more evidence against the liberal arts

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
In Shakespearean criticism, for example, the vast majority of journals are given over to "schools" of ideological biases having nothing to do with Shakespeare or his time period: Marxist lit crit, Feminist lit crit, Psychoanalytic, Postcolonial, Poststructural, Queer theory, yadda yadda yadda.

... people look for Marxism in Shakespeare? Please tell me that's not what you meant, I would cry

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Oh, and while I'm at it, your sig has been misspelled for years.

So is yours

[DaShi]

And yours isn't!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
... people look for Marxism in Shakespeare? Please tell me that's not what you meant, I would cry

I think they look at class politics in Shakespeare, not actually Marxism itself.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Elok
Hamlet represents the Bard's repressed fears that a black woman will rape his dead mother with a strap-on.

Sig material

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


My girlfriend is several hundred miles away and a science major

Obviously you aren't calculating the amount of play you should be getting by being in college with single girls.

and molly, leave me be, I don't write well.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Elok
The thing is, there's still plenty to say on literary subjects, but it takes a smart person to figure it out and say it. Due to the open-minded nature of the lib arts--we deal with concepts and beliefs more than hard facts--it's very difficult to weed out the idiot poseurs by peer review, as happens in the sciences. So the imbeciles tend to prosper alongside the genuinely smart folks. Indeed, they prosper more, since they don't have the difficulty of thinking about what they're saying. They disguise it with needless jargon to give the illusion of complexity and depth.

The problem is compounded by the way our society expects *everyone* to go through college, and the fact that English is something of a "default" major that catches many of the untalented masses the system defecates out. Many of them, not all; the remainder go into Sociology, Philosophy, Business Management, etc. These cretins need something to do with their wasted education, so academia has a system of journals and graduate schools and suchlike to act as a playground for its artsy-'***** to live out their delusions in once they're done mauling the classics. It's just an unusually highbrow subsidy to prevent unemployment, is all.

If the problem is that too many of us are going to college then what is the solution? It's hard to sell the belief, the thought, that most people should be kept from higher education because more morons in colleges dilutes the value of it. It's also unfair because the employment system is set up to regard higher education in high esteem and as a qualification for employment.

Either employers need to devalue a college education or colleges need to change to become more like vocational schools to satisfy the people that see themselves better than others.

[Kuciwalker]

If the problem is that too many of us are going to college then what is the solution? It's hard to sell the belief, the thought, that most people should be kept from higher education because more morons in colleges dilutes the value of it.

The argument is more along the lines of "not everyone should go to college because not everyone has the skills necessary to do a job that requires a college education."

[MRT144]

thats bull**** though. what you are essentially saying is that people shouldnt even try to improve their lives and strive for a higher wage. And unfortunately the work world states otherwise. you need a college education to do a large number of jobs that pays more than 30k a year. are you saying that most people in college should settle for making that amount of money?

[Elok]

They require a college education because everyone and their brother can get a degree these days, and they figure the more education, the better. Going through college also demonstrates that you can do work without your parents prodding you, I suppose.

Relatively few jobs actually "require" a college education to be done properly. Those that do are mostly in science and technology, or in academia themselves--and involve further education, to graduate school or higher. A lot of jobs that supposedly need a BA could be accomplished on a high school education given competent on-the-job training. You don't need to know statistics, poetry, chemistry, philosophy, or economics to run Excel and Powerpoint, and vocational schools are better for mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc. It's a good thing, too, because afaict many people who go through college do not in fact learn anything except how to fluff and pad papers and live on ramen noodles.

The point of a well-rounded college education, especially at a liberal arts college like I went to, is not so much to give you job skills (what job requires you to write essays on Heidegger?) as to give you a general idea of the extent, history and shape of human society, and of your own place in it. I think it was Carlyle who expressed it better, back in Victorian England, in an essay "On the value of a liberal arts education." That's good for people who actually want it. The multitudes of people who just want to drink, get laid and/or play lacrosse don't especially want to, and don't apply themselves to the task, but they struggle through anyway and graduate with 2.9 GPAs because it's expected that everyone up to and including the janitors in today's world spend $20K a year for an education.

