The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Where Did All the English Majors Go?
A NewYorker essay on why no one studies English anymore.
One of the latest articles about higher education in The New Yorker is "The End of the English Major," by Nathan Heller. It analyzes the precipitous decline in college students who choose to major in English, as well as the broader decline in enrollment in the humanities.
The crisis, when it came, arrived so quickly that its scale was hard to recognize at first. From 2012 to the start of the pandemic, the number of English majors on campus at Arizona State University fell from nine hundred and fifty-three to five hundred and seventy-eight. Records indicate that the number of graduated language and literature majors decreased by roughly half, as did the number of history majors. Women's studies lost eighty per cent. . . .
. . . the decline at A.S.U. is not anomalous. According to Robert Townsend, the co-director of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences' Humanities Indicators project, which collects data uniformly but not always identically to internal enrollment figures, from 2012 to 2020 the number of graduated humanities majors at Ohio State's main campus fell by forty-six per cent. Tufts lost nearly fifty per cent of its humanities majors, and Boston University lost forty-two. Notre Dame ended up with half as many as it started with, while SUNY Albany lost almost three-quarters. Vassar and Bates—standard-bearing liberal-arts colleges—saw their numbers of humanities majors fall by nearly half. In 2018, the University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point briefly considered eliminating thirteen majors, including English, history, and philosophy, for want of pupils.
During the past decade, the study of English and history at the collegiate level has fallen by a full third. Humanities enrollment in the United States has declined over all by seventeen per cent, Townsend found. What's going on?
No doubt there are a range of variables that have influenced these trends, including incrasing demand for majors that lead directly to careers. But it is also possible that trends within the humanities themselves, and English in particular, bear some of the blame.
[Some] suggest that the humanities' loss of cultural capital has been hastened by the path of humanities scholarship itself. One theory is that the critical practices have become too specialized. Once, in college, you might have studied "Mansfield Park" by looking closely at its form, references, style, and special marks of authorial genius—the way Vladimir Nabokov famously taught the novel, and an intensification of the way a reader on the subway experiences the book. Now you might write a paper about how the text enacts a tension by both constructing and subtly undermining the imperial patriarchy through its descriptions of landscape. What does this have to do with how most humans read? Rita Felski, whose book "Uses of Literature" is studied in Adams's A.S.U. class, has argued that the professional practice of scholarship has become self-defeatingly disdainful of moving literary encounters. "In retrospect, much of the grand theory of the last three decades now looks like the last gasp of an Enlightenment tradition of rois philosophes persuaded that the realm of speculative thought would absolve them of the shameful ordinariness of a messy, mundane, error-prone existence," she wrote. "Contemporary critics pride themselves on their power to disenchant." The disenchantment, at least, has reached students.
Intrestingly enough, the decline in enrollments has not been uniform. There are some redoubts where students still flock to such courses.
Bring back the awe, some say, and students will follow. "In my department, the author is very much alive!" Robert Faggen, a Robert Frost scholar and a longtime literature professor at Claremont McKenna, told me, to account for the still healthy enrollment he sees there. (There are institutional outliers to the recent trend of enrollment decline; the most prominent is U.C. Berkeley.) "We are very concerned with the beauty of things, with aesthetics, and ultimately with judgment about the value of works of art. I think there is a hunger among students for the thrill that comes from truth and beauty."
Perhaps therein lies a lesson.
English is not the only humanities subject for which there appears to be flagging interest -- and it is not the only humanities subject that has discarded the subjects and inquiries that once fueled great interest in favor of modish theoretical inquiries or endless forms of oppression studies. Perhaps there is a connection. Perhaps declining enrollments are a market response to the gradual abandonment of the core of a great liberal education. Whether they articulate it or not, perhaps students have concluded that if they are not going to get a real education, at least they should be able to get a job.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Unlike some of my colleagues I do not believe the humanities and fine arts to be inherently worthless. But they have been utterly destroyed by postmodern leftism.
A society where the arts and humanities had remained a serious discipline instead of the piss soaked crosses and 3 inch tomes on gay eskimo intersectionality that we ended up with would have been quite a sight to behold.
What has wrecked America's conservative-controlled campuses?
(I doubt postmodern leftism is to blame for that trainwreck.)
Oh dear!
ATTORNEY DISCIPLINE
D-3098 IN THE MATTER OF DISBARMENT OF DAVID JAY BERNSTEIN
David Jay Bernstein, of Coconut Creek, Florida, having been
suspended from the practice of law in this Court by order of
December 12, 2022; and a rule having been issued and served upon
him requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred;
and a response having been filed;
It is ordered that David Jay Bernstein is disbarred from the
practice of law in this Court.
There are many problems involving crappy conservative schools, but that guy does not seem to be among them.
Don't keep us in suspense any longer -- why are we supposed to care about some rando attorney in Florida being disbarred?
I think it was a joke about Prof. Bernstein.
"Eskimo" is considered a slur now, for some reason.
Not by Agnes Hailstone, and she should know.
"Eskimo" has always been, if not a slur, an insult. Like "Apache" and "Finn" (in Scandinavia, not Ireland), it roughly translates to "those people over there that we don't like and are nothing like us, can't you tell the difference?"
... and woke offense-mongering has always been nonsense.
https://uaf.edu/anlc/research-and-resources/resources/resources/inuit_or_eskimo.php
Has that diminished the Volokh Conspiracy's audience?
