English society fails math

[Kanastrous]

Yes, that's the problem, in a nutshell, thanks for summarizing for me.

What is that, sarcasm? It doesn't carry well over the Internet you know. Are you conceding the debate?

I think the fact that most English students do not consider a rigorous approach to language to be a "proper English education" is pretty much the entire problem, which is basically what I said. The idea that reading 'literature' + writing essays = college degree is incredibly stupid.

Yes, I think that linguistics and language analysis can be considered on a level with other scientific studies. The fact that Chomsky et al. are considered pariahs for their empirical approach to language is a symptom of what I see is the problem.

Ever consider that attempting to "technicalize" the humanities by introducing grammar and "semiotics" is bullshit? Sign and signified, post-modernism misusing mathematical terms, and Chomsky's approach to language being entirely flawed? Ever consider that reading and writing is the best way to master a language?

Knowing the literary canon and getting an English degree for it is roughly equivalent, in my opinion, to getting an Physics degree for knowing who the prominent physicists of the past 400 years or so are and what they contributed. In other words, it's retarded. Even specializing in linguistics and analysis, I still had to take 9 lit classes at the upper division level alone. Stupid.

What's stupid? Writing an essay is demonstrating your prowress in critical analysis and English is stupid? Ever consider that "technicalizing" English is stupid and adds nothing?

As it is currently defined in terms of 'literary canon' knowledge and writing essays, yes; however, as I've already said, I think that entire approach to learning is rubbish. If anything, it's closer to a "history of English literature' course of learning, and given the lack of emphasis (as there is in history) on authenticity and credibility of sources, it's not even a good study in that respect.

I think it's a perfectly valid approach. Read 1000 pages a day, write an essay a week. The problem is not with approach, but too many people wanting to do it. Your suggestion to make what's intuitive (language, history) into something hard by adding grammar lessons is laughable.

Yes, yes, yes. ^

[Androsphinx]

Making arbitrarily difficult prestige titles in any given field of study is easy, especially if you define "difficult" as simply loading people down with assignments. But that doesn't mean the subject matter itself is as difficult.

Actually, the workload is quite light - an essay a week. The work is the research, analysis and serious thought that goes into it. That -is- the subject matter. Its difficulty is a consequence of the requirements for conceptual complexity, breadth of knowledge and depth of analysis, as it is for every subject.

That's the thing; we actually evolved the ability for language. It is literally a genetic trait that we possess as a species. There's no such thing for mathematics; it is something that runs against our natural instincts. That's why you never run into someone who can't learn language, but you run into plenty of people who can't learn math. The only way to make language "difficult" is to invent specializations or esoteric studies which are totally unnecessary for the actual practical use of language.

But the requirement for an English course is more than "competence in speaking and writing English". And I run into plenty of people who can do maths, but don't understand why, say Faust or Hamlet or The Brothers Karamazov are considered masterpieces.

[brianeyci]

An essay a week is considered heavy for an English major. Most English faculties have two essays over an entire semester. Considering the average number of drafts an English essay has to go through, that means a draft a day and the mere physical prowress of typing up the words is daunting. You guys are obviously in what would be considered an "elite" English education, at least in America or Canada.

The requirement of English is critical analysis and interpretation of language. That is still intuitive. Human beings can pick up undertones, subtleties, metaphors, etc., all by instinct. Human beings can make connections and understand stories by instinct: that is why stories were made in the first place, to convey meaning! Mike already responded with interest as the way many math majors can't explain Hamlet, and how can you conclude otherwise when you ask them about it and they go "who the fuck cares?" Meanwhile many English try to do math and would love to do it and are like Zixinus and ashamed they can't do it and try and can't.

[Kanastrous]

That's funny; I was a Film major, and we had to write six-eight papers, per semester, as well as producing our own film projects.

[Spin Echo]

Ever consider that attempting to "technicalize" the humanities by introducing grammar and "semiotics" is bullshit? Sign and signified, post-modernism misusing mathematical terms, and Chomsky's approach to language being entirely flawed? Ever consider that reading and writing is the best way to master a language?