Oh, and for Marxist criticism, it's mostly an attempt to read massive class conflict into every line and show Marxist themes are significant within the context of a pre-industrial paradigm blah blah blah. You don't actually say "we're looking for Marxism in Shakespeare," because then everyone, including yourself, would laugh at you.

But just for example, I recall reading a Marxist who was very excited by the grave-digger scene in Hamlet. When the one guy calls Adam a gentleman because he bore arms, and says he must have borne arms because he worked the soil with them, this critic doesn't just see it as a typical throwaway pun. No, he says the line shows how lower-class peoples feel themselves to be the equal of the nobility by virtue of their ability to work for a living. I kid you not.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Elok
They require a college education because everyone and their brother can get a degree these days, and they figure the more education, the better. Going through college also demonstrates that you can do work without your parents prodding you, I suppose.

Relatively few jobs actually "require" a college education to be done properly. Those that do are mostly in science and technology, or in academia themselves--and involve further education, to graduate school or higher. A lot of jobs that supposedly need a BA could be accomplished on a high school education given competent on-the-job training. You don't need to know statistics, poetry, chemistry, philosophy, or economics to run Excel and Powerpoint, and vocational schools are better for mechanics, plumbers, electricians, etc. It's a good thing, too, because afaict many people who go through college do not in fact learn anything except how to fluff and pad papers and live on ramen noodles.

The point of a well-rounded college education, especially at a liberal arts college like I went to, is not so much to give you job skills (what job requires you to write essays on Heidegger?) as to give you a general idea of the extent, history and shape of human society, and of your own place in it. I think it was Carlyle who expressed it better, back in Victorian England, in an essay "On the value of a liberal arts education." That's good for people who actually want it. The multitudes of people who just want to drink, get laid and/or play lacrosse don't especially want to, and don't apply themselves to the task, but they struggle through anyway and graduate with 2.9 GPAs because it's expected that everyone up to and including the janitors in today's world spend $20K a year for an education.

The first part is what my parents have always told me. College isn't primarily about skills, it's about showing that you can do work without supervision and think critically about certain things.

The second part unfortunately just doesnt work. In the quest to objectively value people's ability, businesses look first to college education as an indication of that. And for better or for worse you have people (like myself) who want to go to college to prove they are worthy of certain jobs and income. I'm probably one of the dimmer bulbs here at poly but I also feel that I have a lot to offer the world in spite of that intelligence gap.

And for your third point those people already have an educational bubble to fill in on their applications or resumes; Some college.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MRT144
thats bull**** though. what you are essentially saying is that people shouldnt even try to improve their lives and strive for a higher wage. And unfortunately the work world states otherwise. you need a college education to do a large number of jobs that pays more than 30k a year. are you saying that most people in college should settle for making that amount of money?

I'm saying it's quite possible that some people, in fact a large proportion of people, simply cannot learn the skills necessary for most high-paying jobs.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Elok
But just for example, I recall reading a Marxist who was very excited by the grave-digger scene in Hamlet. When the one guy calls Adam a gentleman because he bore arms, and says he must have borne arms because he worked the soil with them, this critic doesn't just see it as a typical throwaway pun. No, he says the line shows how lower-class peoples feel themselves to be the equal of the nobility by virtue of their ability to work for a living. I kid you not.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'm saying it's quite possible that some people, in fact a large proportion of people, simply cannot learn the skills necessary for most high-paying jobs.

I am not suggesting that you or a significant proportion of college students are among them, btw.

[MRT144]

I disagree. I think that some people, in fact a large proportion don't have the drive to do so. I think life is comfortable enough to not try and attain those great heights.

I would like to also take this as an opportunity to point out that I think you fancy yourself a superior to someone solely based on intellect. Let me tell you Kuciwalker, you will encounter people far your inferior in intelligence that will be better respected, regarded, and promoted to you and that the world is not a meritocracy. So prepare to have someone you find inferior tell you what to do and deal.