I thought progressives believed in Darwin. Adapt or die....
The university’s tenure-track English faculty is seventy-one strong—including eleven Shakespeare scholars, most of them of color.
How does being a POC help someone be a better Shakespeare scholar? And why hire 11 of them? Aren't there more than 71 writers in the English pantheon of greats?
How does being a POC help someone be a better Shakespeare scholar?
How does it make them a worse one?
Being a POC shouldn't matter either way. But if you "emphasize" it as important, then you've got to wonder.
Perhaps you ought to ask whoever was quoted, who apparently thought it significant.
Three of you homed in on the detail like hungry dogs looking for easy prey.
The point is it's a bit of an historical outlier and a welcome new development.
I agree with the general criticism made by Adler.
I do recall that during my time in college not only were there plenty of English majors, the classes were fairly popular electives. You read some stuff, discussed it in class, wrote some papers, etc. Pretty straightforward. No heavy "theory." Talking to those who were undergrads more recently, Adler’s comments seem accurate.
I wonder about one thing though. English, along with Political Science and History, used to be popular majors among those planning to attend law school. Has that changed? Or are there relatively fewer such students?
Everybody knows that the best undergrad major to prepare you for law school is Fashion Studies.
As a double major in English and History (1980) who promptly went on to law school, I have the same general question. Maybe fewer people are going on to law school. Maybe people who might go to law school are now less interested in learning how to write well.
I believe that law school enrollment has declined.
When I was a law professor, my best students had been math majors. They could say A is greater than B, B is greater than C, so A is greater than C. The PoliSci majors would take 20 pages to make the same point.
I gather there's been some progress, in that current PoliSci majors can decide such a logical proposition much more quickly. It's just that they hold that A, as a white supremacist, is oppressing both B and C. And also lecture you that since A could identify as C, or even c, the question is meaningless.
This is all harmless fuckery until it infects architecture, airplane piloting, surgery, etc., etc.
Top student in my law school class was a writing major. Runner-up was a French major. Can’t remember a math major on law review.
because there wasn't one at https://www.cooley.edu/
Frank
Or perhaps they suspect that English majors today won't teach them how to write well anymore.
https://themacweekly.com/80910/opinion/open-letter-unlearning-white-supremacy-in-writing/
Fucking priceless...
Thank you, that piece of sour grapes-ism deserves much more publicity. I translate it as "I'm too stupid to learn proper English, therefore doing so or expecting it is racism."
Archived: https://archive.is/SQvY0
My experience is the same bernsrd. I think Alder's OP is pretty accurate.
I'm speculating, but it's been common for the past couple-few decades to advise potential law students to start with a practical STEM degree. That opens the door to specialties like patent law and offers a viable fallback career.
Seems a bit like art. Modern Art, though it had one or two talented exponents, developed rapidly into a marketing scam to sell crap to the nouveau riche (which Picasso was at least honest enough to admit - though he was never honest about anything else.) And then developed further into a shibboleth to lord it socially over the hoi polloi, who were crude enough to mention that it's all crap.
Trouble is when you've gone so deliberately abstruse as to make your product unfathomable and so uninteresting, you kinda wreck your market. Hence the need for all those subsidies, either from the government or from wealthy widows who are willing to pay millions to have their egos given a good tonguing.
It all turns into the Emperor's New Clothes in the end.
I’m not a big visual art person myself, and I do like what I hang on my wall beyond the personal to have an easy immediacy.
But the idea that accessibility is a universal requirement for artistic merit seems pretty narrowing.
Sure, but when you make your product deliberately inaccessible, and sneer at anything accessible, then it's not surprising if your audience shrinks to a small group of rubes-with-cash, who do not understand your point, even if you have one.
This - it appears - is insufficient to support the current "artistic intelligensia" without regular sucks at the public teat, or rich old men seeking immortality. The current trend for post-death cancellation is hardly going to help that dollar flow into "art."
As it happens, of course, art before modernism, though it was accessible, was hardly bereft of intellectual content. It was just that to make your point, whether religious, historical or jocular, there was a technical qualifying standard. You had first to convince your patron that you knew what you were doing with a paintbrush or a chisel.
Intentional inaccessibility is fine, and I think also hard to determine the intent behind inspiration.
I’m also not sure I agree with your opinion of art consumers. Not my world, but that’s why I can’t call them rubes - Im not in the game.
Sneer? That’s a different issue. Art has been a pursuit of the elite since forever. It’s a luxury in a lot of ways. Just like science.
Sneering at modern art like you are doing has also been a pastime of a different set of elites for ages. It’s not for me. That doesn’t mean I think it’s for nobody and anyone who thinks it’s for them is a fool.
"Intentional inaccessibility is fine"
Sure, in the sense that if somebody sets out to be intentionally inaccessible on their own dime, privately, it's no skin off anybody's nose. Intentional inaccessibility on the public's dime and in the public's face? At best a waste of resources on something designed to not benefit the public.
It's still art; it still has the same function, whether you and I are into it or not.
You know who was into 'Art must be for the People?' The USSR.
Yeah, and Hitler liked puppies. Your point? What are the odds the USSR could get EVERYTHING wrong?
Art doesn't have to be for the people, unless it's paid for by the people, in which case it damned well ought to be, or you're ripping the people off.
This isn’t some weak guilt by association – this is the fact that your philosophy of art - that all art the government supports must serve the people writ large - is deeply collectivist.
