Why does no one care about english?

Recommended Videos

Falseprophet

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,381
0
0
SciMal said:
Stasisesque said:
Are you accepting the obvious answers, like Leonardo da Vinci?
Good answer. Let me narrow my scope a bit since my original post was more about the abstract instances and not the people themselves: Name a piece of art that radically changed the way people lived for several generations.
-The Athenian Acropolis

-The Magna Carta

-Martin Luther's 95 Theses

-The U.S. Declaration of Independence

-Das Kapital

-Upton Sinclair's The Jungle
 

AngloDoom

New member
Aug 2, 2008
2,461
0
0
SciMal said:
Stasisesque said:
Are you accepting the obvious answers, like Leonardo da Vinci?
Good answer. Let me narrow my scope a bit since my original post was more about the abstract instances and not the people themselves: Name a piece of art that radically changed the way people lived for several generations.
Socially? The Picture of Dorian Gray. I can't find the paper about it now, since it was years ago that I read it, but many believe that the reason men have practically a 'no-touchy' attitude in Western culture is as a result of Oscar Wilde's trial following the publication of that novel. Before then, men would link arms while in casual conversation. Shortly after then, men stopped doing so in fear of being shamed and jailed.

Admittedly, I'm being nit-picky and I know what you mean: generally the arts are better at making existing life more enjoyable and rewarding, while the sciences help the advancement of existing life. While there are always exceptions, I'm sure most people would agree we'd benefit more from a million qualified Adult Nursing or Engineering graduates over a million English or Fine Art graduates.

OT:

Studying English, generally, opens up careers paths in teaching English, sometimes in script-writing, and sometimes in journalism: the latter two options can be equally achieved by trial and error. These jobs simply aren't as valued as many of the sciences, so when you say "I studied English" people basically hear "I couldn't do a science." It's wrong to assume so and it's damaging to see arts as simply 'science drop-outs', but that seems to be the general attitude I've found in the areas I've lived in England.
 

Fappy

\[T]/
Jan 4, 2010
12,010
0
41
Country
United States
Moderated said:
What does English have to do with art?
Art is useless, English is useful to a point, then it's pretty much useless.
English education more or less equates to communication education. Proper communication is the hallmark of an efficient business/government.
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,104
0
0
Capital E, my friend. Capital E.

But really, it's because your native language isn't going to build spaceships. As long as someone understands you, and you're not in a communication job, you can speak whatever you want. Maths and science drive innovation, and politicians aren't the people who keep countries at the cutting edge of technology. If you don't have science and maths, you're looking to other countries for technology, and once you're doing that you're not in the race anymore.
 

aba1

New member
Mar 18, 2010
3,248
0
0
I think a good deal of people are forgetting there is more to being a artist than painting...

ALL inventions involve creative thinking. Artistic fields teach you to solve problem and to think outside the box. In order to further society that is exactly what is required. Inventing and art go hand in hand. You get creative come up with good ideas then start to draw up drafts begin creating models. Inventing is a form of art in its bare essentials.

You guys act like art has no science or math to it. I can tell you with my training in art I have studied A LOT of scientific principles.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Bonham79 said:
(Don't Just state the demands of the job market because that still raises the question as to why these select skills are devalued in the market in the first place)
Unfortunately my friend, that's actually what it comes down to. I graduated with a degree in English and a minor in Writing, and while creative thinking certainly isn't shunned in the job market, the direct applicable skills in a career are pretty limited. My personal aspiration is to one day become a novelist, to become the next Tolkein. Unfortunately there's a very dark possibility: my writing could suck. Until I've proven myself as a writer and have a couple books under my belt that have made me some money, I really can't tell people that I'm a novelist and expect to pay the bills. I need a "day job" to pay the bills and handle my responsibilities. And while the company I work for frequently asks me to type up letters and notices for them, the vast majority of the things I learned for my major and minor have very little value when it comes time to apply those skills in the job market.

It's a sad truth, but when I tell people that I Majored in English, without faill the response is "What, did you want to be a teacher?" No, I wanted to learn skills that would improve my writing talents. And while those skills have come in handy from time to time, they are mostly unapplicable to the vast majority of careers out there.

Please understand that I'm asking this in all sincerity and mean no offense: but please explain how having a strong understanding of philosophical theories will help you in the job market? The bottom line is that creative people will always be creative, whether they took courses that fostered their creativity or not. You don't have to be an English major to write a book or get into poetry, all you need is a creative mind.
 

Thistlehart

New member
Nov 10, 2010
330
0
0
SciMal said:
Stasisesque said:
Are you accepting the obvious answers, like Leonardo da Vinci?
Good answer. Let me narrow my scope a bit since my original post was more about the abstract instances and not the people themselves: Name a piece of art that radically changed the way people lived for several generations.
I hate to say it. I really do, but.