I have to diasgree with you on the "introducing grammar" into an english degree is bullshit. It would be like saying "Any idiot knows if you pile too much weight too far out a structure will fall over, so obviously we don't need to include torque in our physics syllabus because it's intuative".

English and every other langauge has underlying rules as to how meaning is conveyed. Having learned a foreign langauge, it's pretty clear to me that few people understand why things in their native langauge are done the way they are. If I had a nickel for everytime someone answered a Norwegian question I had with "I don't know. It just sounds right", I'd have a lot of nickels. Yet without these rules, communication wouldn't be possible. If ones chooses to major in English, I think one should have a firm understanding of these principles, not just be able to write pretty prose.

[brianeyci]

That's funny; I was a Film major, and we had to write six-eight papers, per semester, as well as producing our own film projects.

Film is an oddity. It's under increasing criticism that people are choosing to study Homer Simpson instead of Homer. Rather than get into whether film is intrinsically more difficult than English, I'd point out that film is trying to justify its own existence. Film professors like pointing out that film is hard because a layperson can't walk into an exam and take it and pass, and this more is better is a function of film trying desperately to justify itself. Why not a single film project, and a single essay? English is not worried about justifying its own existence since it has such a long tradition in universities.

Because you need very, very good professors to tell the difference so the only way to weed out enough is more quantity. This is wrong. It should be the job of admissions to weed out, not film professors to live up to some quota. And they should be prepared to count on something other than standard tests and grades, since that obviously is not stemming the tide of wannabes. Admissions just wants to treat people like numbers rather than the nitty gritty process of interviewing each applicant. Universities, no surprise, want to and need to make money from the masses.

I feel fine saying that the death sentence is an elite education.

[brianeyci]

Ever consider that attempting to "technicalize" the humanities by introducing grammar and "semiotics" is bullshit? Sign and signified, post-modernism misusing mathematical terms, and Chomsky's approach to language being entirely flawed? Ever consider that reading and writing is the best way to master a language?

I have to diasgree with you on the "introducing grammar" into an english degree is bullshit. It would be like saying "Any idiot knows if you pile too much weight too far out a structure will fall over, so obviously we don't need to include torque in our physics syllabus because it's intuative".

English and every other langauge has underlying rules as to how meaning is conveyed. Having learned a foreign langauge, it's pretty clear to me that few people understand why things in their native langauge are done the way they are. If I had a nickel for everytime someone answered a Norwegian question I had with "I don't know. It just sounds right", I'd have a lot of nickels. Yet without these rules, communication wouldn't be possible. If ones chooses to major in English, I think one should have a firm understanding of these principles, not just be able to write pretty prose.

My response is: it's the end that matters, not the process. Introducing grammar in a fruitless attempt to technicalize the humanities is doomed to failure, because it accomplishes nothing. Essays are not about writing pretty prose. Adjectives are frowned upon, adverbs are frowned upon, and contrary to belief we do not write our own stories or our own poems except in specifically designated creative writing classes. If the end is clear analysis and communication, then treating first-language speakers (they should be first-language to even get into an English major) as ESL students is a waste of time.

It is all a waste of time, all this trying to make humanities more rigorous. By default they cannot, they should just admit it and everybody is better off admitting it. The solution is back in the high school level: warn kids that majoring in humanities does not guarantee a good job at all unless you have connections and you're rich, and make the admissions process to humanities far more personal. But obviously interviewing thousands of applicants would cut down on the bottom line so universities don't want to do this.

[Spin Echo]

My response is: it's the end that matters, not the process. Introducing grammar in a fruitless attempt to technicalize the humanities is doomed to failure, because it accomplishes nothing.

You seem convinced the only reason to study grammar is to "technicalise" humanities. Grammar is an underlying part of any language. Therefore, if you are choosing to study a language and its literature, be it your native tongue or not, you should understand the rules of that language. Comprehension of why you are doing what you are doing is an important part of any course of study. Just because I can solve the time dependent schroedinger equation doesn't mean squat if I don't understand why I'm solving the time dependent schroedinger equation.