The collectivism is baked into "the government supports". The bottom line is that there is no excuse for the government to support ANYTHING, whatsoever, save to serve the people writ large, because everything it does it does at the expense of the people writ large. And the only excuse the government has for extracting those resources from the people IS that it's for their benefit!
If it doesn't serve the people writ large, that doesn't mean it can't be done. But it sure as hell shouldn't be done by the government.
Then stop pretending you're objecting for aesthetic reasons.
I can do both. In fact, the reason this support isn't for the public's benefit is that, thanks to to the lack of actual artistic merit, the public doesn't enjoy this crap.
This is absolutely incorrect, for a number of reasons.
1) Government policy is not a purely utilitarian prospect. Plenty of things are done not because of some quantifiable benefit, but because that's what civilizations do.
2) Even on the utility scale, not all government programs are for the general public. I might say most. Demanding that this one area must have as a criterion broad accessibility is singling it out.
3) Art is not some static thing - it is in dialogue with culture. It progresses It's even less linear than basic research is, but if you study art history, hard to argue it's not there. So the acquisition of the current work is only part of the 'value' you should put on it.
It's precisely because of people like you the arts ARE publicly funded, tbh, and thank goodness for that.
I do shudder to think of the cultural flotsam we'd produce forever if Brett was the one in the artistic driver's seat.
But here's the thing - making me the arbiter would do no better! My tastes are extremely basic. My favorite painting is 'The Fighting Temeraire' and my favorite band is Simon and Garfunkel. Modern art exhibitions don't move me nor spark my intellectual interest, and poetry annoys me for not just coming out and explaining itself like prose.
But I have the humility to realize that beyond my own consumption choices, art analysis is not my bag and I shouldn't really do it on behalf of other people.
To paraphrase CS Lewis, “Those who waste our money on shitty art will waste our money without end, for they do so with the approval of their own bad taste.”
“1) Government policy is not a purely utilitarian prospect. Plenty of things are done not because of some quantifiable benefit, but because that’s what civilizations do. ”
Yeah, civilizations do bad things along with the good. Maybe we should try to minimize that, instead of maximizing it?
“2) Even on the utility scale, not all government programs are for the general public. I might say most. Demanding that this one area must have as a criterion broad accessibility is singling it out.”
But they SHOULD BE. Just because the government abuses its position to rip people off, spending their money on things that do not benefit them, doesn’t mean we should celebrate it!
“3) Art is not some static thing – it is in dialogue with culture. It progresses It’s even less linear than basic research is, but if you study art history, hard to argue it’s not there. So the acquisition of the current work is only part of the ‘value’ you should put on it.”
Art isn’t static. Sometimes it progresses, and sometimes it regresses. Sadly, we’re in a period where the latter dominates. And are actually being forced to subsidize the decay!
The bottom line here is, if you're going to take people's money away from them, with threats of violence if they don't give it up, you can damned well spend it FOR THEIR BENEFIT, or let them keep it.
You want to do something the public doesn't want to fund, go right ahead. Without spending taxes to do it.
1) Your metric of what's good/bad for our civilization is...to maximize it's alignment with your own taste?! Incredible.
2) You think all government programs should be broadly accessible? That's...did you think this through at all? Because you're myopic, but rarely this dumb. Rural electrification, research on diabetes, and medicaid are all programs that benefit only a specific section of the population. Because that's where the market fails so that's where the government *should* come in!
3) Your declaration that art is regressing is your usual issue with thinking society revolves around you. It doesn't. And even if it did, that doesn't mean you stop trying.
Bottom line, art is not engineering, stop pretending it is.
Public funding of the arts is to allow artists to create independently, largely because it’s those artists pushing boundaries and making things viewed as inaccesible that often feeds back into to more mainstream arts, where it gets reworked and transformed, preventing cultural stagnation. Thinking about how inaccesible Stockhausen is, yet he inspired the entire soundtrack for Lost. The public gets pandered to plenty by Hollywood as it is, if you take away the ‘inaccesible’ artists it’ll become utterly unbearable.
It's the same old left-wing statism, the assumption that, if the state doesn't do it, and ideally at the highest possible level of government, it's not happening.
Right wing governments fund the arts too. They can be stingier than left wing governments, but they do. Given the immense amounts of money made by the entertainment industries, giving people the chance to learn and develop the artistic, musical, writing or artistic management skills that drive those industries can be an entirely economic decision. The complete withdrawal of public funding for the arts is a crank position. Gammon, as they say in the UK.
Nige never said anything about only the government should do art.
OTOH, you do seem to be arguing that art is best mediated by the market.
If there is a better example of a square peg to slam into the round hole of the market, I can't think of one.
Bellmore, think of inaccessibility in visual arts as if it were R&D in physics. Unfamiliarity is what makes the work inaccessible to audiences accustomed to a different approach.
Famously, impressionism was widely loathed when it first appeared. Impressionism had rejected and replaced a good deal of painterly technique which made art which preceded it an accustomed style, and thus accessible. After the techniques of impressionism became familiar, the popularity of those works exploded.
Another example, showing a different path to a similar outcome: Thomas Eakins' painting, The Gross Clinic. In that one, Eakins as a young artist showed himself already a master of the accustomed painterly conventions, but also a modernistic painter defying conventional expectations for beauty in art. That too was initially rejected. But as modernistic subject matter became commonplace, and thus familiar, The Gross Clinic was reevaluated, and rightly judged one the great masterpieces of American painting. Even today, however, a candidate to hang an image like The Gross Clinic on the wall of a private home would be an exceptional connoisseur, instead of a commonplace fan of art-the-beautiful.
