Why does no one care about english?

[spartan231490]

Because, arts are meaningless in the current theater of education. No matter what anyone tells you, the current educational system is all about getting a job and becoming a "productive" member of society. Problem is, in the arts, a degree doesn't show how good you are, only your work can show how good you are. The world is full of people with 4 years in college and nothing to show for it other than a whole lot of wasted money and a piece of paper. The only thing you can do with a bachelors in an arts field is pursue a graduate degree and teach. Rarely you can get some other kind of job, but not usually. Usually you waste a crap ton of money and if you ever do get a job in an arts field it's because of something you did outside of school.

 

[malestrithe]

(This doesn't apply to only English, whatever language that is used to reason and discuss in your country can be substituted.)

So the U.S. in the spirit of the political season is stressing better 'education', and by education they mean the increasing test scores in math and sciences. So now I have to hear ramblings about the U.S. falling behind in the math and sciences, and how this country has better test scores than us and how we can better yadayadayada.

Fact of the matter is that most Americans will choose a degree in the Liberal Arts when they get to college. Politicians know this and they bluster and bloviate to the people that thinks science and math are more important.

There is a test called the International Math and Science Standards. It is a voluntary test given to countries all over the world. The first time the test was done, back in 1961, the United States scored 11th out of 12 participating countries. President Johnston used this score to kick start his war on poverty initiative, with a strong emphasis on science and math. The second time the test was given in the early 80s, we scored 14th out of 28 participating countries. President Reagan used it for his Crisis in Education protocols. The third time the test was given, we scored 17th out of 40 participating countries. Each time we took the test, we are statistically doing better, but that's only because countries with worse educational systems are now taking the tests. Now, we are about 21 out of 50 countries.

At this point, politicians in the United States have been beating the science and math drum for almost 70 years, since the end of WWII. If anything, the data proves that Americans simply aren't interested in science and math.

 

[SodaDew]

Well, according to one of my High school teachers, "English isn't important anymore because in 20 years or so, all of the United States will be speaking Spanish, because most immigrants coming to the US are Mexican". But for me, I feel English is a very important thing to know, I believe science is on par with English, as far as studies go. Math not so much, unless your going into engineering or something that uses lots of numbers. Philosophy, I don't really know what to say about it, if one wants to learn about it, more power to you.

 

[Subscriptism]

Because Philosophy, Religious Studies and other subjects like that are utterly useless.

/thread

 

[SciMal]

-The Athenian Acropolis

-The Magna Carta

-Martin Luther's 95 Theses

-The U.S. Declaration of Independence

-Das Kapital

-Upton Sinclair's The Jungle

1) You better believe that was built with Mathematics and Science.

2) I'm not sure the Magna Carta is a work of art. It's enshrined because of the politics that provided the impetus and the resulting social climate, but art? I think that's a stretch.

3) That's a good example.

4) The Declaration of Independence is the same as the Magna Carta - Its existence serves a very specific political purpose.

5) Good example, though it didn't really impact the world at large for more than a few decades.

6) Eh, it led to stricter regulations - but it didn't change how meat went from the farm to the plate that much.

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)

1, 2, 3, ) Were all summed up as simple mathematical equations early on. Distribution of resources is a Mathematical exercise (ideally), not an Artistic endeavor.

4) Like MLK's speech above, this is a good example.

5) Another good one.

6) I'm not sure how the G.I. Bill is Art or a Creative endeavor.

7) ....? Usually revolution is as a result of restricted resources. Either food, water, fuel, or power.

8) I've never heard this in 4 years pursuing a B.S. There's no reason to believe that the scientific method couldn't be used for everything; it's always the results which are up for grabs.

9) I'm not sure how that is Art. It's just rebranding to me. Instead of having the largest number of soldiers, now it's who has the capability to blow the other off the face of the Earth first.

10) Lasted a whole generation and then went away before I was born. Wouldn't call it long-lasting.

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...

You don't have to hate to say it. I don't mind being proven wrong or incomplete. That's the entire point of threads like these.

Personally speaking, you've touched upon the only other thing presented thus far that I'd consider a work of Art that has really changed the world. The first being MLK's speeches, and now the Bible - which has affected much of humanity for a very long time (particularly the Old Testament). A lot of what has been suggested aren't really works of art; works of prose, yes, but art? Nah.

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.

True, but politics are often based on resources and the arithmetic behind those resources. The Keystone XL pipeline is a prime example.