For most majors, I think a grammar course would be useful, considering how often I catch people making grammar errors (myself included), but not absolutely necessary. For an English degree, I'd see grammar as a vital part of the degree.

[brianeyci]

My response is: it's the end that matters, not the process. Introducing grammar in a fruitless attempt to technicalize the humanities is doomed to failure, because it accomplishes nothing.

You seem convinced the only reason to study grammar is to "technicalise" humanities. Grammar is an underlying part of any language. Therefore, if you are choosing to study a language and its literature, be it your native tongue or not, you should understand the rules of that language. Comprehension of why you are doing what you are doing is an important part of any course of study. Just because I can solve the time dependent schroedinger equation doesn't mean squat if I don't understand why I'm solving the time dependent schroedinger equation.

For most majors, I think a grammar course would be useful, considering how often I catch people making grammar errors (myself included), but not absolutely necessary. For an English degree, I'd see grammar as a vital part of the degree.

The problem is evidence doesn't support your assertion that grammar lessons are necessary for clear communication. People communicate perfectly without understanding the rules, naming what is a gerund or what is a modifier. I do not have to name rules of the English language to communicate or analyze underlying meanings in prose, but you do need to understand underlying meanings for physics because it's often counter-intuitive. Just because you know all the rules it does not make you immune to Freudian slips. There's also the fact that grammar is an esoteric outlier, the kind of thing Mike mentioned as unnecessary to the end goal. ESL education, teaching ESL students, is a special discipline.

The grammar course is already built in. If you do a run-on sentence or misspell a word you get marks docked. In fact, if you have any grammar mistakes at all it's indicative of an extremely unprofessional essay and don't expect greater than a C. That's what harsh English professors do and they have no patience for what should've been learned in high school. University shouldn't be a remedial for high school.

[brianeyci]

ghetto edit: Sorry Spin the point got a little bungled and was too verbose.

Here's the fundamental difference: a negative sign kills in engineering.

Not understanding some esoteric rules of grammar does not. In fact, language is constantly evolving depending on its speakers.

There will always be a fundamental difference between the level of rigor required in communication and the level of rigor required to say, make a fighter jet. If you say that English majors should be able to teach ESL students, well I respectively disagree. It should be about analysis of English literature, it has always been about analysis of English literature, and any attempt to make it more to somehow accomodate or make it more useful is just a waste of time. Might as well restart a different field without the baggage of English literature and call it "technical writing" or "professional writing."

[Androsphinx]

An essay a week is considered heavy for an English major. Most English faculties have two essays over an entire semester. Considering the average number of drafts an English essay has to go through, that means a draft a day and the mere physical prowress of typing up the words is daunting. You guys are obviously in what would be considered an "elite" English education, at least in America or Canada.

Which was my point.

The requirement of English is critical analysis and interpretation of language. That is still intuitive. Human beings can pick up undertones, subtleties, metaphors, etc., all by instinct. Human beings can make connections and understand stories by instinct: that is why stories were made in the first place, to convey meaning!

Absolutely. But just because something is "intuitive" and something else isn't, doesn't automatically make the latter harder. Elementary calculus is hardly intuitive, and the concept of "tragedy", say is. But understanding Sophocles is still more difficult than first order linear differentials.

[brianeyci]

Which was my point.

I thought your point was at the very high levels, the distinction of difficulty becomes blurred? How do you support that point, by merely pointing to the larger quantity of work in an elite English education?

Absolutely. But just because something is "intuitive" and something else isn't, doesn't automatically make the latter harder. Elementary calculus is hardly intuitive, and the concept of "tragedy", say is. But understanding Sophocles is still more difficult than first order linear differentials.

We're comparing wholes here, not single concepts. I can pick something in Calculus which is hard as fuck and something in English which is easy as fuck: that approach is meaningless. I suggest DW's approach: find someone who fails English who genuinely tries. English people may get angry with this, as if it was comparing to the lowest common denominator, but Mike is not really doing that. He's starting from the premise that the more people fail, the better an education is at weeding out the worst and keeping the best, because the best will produce the best quality. I think that can be avoided with strict enrollment controls because I think by default it's nearly impossible to fail anybody in English because the material is by default easier.