All of that said, it is not always, or even often, that creative genius is a match to the twin challenges of both pioneering a new artistic genre, and making it stick publicly. Artists with ambitions in that direction work against tremendous odds, and undertake a lot of artistic R&D which fails.
That failure is not so much caused by perversity among the artists, as by a more-recent demand that to be taken seriously as an artist, novelty has become a sine qua non. To make an artistic reputation of consequence, it is useless (however potentially lucrative) to produce beauty in abundance, but in a derivative style. And since the early days of artistic modernism, beauty has not even been strictly necessary. These days, originality counts for far more. Just like with R&D.
Alas, successful originality is very hard to come by, both in engineering and in art. Novelty pursued for its own sake invites commonplace failure, which must be lived with, or the entire enterprise abandoned. Along the way, critics may celebrate for a moment or two a great deal of would-be originality which is destined shortly thereafter—following broader consideration—to be discarded as both ugly and unoriginal.
That broader consideration, by the way, entails processes which are themselves generative and thus unpredictable. That is why it is so often and so accurately said that the greatest artists (as seen in retrospect) have not fully understood what they were up to—because only a retrospective view from a transformed vantage point could show it—and to appreciate that the work of the great artist played a part to accomplish the transformation of the viewpoint.
That could stand in as a description of the engineering R&D process the public pays for as well. One point of it is to be sensible, and ask whether the value of rare successes advances the public interest enough to overcome the aggregate dead weight of so many mostly-trivial losses. Your opinion is appreciated, but you seem less engaged (and, frankly, more hostile) than you should be to be trusted with the evaluations.
'Art has been a pursuit of the elite since forever. It’s a luxury in a lot of ways. Just like science."
The "just science" is nonsense except that prior to the 20th century scientist had to beg from the wealthy for support
Guess who gets to beg from the wealthy? It's not peasants!!
a small group of rubes-with-cash
I'm not so sure that art buyers centuries ago - kings, nobles, high officials of the church - were less rubish than current buyers when it comes to appreciation or understanding. And they were seeking immortality in their way as well.
Well, it has to be accessible to SOMEONE, right?
For me, I'm simple enough to appreciate craftsmanship as much as anything else. The blank orange canvas leaves me cold, even if the exhibit catalogue has a 4,000 word essay explaining what I'm supposed to get out of it.
Yes, I understand Kincade's "Cottages of Light" are formulaic kitsch, but I've never felt that way about Mucha, Frazetta or Parrish. Guess I'm just a middle-brow. Don't care.
My tastes run basic as well. Just don’t condemn other people with different tastes as rubes and you’ll be fine.
I think more poseurs than rubes? A lot of this is just the "emperor's new robes", really. People don't want to admit that they don't get it, so they get away charging for something where there's nothing to get in the first place.
It's not my job to tastemake for people who aren't me, and your telepathic delusions are cropping up again.
Well, sure, if you LIKE that stuff, go for it. Strut around in those robes, just don't expect me to praise them.
Bottom line, Frazetta had more artistic skill in one finger than Pollock had in his entire body. But Pollock was one hell of a salesman.
This is a backpeddal from your contempt for those who buy art you don't like in the above comment.
Yeah, I have opinions about art. But having opinions about people who have different opinions than I do about art is kind of missing the point of art.
That's because Frazetta was creating popular art while looking back to past masters for his style and technique. Pollack was creating something new and unique that would go on to influence the next generation of popular artists.
Sure. Influenced them for the worse, but it did influence them.
That, as they say, is your opinion. Get those pesky modern artists off your lawn.
Yeah, the difference here is that I'm not demanding that you pony up for my Franzetta prints or go to jail. All I'm asking is that you return the favor: If you want shitty art, pay for it yourself!
Your paradigm of art as just another commodity is unsurprising, but incorrect.
And I think artists, actors, musicians, writers, who thanks to public funding go out and do odd weird and beautiful things around cities and towns make life that bit better.
There is private citizens as consumer of art, there is government as consumer of art, and government as funder of art as social good.
These are 3 really different ways to engage with art.
And your paradigm is of art that justifies ripping people off at gun point.
The beauty of the market is that both ends of the transaction are VOLUNTARY. If you object to the market dictating what gets produced, you're objecting to people not being coerced.
And somehow you think this makes you the better person?
Ahh yes, all taxes are robbery.
First, spending and taxes are not the same thing.
Second, this is an extremely tired fallback, and not your original thesis at all. If you want to argue government shouldn't fund art at all because you're a libertarian weirdo, then say that. You and your unpopular but ideologically consistent opinion can go over there.
But you weren't arguing that, you're arguing that art is bad nowadays, even culturally regressive, because it doesn't agree with your tastes, man of the people that you are.
Brett Bellmore : “Bottom line, Frazetta had more artistic skill in one finger than Pollock had in his entire body. But Pollock was one hell of a salesman.”
Pollock was not “one hell of a salesman”. He was painfully dysfunctional in any social or transactional sense of an artist on the make. He lived in crushing poverty most of his time painting, enjoyed a brief period of success, and then couldn’t sell a single work again.