The Bible. I'd question its integrity as far as art is concerned, but storytelling is an art form (sorry, I refuse to consider it history). Teaching lessons via stories is an ancient method of making sure the next generation does what they are expected by society. And for better or worse, the Bible has had a significant effect on human history for the last couple millenia.

Also, politics. You don't just have to know how political systems work to get into politics. You have to be an effective communicator and debater. Politics have the potential to change much of the world.

I would not say that English is a less valuable degree because of what can be done with it. What one learns with a degree in English can help one become quite successful. However, only in certain fields.

English and other arts degrees are looked down on right now because of over-saturation. Too many people with these degrees are flooding the job-market with nearly identical sets of skills.
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
I'm not sure what kind of things 'English' involves in your schools, but the subject of Äidinkieli in Finland, which is the equivalent, I guess, involved forming arguments and using logic to argue your point and refute others. (also included were studies of how to influence others, how propaganda is used etc)

Using language is important, even if you're the greatest scientist ever, you need to use the language to communicate, and those skills are especially needed when conveying your ideas to people who aren't experts on it.

Using language is an important skill.
But I suspect those skills can fall under several different subjects.

'Media studies', maybe?

Thistlehart said:
The Bible. I'd question its integrity as far as art is concerned, but storytelling is an art form (sorry, I refuse to consider it history). Teaching lessons via stories is an ancient method of making sure the next generation does what they are expected by society. And for better or worse, the Bible has had a significant effect on human history for the last couple millenia.
The Bible might not be an accurate description of history itself, but you can certainly study it in historical context: how it was written, in what kind of societies people who passed on the stories and later wrote them down lived in, what kind of different interpretations exist, how it has influenced people etc, but I think that falls more on history or religious studies.

Something like the Book of Job does have artistic merit, though.
 

bojac6

New member
Oct 15, 2009
489
0
0
SciMal said:
Number of quality-of-life altering inventions created by people not using Math and Science in the last 150 years: 0

Number of quality-of-life altering inventions created by people using Math and Science in the last 150 years: ALL THE THINGS.
This is simply not true. Here are 10 quality-of-life altering inventions in the last 150 years (for better or worse) that are not math or science based (though they may use math and science as much as technological innovation uses language):

1. The concept of Fascism
2. The concept of Capitalism
3. The concept of Communism
4. Equal rights regardless of race
5. Women's suffrage
6. The G.I. Bill
7. Cultural Revolution
8. Logical positivism (essentially the belief that scientific methods apply to everything, not just biology and physics)
9. Nations as Superpowers
10. The Domino Theory (shaped the last 50 years of foreign policy and life style)
 

DugMachine

New member
Apr 5, 2010
2,566
0
0
Because Math and Science is where the jobs are? I mean, I love english studies but I'm glad I'm not an english major.

Oh and fine literature isn't going to fix/build the computers that keep our economy running or perform brain surgery.
 

Twilight_guy

Sight, Sound, and Mind
Nov 24, 2008
7,131
0
0
Becuse the US has a crap-load of English majors and not enough science or math majors. We are far behind other countries in that regard and thus people want to focus on getting more people in math and science. There you go. Now go ask me a hard question.
 

IndianaJonny

Mysteron Display Team
Jan 6, 2011
813
0
0
aba1 said:
I think a good deal of people are forgetting there is more to being a artist than painting...

ALL inventions involve creative thinking. Artistic fields teach you to solve problem and to think outside the box. In order to further society that is exactly what is required. Inventing and art go hand in hand. You get creative come up with good ideas then start to draw up drafts begin creating models. Inventing is a form of art in its bare essentials.

You guys act like art has no science or math to it. I can tell you with my training in art I have studied A LOT of scientific principles.
Thank goodness for people like you with a bit of scope to their thoughts.

What is people's flag-waving obsession with the need to cry out 'art/science trumps all!!!' when this fanatical crusade for superiority of one field over the other doesn't take place in responsible academia. While the Escapists who've contributed so far been mature and sincere in their comments (which I respect) and direction of argument I feel this reliance on examples of 'products' of art/science reflect a wider endemic attempt to commit the cardinal sin of both fields - you're confusing cause and effect.

