rules of their orders. </p>

<p>Chaucer's language was beautiful, Shakespeare's language was beautiful, but they weren't writing just to spit out pretty words to be placed on a lofty pedestal.</p>

12

<p>Naturally, I agree, well put, Shakespeare, Chaucer, etc were like Machiavelli , responding to the times, the product of the preoccupations of their times and their times had plenty of the intrigue and greed and power and class struggles as ours.</p>

<p>As a psychologist I have always found King Lear a better statement on intergenerational dynamics than some contemporary family therapy drivel.</p>

13

<p>Sure Naturally, I think you could infer my point was that turning English classes into something entirely other than English classes is different from examining aspects of these classics other than just their wonderful language.</p>

14

<p>To steer this back in the original direction… there are tons of English teachers at all levels of the educational sphere, and whether the college you attend takes more of a modern approach to the whole English literature thing or not (a good school will offer both classics and modern aspects, leaving it to the student to pursue the direction of their interest, and if you’re really worried about any of the topics included, there a number of fairly rigorous programs available at religiously affiliated schools that are likely to aid you in avoiding the presented concerns), you should pursue what you like.</p>

<p>If you’re talented with English, pretending to be a Biology major for 4 years isn’t going to satisfy you, ultimately. Just like a Bio major convinced to study English might feel as though they were wasting their time. You have to do what you love.</p>

15

<p>I’m with Jarsilver and Vitrac- I would avoid following Schlafly’s advice on principle. I’m surprised she didn’t add some advice telling girls that the only career they should aspire to is that of raising their children and doting on their husbands.</p>

16

<p>My chemistry major suitemate, I’m not sure if he was joking, said if you’re not a chemistry major you add nothing to the human race (I’m a LAS major). I’ll just shrug it off since he’s failing half of his classes due to “stress and family problems at home” - excuses that I find hard to believe; these past two weeks he’'s been doing more homework than he did when I arrived.</p>

17

<p>Tell your roommate that Chemistry is witchcraft. If he wants to study science, I can recommend a couple of good Jay Leno Physics books for him.</p>

18

<p>the article in the op is utterly ridiculous, as is this ‘argument’. </p>

<p>the line in the beginning of the article about the vtech shooter should immediately discredit the author. i’m an english major, and was a bit shocked when i read that the good news was that “only 1.6 percent […] major in English.” but when i came to the line how it was not surprising the vtech shooter was studied english, i couldn’t believe it. that has to be one of the most unfounded, ignorant, offensive things i’ve ever read in a piece of journalism.</p>

<p>the actual meat of the article is no better. anyone who has ever been part of an english department will know that courses such as ‘food and literature’ are a vast minority. no one majoring in english will, or will be allowed to, take only courses about beast culture and the cult of celebrities. in my experience, these classes are generally taken by students outside of the humanities who need to fulfull a writing requirement; i don’t agree with that approach, but that’s not a valid argument to bash english departments. the courses with a specific subject, such as sexuality in chaucer are upper-level electives.</p>

<p>people major in english, typically, because they love literature. chances are they’ve already made their way through most of shakespeare’s work, as well as pieces of milton and dante before they even begin university. students should most certainly spend a large amount of time studying the classic works of the western canon. but non-english literature and contemporary works should not be ignored. how stale would literature become if all authors kept their attention purely in the western canon?</p>

<p>i have yet to run into a department where the classics were literally being replaced by “multicultural” and contemporary-focused classes. reading a variety of works should be valued.</p>

<p>and what english student is only being taught deconstructionalism? that’s ridiculous. i’ve been taught surverys of most major literary theories, and each one provides valuable insight into the text, even if you don’t agree with the principles of it.</p>

<p>ramaswami, i have to say that your post is almost as bad as the article. “Those of you who read a contemporary writer, a female or minority don’t have any idea what you are missing.” why do people insist on saying this *****<strong><em>? people can only read contemporary authors, or classic authors? i believe it is possible to read both milton and contemporary, minority, or female authors. who the *</em></strong> is discrediting shakespeare by reading contemporary works. have you ever read pynchon? you can’t say that you find “sheer beauty” in any contemporary works. i’m all for studying the classics, and to a great extent, but the thought of you limiting yourself to only that is a bit depressing. </p>

<p>“you don’t read Shakespeare to dig out his racism or sexism, you do so for the majesty of language” seriously? who the **** are you to tell somone how to read shakespeare. how can you advocate shakespeare so heavily when you’re reading only for the majesty of the language. why not look use the lanuage to look a bit deeper?</p>

<p>and attempting to use mortality is not a very valid argument for reading only “dead-white males.” i would be most of the serious people in the world of academia and in creative writing are very well-read, and would argue that there is plenty of time to make it out of the western canon and explore elsewhere.</p>

<p>sorry if this post is a bit chaotic and disorganized. i just could not believe what i was reading. it shouldn’t be one or the other. and works outside of the western canon shouldn’t be discredited just because they’re not in the box set you can purchase from britannica.</p>

19

<p>

</p>

<p>that’s awesome</p>

20

<p>Direct quote from acquaintances:Not only is English bankrupt as an academic discipline, it provides little above personal enrichment to the folks getting the degree. At best it will get you more pay “because you have a degree”. Humanities are library degrees, it trains you in nothing and you just “learn things”.</p>

<p>Then later he goes to say “The point of getting a college degree is education AND, ultimately, a good job as a result. If you truly want to get education, you either 1) don’t need a college degree and read lots of books from the library, or 2) have to be prepared to go all the way to PhD. If you’re ONLY getting a BA in liberal arts, to me it’s just an excuse of getting a college degree as a formality.”</p>

<p>He has a point in the latter part since we ALL want a job that helps us survive after college.</p>