And though we’ve (so far) been mercifully spared the cliche, “my three year-old could do that”, Pollock would spend weeks and months on a single work. Before his death in a car crash, he was completely frozen-up artistically, unable to paint. What the Bretts of the world see as a simple gimmick caused him gut-wrenching agony.
Now obviously the Frazetta vs Pollock Thing is just Brett’s way to virtue-signal a contempt for art. After all, it’s glaringly obvious: You exhaust the whole of a Frazetta with the briefest glance; Pollock’s paintings invite you to stand immersed & transfixed for long periods.
But it goes beyond Brett’s dearth of aesthetic sensibility to matters of fact. He denies any value to art which is a personal deficit. But he also insists on objectifying his own lack by claiming artists are hucksters running a cynical scam. Yet that's just not true. Compare Brett’s throwaway lines on Pollock to the artist’s actual life and you see that. The same is true of Lee Moore on Picasso.
“Pollock’s paintings invite you to stand immersed & transfixed for long periods.”
No they don’t ????
Your taste isn’t universal. Pollock doesn’t move me at all. I had to google Frazetta, but I would rather have a bare wall than either his stuff or Pollock’s. I have had a print of Picasso’s Hands with Flowers on the wall for decades, but don’t like his cubist or blue period stuff at all. I kind of like Dali, but not Rembrandt. I prefer Bach to Mozart, love the ballet, can’t stand opera. Etc, etc, etc.
We are all like that; everyone has their own tastes. None are better or worse than others. I like rhubarb and pumpkin pie, but not apple or cherry. That doesn’t mean my ‘taste’ is better or worse than anyone else, it just means they are idiosyncratic to me, like everyone else has their own personal preferences.
Put what you want on your walls, read Shakespeare or Grisham, whichever you like. But don’t expect everyone else to think your preferences are better in some way.
Are this guy's bananas taped to walls more moving than some random yahoo's banana taped to a wall?
Absaroka : “We are all like that; everyone has their own tastes”
Absolutely. However Brett’s rhetoric went well beyond a tepid enthusiasm for abstract expressionism. As per his usual practice, he went way overboard for political ends. It wasn’t enough to praise the kitsch of Frazetta, he had to go the whole “more artistic skill in one finger” route. I guess we should be relieved he didn’t opt for dogs playing poker.
As for your list, it’s perfectly fine, though rife with judgements not to my taste. Personally, I go weak at the knees over cubism but that’s an uncommon predilection. And there’s no reason for Bach over Mozart. Do both! (adding Coltrane & Dylan as well)
But Dali over Rembrandt ?!? About 45yrs ago I saw my only Dali show and then told my architecture professor (with priggish disapproval) that it all seemed too cynical. Actually, Salvador is the perfect candidate for Brett’s “one hell of a salesman” artist. Rembrandt (of course) is an artistic God.
As is Vermeer, who’s currently having his show-of-a-lifetime at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. There was a slightly smaller Vermeer exhibition at the National Gallery of Art in 1995. I waited until the last minute, but still intended to make the trip. Then Newt Gingrich shut the government down in a snit because Clinton made him debark Air Force One out the back door. My Vermeer opportunity was lost.
I have a friend who believes that explains my loathing of Republicans. Not true, but certainly reason enough….
"he had to go the whole “more artistic skill in one finger” route"
But that's a perfectly valid opinion.
You know how some people wax rhapsodic over single malt scotch? I'm usually too cheap, but one year the ABC store had a gift box of little airline bottles of a dozen of the upscale scotches. They had a little booklet describing them in rapturous terms. One was something about 'delightful hints of smoky peat'. Yuck. It tasted like you marinated rotgut hooch in a well used ashtray. Whoever distills the cheapest stuff on the supermarket shelf has more skill in one finger than whatever kilt wearing barbarian distilled that $100 a bottle swill :-).
That's my opinion. You are welcome to think it is the elixir of the gods. Neither of us is wrong, and I won't criticize you for your opinion, as wrong as you might be :-). And Brett is entitled to his own opinions as well; they are no more or less valid than yours or mine.
Bellmore, if you were talented enough visually, you could look at an imitation Pollock, controversially passed off as an original—and pronounce it a fake on the basis of a news photograph. But to do that, you would have to understand what Pollock did, and about that you remain clueless.
Hell, Brett can make his own Pollock here:
http://jacksonpollock.org/
The Ellsworth Toohey school of political science.
I'm not familiar with the gentleman, but a quick google (or strictly bing) suggests he's a fictional evil genius. In a lawyers' chatroom that's some compliment !
He is the evil genius from "The Fountainhead".
His evil was in using English to destroy individualism.
As a newspaper critic, he praised all collectivist work, and damned all works about individuals. He actively elevated mediocre artists to destroy the concept of excellence. In other words, he was newspeak personified. That's where all the English majors have gone.
I was an English major. In one of my classes we read 1984. In another, we read the Old Testament.
I can only imagine what they read these days ...
Why, they're probably reading books published since the 1950s! *spit*
Only one thing brings out more aggressive ignorance than the subject of modern art, and that’s my own field of modern architecture. Maybe Mr. Moore will entertain us with nonsense on that front too!
But while we wait, Picasso: He wasn’t a very likable guy, being selfish, manipulative and cruel. He left a trail of human wreckage in his wake, particularly in the women he used & discarded. But his early work has an stark aching humanity. In the first years of the 1900s, his painting developed into something like no other artist’s, full of raw primitive force.