Poems, vaccines, novels, great feats of engineering, etc. are only the end result of great inventors, artists, discoverers and creators. Anyone who does their homework into the lives of Blaise Pascal, George Mendel, Francis Bacon, Georges Seurat, Jules Verne, Ray Brabury etc.- great men (and women) throughout Art and Science history, will see that they recognised and embodied the inherrent qualities of both fields and saw no need to trumpet one field over the other. Why? Because they recognised that both fields hold equal right to being manifest expressions of Man's imagination. Does the author who predicts the use of fibre optic cameras assault the drive and motivation of the naturalist who's bird drawings line the walls of the Natural History Museum? The wider academic community acknowledges and reflects this belief in a shared root and quality of purpose - a fact reflected in the name of one of the highest academic qualifications (shared across both fields), the PhD ('Doctor of Philosophy'). So can we stop with this inane 'our side did this, this and this and implies us better than you' that does not occur in responsible academia, get off our high horses and go and learn something new, challenging and, God forbid, alternative about a field you've been bashing away at out of ignorance for that subject's impact on the key figures within your own 'beloved' field.

*sigh*

OT: Arts/Culture policy always get bashed during a recession (as an unnecessary frivolity) and then revitalised during the economic sunny days (as a demonstration of a civilised and affluent society) - check out the fortunes of the British Arts Council and local libraries over the past decade as an example.
 

Ken Sapp

Cat Herder
Apr 1, 2010
510
0
0
Why isn't art education focused on as much as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics)?

I would hazard to guess that one of the main reasons is that the hard disciplines are easier to test comprehension, particularly in a society which has difficulty defining Art. If I teach 100 people the fundamentals of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division then I can give them all the same test and make a good judgment about each individuals' level of understanding and ability based upon the results.

On the other hand, if I show the same painting or play the same music to 100 people, then how do I judge their understanding of the arts or their comprehension of the pieces? Art is a subjective medium and the same image or piece of music will often have different meanings to different individuals. None of their impressions will be wrong and they can even give different answers at different times and they will still be valid.

To sum up, STEM fields of study are objective and the same inputs will always result in the same outputs, Arts are subjective and the answers depend upon the individual interpretations of each person. That does not make the arts any more or less valid than the sciences but it might explain the difference in their educational focus.

Bonham79 said:
There are pieces of art so poignant that it creates a very powerful response in the viewer. Picasso's Guernica cannot be viewed without understanding how disgustingly horrible Spain suffered in war.
Picasso's Guernica means nothing to me, it stirs nothing in my soul. I have never found any of that style of painting to be memorable. I am sure it carries much meaning for you, but for me it invokes nothing.
 

miketehmage

New member
Jul 22, 2009
396
0
0
I'd wager that the reason skills such as english and philosophy aren't in high demand in the job market is that scientists and engineers find solutions to all sorts of problems in day to day life or with the environment and such. These people are needed by big business. Writers and such are not, or at least, not as much.

Why don't people care about it? Because there is no practical application.

Also, I hated that in school, when I was being taught "english" I was forced to read through plays and novels and blah blah blah and write critical essays discussing techniques the author used.

How in the name of fuck is that related to english? English classes should focus more on teaching us all to be able to spell correctly and to use correct grammar. And once the entire population is able to form a coherent sentence, we should be able to choose whether or not we subject ourselves to "the arts" because I for one, couldn't be less interested in them. Though I've probably already made that much clear.

I also dislike how high in regards universities hold an English Higher(Thats a scottish qualification by the way) Even for science and engineering courses. What does my ability to see what techniques an author has used have to do with my Java programming skills?

/rant

captcha: gone dolally..... shut up captcha
 

Esotera

New member
May 5, 2011
3,400
0
0
Because there are less STEM graduates than there are STEM jobs, and there are more humanities graduates than there are humanities jobs. And this is going to sound elitist, but there are far more crappy courses that don't require much work to ace in the humanities than there are in science & maths.
 

Collegeboy21

New member
Jan 26, 2010
78
0
0
I also majored in English. I work in IT. Turns out it's pretty hard to become a famous author right out of college. My IT skills pay the bills. There are not that many companies looking for English majors these days, though if your company's newsletters resemble the ones we have here, then more companies probably SHOULD be hiring English majors.
 

ClockworkPenguin

Senior Member
Mar 29, 2012
587
0
21
It strikes me as ironic that humanities are 'creative' and science 'isn't' when humanities students seem to spend most of their time just analysing and critiquing other peoples theories, whereas scientists are producing new products and methods and technologies.
 

Poetic Nova

Pulvis Et Umbra Sumus
Jan 24, 2012
1,974
0
0
I actually prefer english (while I still make alot of mistakes) over my native language.
 

thegingerone

New member
Dec 1, 2011
16
0
0
I want to know why nobody cares about English at the grade school and high school levels. It doesn't matter how brilliant you are if you cannot communicate coherently. All you have to do is read these forums for examples of this. Most Americans don't actually speak English fluently any more. We never learn anything about the grammar of our own language. I'm trying to teach college freshmen Latin and I have to start by teaching them English first. They should know how basic sentences work and how to conjugate English verbs properly by the time they get to college.