[Spin Echo]

There will always be a fundamental difference between the level of rigor required in communication and the level of rigor required to say, make a fighter jet. If you say that English majors should be able to teach ESL students, well I respectively disagree. It should be about analysis of English literature, it has always been about analysis of English literature, and any attempt to make it more to somehow accomodate or make it more useful is just a waste of time. Might as well restart a different field without the baggage of English literature and call it "technical writing" or "professional writing."

I have to make this short because I have a plane to catch. I think we have opposite view points on the situation.

If you're going to discuss and analyse English literature at a high level, I think knowing grammar and syntax rules is important to effectively analyse the style of a piece.

For technical writing, where the point the point is communication, one only needs to know so much grammar. Obviously some is necessary, but using "If I was" instead of "If I were" isn't going to kill the understanding of the reader.

[brianeyci]

Of course we have different views. You're a science professor, and you come from that background. Anything more science-like is better, so add in more rigor to the humanities education you think is better.

I say for-fucking-get it. Market an English education as exactly what it is -- studying dead white men (men -- not women -- that should get rid of the glut of airheads) and their stories. Tell the truth. Let's see how many high school want to go into English if they're told that straight-up, rather than being told university is the only way to go to get a good life. It should be obvious that studying dead white guys isn't the way to get an office job, so sell it that way and only the most enthusiastic will be left.

[Androsphinx]

I say for-fucking-get it. Market an English education as exactly what it is -- studying dead white men (men -- not women -- that should get rid of the glut of airheads) and their stories. Tell the truth. Let's see how many high school want to go into English if they're told that straight-up, rather than being told university is the only way to go to get a good life. It should be obvious that studying dead white guys isn't the way to get an office job, so sell it that way and only the most enthusiastic will be left.

I see your perspective. Those who I know personally are, on the whole fortunate enough that that is how it's marketed, and that is why they want to do it. And they are doubly fortunate that the skills picked up along the way happen to make them employable.

[Darth Wong]

Making arbitrarily difficult prestige titles in any given field of study is easy, especially if you define "difficult" as simply loading people down with assignments. But that doesn't mean the subject matter itself is as difficult.

Actually, the workload is quite light - an essay a week. The work is the research, analysis and serious thought that goes into it. That -is- the subject matter. Its difficulty is a consequence of the requirements for conceptual complexity, breadth of knowledge and depth of analysis, as it is for every subject.

That's part of the definition of "workload", moron. You're still defining "difficulty" in terms of sheer quantity of activity rather than conceptual difficulty.

That's the thing; we actually evolved the ability for language. It is literally a genetic trait that we possess as a species. There's no such thing for mathematics; it is something that runs against our natural instincts. That's why you never run into someone who can't learn language, but you run into plenty of people who can't learn math. The only way to make language "difficult" is to invent specializations or esoteric studies which are totally unnecessary for the actual practical use of language.

But the requirement for an English course is more than "competence in speaking and writing English". And I run into plenty of people who can do maths, but don't understand why, say Faust or Hamlet or The Brothers Karamazov are considered masterpieces.

It's pretty sad that you actually think "knowing why people in the arts community think highly of something" is equivalent to conceptual learning.

[Kanastrous]

Film is an oddity.

Ain't that the truth.

It's under increasing criticism that people are choosing to study Homer Simpson instead of Homer. Rather than get into whether film is intrinsically more difficult than English, I'd point out that film is trying to justify its own existence.

I didn't mean to suggest that studying film is more difficult that studying English, although a course of study that includes screenwriting necessarily subsumes the kind of work you do to improve your skills and understanding of any writing process.

Film professors like pointing out that film is hard because a layperson can't walk into an exam and take it and pass, and this more is better is a function of film trying desperately to justify itself.