Then came the four years collaborating with Georges Braque when the two painters created cubism, an completely new art of deep mystery, crystalline beauty, and wry, earthy humor. Given my own worshipful take on these paintings (say Céret in the summer of 1911), I’d happily say Picasso peaked then – a full half-century of artistic production left to go.
But it’s not so simple. I once walked into a big exhibit space filled with work of twenty years later and was equally awed by its power. Even his last years scrapping out a pinched art from fear & disgust at approaching death, Picasso still had the ability to astound.
So though I’m reluctant to “lord it socially” over Mr. Moore, he seems hopelessly clueless here. And that’s not counting the parts he just made up, like Picasso’s “honest” admission….
It's probably a combination of things.
The easy ones are:
1. The unrelenting focus on STEM everything means that those new STEM majors had to come from somewhere.
2. The rising costs of college, and the need to have a major where you can "make back" the costs of tuition.
The less easy ones are:
1. The costs and effects of grade inflation. Writing...good writing...is hard. And it's generally an underappreciated skill which most people don't know how to do well. But because it's subjective, it is very easy to inflate people's grades for it. There's only one right answer for 2+2, or the number of electrons around a carbon atom.* (*You know what I mean, don't try to be cute). But grading writing is subjective, and because of that, it's easier to inflate people's grades.
And really, that's what happened to an extent. As the grades became less useful, the learning and appreciation for who was actually a good writer became less clear, and the major became a less useful way of determining good writers. Employers began to disregard English majors ("It's an easy one") and then students followed (Employers won't like English Majors"). Alternative metrics (Diversity, POC, etc), didn't help at all, rather than...being good writers. So, that's where we are today, with a dying major, done in by its own lack of rigor.
It's not like a decent science curriculum doesn't teach you how to write well, too. The best writing education i got was from a merciless biology professor.
(Now, the writing priorities are a little different, but if what you care about is clear communicative writing, well, you should be learning that regardless of major).
Businesses used to value liberal arts degrees because it meant that the person was both literate and well rounded. Not so anymore because the curriculum has changed to the point where they now are neither.
Liberal arts graduates nowadays are neither literate nor well rounded?
Got any proof of that, or just your usual appeal to your personal "experience?"
They are "well rounded" in the sense that 1/2 of todays College students are Obese
https://obesitymedicine.org/obesity-care-in-college-students-in-the-us/#:~:text=Almost%201%20in%203%20college,the%20overweight%20or%20obese%20category.
"Literate"?? I learned to read in Elementary School German and English (Lustiges Taschenbucher mostly) then went on to bigger things.
That being said, not really confident that todays Liberal Arts graduates could read themselves out of a paper bag (see, I don't know what kind of metaphor that is, doesn't matter, nobody's gonna pay for knowing)
and is reading "A Tale of 2 Cities" and talking about it any different from watching "Inglorious Basterds" for the 51st time?
Frank
But grading writing is subjective, and because of that, it’s easier to inflate people’s grades.
It's also easier to allow personal preferences infect your view on matters. So if I perceive (rightfully or incorrectly) that the professor is left leaning, and I'm a right-leaning student, I will either try to hide that fact in my writing or will figure I have lower chances of getting good grades in those classes. If I'm studying mathematics, nothing in my proofs will reveal my political leanings.
Good reason for a lot of the student body to avoid taking English, philosophy, or other courses in which their personal political views are more likely to be revealed.
College went from affordable to unaffordable. If you’re going to spend that kind of money, you choose a major that’s a better financial investment.
Aren’t you yelling that loans take affordability out of the equation?
All the loans do is defer the question of affordability, aiding people to commit to expenses they'll never recoup.
I agree - I do think our loans system has become a real issue.
But that is inconsistent with Ben's postulate of what's driving this turn to STEM.
Borrowing to pay for something doesn’t lower the price of it, Mr Wizard.
It does mess with the incentives you argue are the driver.
I went to the kind of college where hardly anybody went on to grad school. The point of getting that Bachelor’s was to get a job. Very few English majors. Perhaps young people everywhere are becoming more job oriented — they have to be. It’s a tough time for them economically.
College serves multiple purposes for young adults. It can prepare one for a career, be a broad education in multiple subjects, help them explore something in depth they are passionate about, be a placeholder while they finish growing up, or any combination of these. The rising costs of tuition over the last 30+ years has made some of those difficult to justify on their own. The only one that will be justifiable for those with less means is preparation for a careers, and that means an emphasis on majors that pay off fairly quickly.
True.
Though college is a priceless experience, in getting you out of your home town, exposing you to things and people you never met before, and letting you learn and try new things. All this can be done while all the while going for that employment oriented degree.
Or you can join the Army/AirForce/Navy/Marine Corpse and meet interesting and stimulating people of an ancient culture... and kill them (HT PFC "Joker" ) and get paid for doing it.
English is racist. Everyone knows.
For those that want some data to go with speculation about the financial incentives affecting choices on college majors:
https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market/index#/outcomes-by-major
This is quite the passage.
Is the theory here that humanities jargon only became a problem within the last 10 years? Or that students suddenly became resistant to it in 2012, but were fine with it in 2009? What would explain either of those things?
I didn't see any such proposition in the article, nor a whole lot of theorizing, more speculative hypotheses. The time periods were just those used in the statistical comparison, which could as easily been 13, 8 or 20 without changing the reality. And the time periods were chosen by the groups doing the surveying, presumably without any accompanying "theorizing", not by the author of the article.