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.

I would actually disagree. I think a thorough education in English (particularly Critical Theory) can lead to success regardless of field. I switched Majors from English Literature to Biology, and I can attest to it personally (though never let me say that an anecdote represents a larger trend).

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.

Well, I agree and disagree. I think there are a lot of people with degrees in over-saturated markets, but a lot of those people aren't skilled. I took a Fiction Writing class, and it amazed me at how bad some of the writing was for people who proclaimed to be authors in the making. Very cringe worthy stuff.

Mostly, though, I think English/Philosophy/Humanities are looked down upon because the Humanities don't offer a lot of potential in terms of invention or innovation. Abstract thinking, critical analysis, appreciation of the Arts - yes, but it's rare to find a Philosophy Major sitting in their garage with tools trying to work out how to get something done easier. More than that, they're not money-makers. While money is not the be-all end-all, it certainly brings an ease of existence with it. English Majors have a lot of options, but very few are six-figure level. Philosophy Majors don't have a lot of options besides 'teach.' Majoring in one of the Humanities opens up non-profit work or finding an organization who will pay you to travel around the world. Also teaching.

Compared to a Biochemical Engineer; If you get an M.S. or PhD. in that field and show any amount of aptitude, you have your options wide open. Want to teach? You can teach. Want to do research? You can do research. Want to teach and do research? You can do both. Want to do research for a corporation instead of a university? Enjoy your six-figure income for doing that. Want to do research for the government? There are billions in grants available and organizations to help you with getting a lab. Want to do research for the government and meet astronauts? If you're good enough, NASA might have a position open.

To sum up my position thus far:

Anybody can write movingly beautiful pieces or paint stunning frescos (which is not to say everybody does), but few can dedicate their lives to the pursuit of science. Those who do will not always change the world, but every one has the potential to.

 

[COMaestro]

-Martin Luther's 95 Theses

-snip-

4) Like MLK's speech above, this is a good example.

Not MLK's speeches. Martin Luther's 95 Theses. Very different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses

 

[SciMal]

Not MLK's speeches. Martin Luther's 95 Theses. Very different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ninety-Five_Theses

Good catch. Added in a word in my head.

 

[FootloosePhoenix]

I'm going to assume you mean English in higher-levels of study as opposed to basic spelling and grammar, at least for the first part of my post.

Well English and its ilk aren't regarded as "practical" fields of study for reasons that have already been established in this thread, especially in the increasingly technological-based society we're becoming. English can't solve the issues at large in the world today and such. It's thought of as very closely related to the arts if not precisely one of the arts itself (you'll find differing opinions on the matter depending who you ask. I consider writing a distinct art form, but of course not ALL writing is art just like not all of any kind of artistic thing is art in that special elusive sense). Since it has that characteristic, it's usually categorized as part of a luxury, a form of entertainment whether implicitly or explicitly. The world also needs more scientists, engineers, doctors, mathematicians and the like, all areas which have a math and/or science focus. We're not in need of more journalists and creative writers as almost anyone can report facts as long as they know them and entertainment writing isn't considered vitally important. However, while I understand this common viewpoint, it's a great shame that the language arts aren't generally regarded in a higher manner. I believe that writing is vital to exploring the human condition and discovering things about ourselves, which in turn keeps us healthy as both a race and as individuals.

I want to add on a related note that I've noticed a distinct shift in my English Language Arts programs over the years from studying literature, which people commonly associate with the higher-level English courses, to becoming a masterful communicator, which is a skill everyone needs no matter what career path they take. (I'm currently in grade twelve and a Canadian for interest's sake.)

As for basic language mechanics and such, there's really no excuse for schools not to stress the importance of being able to communicate clearly and fluently, and a big part of being able to do so is knowing how to speak your fucking language correctly. I find it truly pathetic when I see someone who's a teenager or older misspelling simple words. English has always come naturally to me, but I realize that it's an incredibly difficult subject area if it doesn't just click with you, like math is to me and plenty of other people. For these reasons it's my opinion that schools and teachers should be able to offer the most support in these two areas, English and math, for those who need it.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

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.

Without that huge-ass poster of Rita Hayworth Andy Dufresne would never have gotten out of that prison, and we would have been denied one of the greatest moments in cinema history.



Holy crap that movie was fantastic.