The major I completed was heavy on semiotics and literary/art theory and history, in addition to writing and technical production. It's true that a layperson probably wouldn't have understood what the heck a question on Metz's Grand Syntagma was about...but then again it has just about zero relevance to the process of getting a film made. In fact, when anybody asks me about film school, I tell them that unless they are going to attend NYU, USC, UCLA or one of the handful of schools from which students are actively talent-hunted, they should save their money, skip school (film school, anyway) and just dive right into the professional industry.

And I agree with your observation regarding 'justification;' with some few exceptions, those who can't do, teach; those who can't teach, teach gym; and those who can't teach gym, become film professors...

Why not a single film project, and a single essay? English is not worried about justifying its own existence since it has such a long tradition in universities.

There's also the fact that the essays written for film courses are written with the aim of developing a grasp of very widely varied aspects of the art's history, technology, analysis, etcetera. While written literature covers a huge spectrum of different material, it's the literature itself that is the object of study (right?) Given the technical and historical aspect of film (over its shorter existence), it's rather like English majors being required to discourse on the history of the typewriter, the development of the printing press, the origins of the dictionary and proficiency in the root languages that formed the basis for modern English, today.

Admissions just wants to treat people like numbers

Specifically, numbers with dollar signs in front of them.

rather than the nitty gritty process of interviewing each applicant. Universities, no surprise, want to and need to make money from the masses.

At SU the weed-out process happened first semester, sophomore year. Although I don't doubt that there are schools that let eveyone and anyone just limp along until they've accumulated the credits for a diploma.

[Kanastrous]

Oh, and having taken some entry-level hard-sciences courses while in college (two semesters' Structural Geology, two semesters' Introductory Astronomy) I have to say I'm convinced that there is no comparison at all, between the sciences and the arts, like literature.

For example, Naked Lunch is literature (personally speaking, literature that I think is "great") but if you were to try and create a useful scientific or mathematical document, playing as loose and freaky with the rules of those disciplines, as Burroughs does with grammar, structure, and even spelling, you'd get nothing but a horrible mess.

In the arts, formal rules can be very productively broken. I'm open to being educated by someone with a better grounding in the sciences than mine, but my understanding is that you don't make scientific advances by breaking rules, so much as finding and developing new sets of rules that maintain internal and external consistency.

[Androsphinx]

It's pretty sad that you actually think "knowing why people in the arts community think highly of something" is equivalent to conceptual learning.

Well, it's more like "knowing why and how literature works" - and it was in response to your claim that "you never run into people who can't learn language", to which I responded that there are plenty of people can't work out how literature works either, even though it's "intuitive" in a way that maths is not.

And do you really mean that there's nothing conceptual about the study of literature? What do you think literary criticism and analysis is, if not the creation and use of abstractions and concepts to explain, compare and understand texts?

That's part of the definition of "workload", moron. You're still defining "difficulty" in terms of sheer quantity of activity rather than conceptual difficulty.

I'm defining "difficulty" as the amount and quality of time needed to adequately understand a specific topic. This is not just a function of "reading a lot and then writing about it". I'm opposing the claim (on the last page) that there is no way to be "objective and rigorous" in the study of literature, and your claim that academic distinctions in it are only dependent upon the amount of work which people are made to do.

I thought your point was at the very high levels, the distinction of difficulty becomes blurred? How do you support that point, by merely pointing to the larger quantity of work in an elite English education?

My point was that the quality of work here is certainly atypical. The reason why students work a lot is not because they have a lot of drafts to write, or that the amount of reading they are given is particularly onerous.

[ray245]

Every time I see the thread title, I think, sure, but the math society probably didn't do so well at English, either...

The problem is people from china which is exceptionally good in maths, can still do quite well in their lanuage as well...namely chinese.

[Kanastrous]

Jeez, it's the silly-ass joke that would not die.

Let it go.

[Dartzap]

Technically it should be"English people fail at maths. You'd have more of us attempting to defending it then.

[Dartzap]

Technically it should be "English people fail at maths" You'd have more of us attempting to defending it then

Pardon me. Typos galore as always, heh.