There was plenty of thought that humanities was up it's own ass academically 20-30 years ago but it was still about writing and English literature. Today it's declared White Supremacy and teaches victimology masquerading as thought so the topic becomes more repugnant to anyone not inclined towards such propaganda and indoctrination.
Some law schools say (or used to say) that a humanities undergrad, as opposed to applied or science, was a better preparation for law school. Why? My old boss told me that it’s because with humanities you’re trained to think. Well, that’s obviously not true, as to humanities as opposed to other majors. Then again, though professionally successful, he was not very bright. His job as a lawyer consumed almost all of his mental capacity. My job takes up maybe 15% of mine.
A friend of mine in law school told me something that’s always stuck with me: “If you’re from a comfortable upbringing, law school is where you go if you have no talent and no ambition.” It’s the “undeclared major” for those from that social class where everyone goes to grad school. This explains the mediocrity I see in my profession. It also explains why so many of them were humanities majors.
It was well understood when I was in college (early 90s) that law school was the ambition of (a) people who really wanted to be lawyers and (b) people who had no idea what they wanted to do and were just postponing that decision for three more years.
Back then, law schools were encouraging growth in the collective law student body, promoting the idea that law degrees were versatile and could be useful for all sorts of careers including those outside the field of law. This was a decade or so before the era of transparency, when bitter law school grads began revealing that this was just obfuscating the fact that there weren't enough law jobs out there (at least not that paid well enough to cover student loans).
Also helps explain why so many children of lawyers end up going into law. And then often getting hired by their parents or parents' friends.
I haven’t read the New Yorker essay but judging by this account of it, I’d think a basic distinction has not been drawn strongly enough. And that is the difference between the last two generations, give or take a few years, of variants of POMO theory and close reading as a modern iteration of the old New Criticism.
Rita Felski is quoted as saying:
“In retrospect, much of the grand theory of the last three decades now looks like the last gasp of an Enlightenment tradition of rois philosophes persuaded that the realm of speculative thought would absolve them of the shameful ordinariness of a messy, mundane, error-prone existence," she wrote. "Contemporary critics pride themselves on their power to disenchant." The disenchantment, at least, has reached students.”
There is no necessary incompatibility in teaching English between bringing to life the wonders of great works and reading them closely where this involves rigorously analyzing them, seeing how the parts work and make for a whole. IE close reading ultimately drives towards order, towards unified conceptions of works.
The latter will help illuminate the former. And that, I’d argue, involves more than “an intensification of the way a reader on the subway experiences the book” unless “intensification” means a qualitative difference between subway reading and university literature course reading.
All this goes to the difference between theory and close reading. The former wants the work to be an “Exhibit A” text more valuable for the theories about the world it evidences than for what it is in itself as a work of art. The former wants to get past the work, to see it exemplifying the theory. The latter wants to get into the work, to see what makes it tick, to see how the messiness and fallibility of human experience are aesthetically conveyed, or to see how lyric poetry by its poetic means makes vivid slices of reality all the while creating beauty.
Theory will indeed disenchant students. But close reading will take them to the heart of what makes great works of art great, will invite students in, will, to put it one way, give them lessons in enchantment.
OK, I'm slamming my Almer Mater, but didn't realize you could major in Engrish at Auburn, looking at the Curriculum, don't even think it would prepare you for a "Career" at Starbucks.
People joke about the Poultry Science degree but there's more to Chicken than Dark vs White, did you know there are more chickens than people? (and when's the last time someone committed mass murder with a chicken??) it's whats for dinner!!!!!
https://agriculture.auburn.edu/research/poul/
Frank
If you can't teach Middlemarch to English majors it is time to just hang it up.
It seems that English majors are a dwindling minority that would benefit from diversity requirements. ABA law school accreditation standards should require attention to English majors in admissions. Perhaps their presence would peer educate their less able colleagues on writing skills.
The article starts off promising enough:
But then we get:
OK, so, not a serious article. I think I’ll skip the rest…
I was inherently suspicious of this, but I think I'm coming around.
I don't think this is academically driven, but rather demand driven.
I actually wrote a related masters thesis about this with respect to government funding programs. There was a big push for art and culture and unapplied science and tech and even chess after WW2 and then during the Cold War, as sort of a nationalist flex and proxy battlefields.
With the Cold War over, we didn't snap back to our pre-WW2 nose towards pragmatism, but we have been drifting there.
BTW, I was wrong back then - my thesis was focused on basic research funding - that's on the upswing thanks to China.
But the general cultural drift towards being the country that's more practical, whose research is about feeding people and building things and whatnot, remains true. After a couple of generations where identity and culture were legit for their own sake, I think the raw utility of STEM is coming to the forefront of our national identity. This reflects that.
There will always be a place for writers and poets and painters, but that choice is not going to be made as often. And that's fine! So long as there is a choice.
I don’t like choosing majors earlier, and even as one who didn’t get one, I like a liberal arts education. Not so much for the writing skills – you can teach that as part of any program.
But for the critical thinking, the understanding and integration of different perspectives when forming your own opinion, and the disaggregation of baseline truths from cultural ones…for that, history and English and social studies are the place to be. Such a foundation makes better citizens, if marginally less useful ones to the GDP. Which is an awful priority to have anyhow.
An English major remains very useful and marketable. There will always be a demand, or at least a place, for people who can speak and write well.
Yes, https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us.html
is always hiring.