 

[Bobic]

What's with all the people arguing over whether or not the arts are as important as the sciences or not. That's not really got anything to do with it. Isn't the real reason just that you don't need to encourage people into the arts? There's already a massive overabundance in them. People love that shit, and there, for the time being at least, are more than enough people taking it. The science's however, are really quite difficult, and, as an added bonus, have that whole 'nerd' stigma attached. So you need to push people into them to get enough people studying them.

So stop rambling back and forth about whether art is important or not.

 

[aba1]

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.

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.

Ya you really don't know anything about teaching and learning art... like at all. I hate when people reply to me the way I am replying to you but seriously if you even thought about it for a little or did a tiny bit a research you would see art can in fact be very much so taught and graded.

 

[Thistlehart]

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...

You don't have to hate to say it. I don't mind being proven wrong or incomplete. That's the entire point of threads like these.

I didn't hate to say that you were incorrect. I hated giving that much credit to the Bible. I resent its influence, but I cannot deny said influence.

Personally speaking, you've touched upon the only other thing presented thus far that I'd consider a work of Art that has really changed the world. The first being MLK's speeches, and now the Bible - which has affected much of humanity for a very long time (particularly the Old Testament). A lot of what has been suggested aren't really works of art; works of prose, yes, but art? Nah.

I think you're getting hung-up on the "art" angle. Many of the skills possessed by an English major (or some arts majors) can be suitable for composing more than stories, poetry, and suchlike. For instance; I have an English degree with a specialization in writing, meaning I focused primarily on composition and communication (rather than bullshitting about Shakespeare, which is another useful skill set). I can put together contracts, proposals, instructions, edit and proofread, and communicate rather effectively. Some of these will be based on numbers and math (such as proposals), but (pardon my alteration) no profession is an island.

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.

True, but politics are often based on resources and the arithmetic behind those resources. The Keystone XL pipeline is a prime example.

Yes, I'll grant you that; however, while much of politics is based on numbers, those numbers are spun and debated by people proficient at communication and persuasion. Behind these are skill sets possessed by many with Arts degrees (research, rhetoric, citation, etc.). While the math may be an inseparable part of a political maneuver, it doesn't take a math major to present statistics in an effective manner.

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.

I would actually disagree. I think a thorough education in English (particularly Critical Theory) can lead to success regardless of field. I switched Majors from English Literature to Biology, and I can attest to it personally (though never let me say that an anecdote represents a larger trend).

There's a good point. Thank you.

Sorry, I'm going to break down this next part a bit, as there are parts I agree with and parts I think you may want to rethink.

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.

Well, I agree and disagree. I think there are a lot of people with degrees in over-saturated markets, but a lot of those people aren't skilled. I took a Fiction Writing class, and it amazed me at how bad some of the writing was for people who proclaimed to be authors in the making. Very cringe worthy stuff.

This kind of contradicts your final statement. I'll agree with the preceeding point (as I've borne witness to a few rather horrid attempts at fiction writing that were little more than self-aggrandizing fantasies or rather ham-handed attempts at being "edgy" (I was in the latter category).

Mostly, though, I think English/Philosophy/Humanities are looked down upon because the Humanities don't offer a lot of potential in terms of invention or innovation. Abstract thinking, critical analysis, appreciation of the Arts - yes, but it's rare to find a Philosophy Major sitting in their garage with tools trying to work out how to get something done easier.

Depends on what else they do, I guess. I'd dispute the lack of potential and instead posit a personal lack on part of the individual, rather than a lack in the field. As you said above, one can take quite a lot from the arts and apply it elsewhere.

More than that, they're not money-makers. While money is not the be-all end-all, it certainly brings an ease of existence with it. English Majors have a lot of options, but very few are six-figure level. Philosophy Majors don't have a lot of options besides 'teach.' Majoring in one of the Humanities opens up non-profit work or finding an organization who will pay you to travel around the world. Also teaching.

I apologize for using a meme here, but. There is not enough This on the internet for me to express how much This this is! It's unfortunate, but there aren't many marketable arts degrees, and those that are will most likely be teaching.

To sum up my position thus far:

Anybody can write movingly beautiful pieces or paint stunning frescos (which is not to say everybody does), but few can dedicate their lives to the pursuit of science. Those who do will not always change the world, but every one has the potential to.

As already noted, you're contradicting yourself with the earlier part of this statement, however I can agree with the latter part.

 

[Erttheking]

Probably because writers aren't viewed as being important or contributive to society. It's a crock of shit I know.