How the higher education outrage sausage is made
https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/how-the-higher-education-outrage
If higher ed didn't alienate young people in the first place....
What I find funny is this :
AmosArch’s cherished Right-wing world adores liars and flim-flam artists like Trump and DeSantis. Their favorite politicians are carnival barkers & huckster conmen. They insist on a privilege and duty to believe in every kind of lie imaginable, from stolen elections, to horse dewormer miracle curses and anti-vaxx garbage, to the latest new conspiracy theory (even more jokey than the last).
They live in constant frenzied hysteria over things non-existent, like CRT in the public schools, or having the tiniest impact, like the small number of people who are trans. It almost seems like they take pride in the most violent emotions about the most unreal issues.
Then they sneer about “postmodernism”. As if they give the slightest fuck about truth.
Says the guy that is on the team that is intimidating 70% of the people on campus to STFU.
They don’t care about truth, says the guy on the team that yelled “racist conspiracy loony” at anyone who suggested that the lab leak theory was possibly correct”
They take pride in violent emotions, says the guy on the team that just tried to burn down Atlanta.
You really ought to clean up your own team before you criticize the other. The plank in your own eye and all.
Where do you find enough straw to make a comment like that?
Also, where do you keep all the bases that your assertions must once have rested on?
Oh bevis, back on your right-wing crazy pills I see. Still on, I mean.
Find me anyone who yelled “racist conspiracy loony.”
And in case you want to know what bevis means when he says we “tried to burn down Atlanta,” he means this:
https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/230306083757-05-atlanta-cop-city-protests.jpg?c=16×9&q=h_720,w_1280,c_fill
Obviously we weren’t trying very hard. Anyway, all those losers got arrested and charged with domestic terrorism. There go your theories about left-wing protesters getting off easy! I mean, those theories were nonsense already, but I’m happy to rub your nose in it several more times.
So, in other words, you agree that the criticism is accurate and valid, you just like whataboutism.
the guy on the team that just tried to burn down Atlanta.
That's a ridiculous accusation.
We have a lot of guys here who defend any RW violence, including of course, Jan. 6. Who is defending those idiots in Atlanta?
"The rapid, open, and transparent sharing of data on this outbreak is now being threatened by rumours and misinformation around its origins. We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin. Scientists from multiple countries have published and analysed genomes of the causative agent, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2),1 and they overwhelmingly conclude that this coronavirus originated in wildlife,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 as have so many other emerging pathogens.11, 12 This is further supported by a letter from the presidents of the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine13 and by the scientific communities they represent. Conspiracy theories do nothing but create fear, rumours, and prejudice that jeopardise our global collaboration in the fight against this virus. We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture.14 We want you, the science and health professionals of China, to know that we stand with you in your fight against this virus."
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30418-9/fulltext
Because its such a scam, love the peoples who major in a foreign language and can't speak it,
You're um, defending AmosArch with bothsides whataboutism here.
Not sure you meant to do that.
I love it when you guys so dutifully follow my instructions! Now we can show what a shithead bevis and his ilk on the right really are. What did he say?
1. No accusations of racism
2. That letter was immediately criticized by others on the left, both for being unscientific and for obvious conflicts of interest
3. In 2021, those authors, in an article in that same publication, walked this all back and pushed for an investigation of the lab leak theory. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67362101419-7/fulltext
So yes, there were people who mistakenly poo pooed the lab leak theory back in 2020, but they already have cleaned up their shit. Proof that the left does care about the truth.
Let's compare to grb's examples of the right's blatant lies: election fraud and ivermectin. A, those were both supported by a much broader array of right-wing characters than just a handful of conflicted "scientists," and B they still are! Show me anyone who, as a gesture of truth-seeking, has walked back their support of election fraud theories or ivermectin like these scientists did.
That's the only thing bevis does. He thinks that makes him "moderate."
Stop calling out the resentment elemental for his bad posts until I stop believing nonsense the right writes about the left!
But also, note that this letter was not about the "lab leak" theory. It was about the bioweapon theory:
Emphasis added.
Yes, that too. I figured that was a subtlety way too subtly subtle for this crowd. But yes, there is a distinction between the bioweapon theory and the lab leak theory. The one the FBI and DOE have tepidly endorsed is the lab leak theory. They are both still solid “no” on the bioweapon theory, which is what that 2020 letter was about.
Nonsense. The letter was condemning the notion that the virus was anything other than a naturally occurring one.
Bio weapons research was one way to produce a non naturally occurring one. The other way is to conduct gain of function research eg by inserting a futon cleavage site artificially.
The latter was always two orders of magnitude likelier than the former.
The letter was a CYA effort by folk involved in virus research who strongly suspected that the virus was the result of lab research, and did not want any blame to come their way, nor any restrictions on their work to be imposed.
Nor Fauci to cut off their grants
1. There’s a distinction between the natural origin theory and the artificial origin theory
2 There’s a different distinction between the lab leak theory and the no humans to blame theory
3. And there’s a third distinction between the bio weapons theory and the gain of function research theory.
The letter is trying to poo poo artificial origin. DN is trying to claim the letter is about distinction 3.
For the letter writers, both the idea of artificial origin and lab leak of a natural origin virus were dangerous. They focussed on poo-pooing the former, but the press picked up the denial of artificial origin as encompassing the denial of lab leak too. No doubt with encouragement, and certainly without any attempt to correct the misapprehension.