Majoring in English—why so much disrespect?

[Anonymous]

English major here. I have heard this my whole life. On the other hand, I’ve been successful and never unemployed. If I were to count my skills at work, my reading speed and comprehension are very high. I’m shocked at how slowly other people read! Sure I’m not analyzing books anymore, but I am analyzing paragraphs daily.

I do have an Economics minor that other people don’t find as offensive as my English major. I’ve yet to use it.

You just need to learn to hustle at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

dony898 wrote:Everyone dunks on English majors until they need help writing a single coherent sentence on LinkedIn.

I had to write a job description recently and used AI for the first to time to do it. It was pretty dam* good. I just had to tweak it a bit. I was a bit shocked.

I saw a video of a fake podcast created by Google Gemini for a technical manual. It was shockingly amazing.

I think many, if not most, people find it to be good because they can't write to save their arse so anything that's comprehensible is going to be good.

95% of all communication in the business world is simply communicating the equivalent of the chicken crossed the road.

Who cares if your company earnings press release is written well. It just needs to communicate that revenues were up 5% and earnings increased 10%.

Who cares if advertising copy is well written? Almost nobody which is why it’s literally being taken over by AI.

Who cares if a Company’s IPO perspectus is well written? Nobody considering few read them…however you do need to make sure AI doesn’t hallucinate something to cause a lawsuit down the road.

This isn’t about “good” writing…it’s just is it good enough. That’s all the corporate world cares about.

Actually, it's very important. I don't think companies want to put out anything with poor grammar or difficult to understand. It would reflect poorly on the company and it's management.

AI doesn’t produce poor grammar or is difficult to understand. Certainly not poor grammar that the consumer of an earnings press release cares about.

It may seem boring to some and uninspired…but it’s easy to understand and more than gets the job done for these purposes.

AI also hallucinates

Correct…so you need to confirm it didn’t hallucinate that earnings increased 100% when they only increased 5%.

yep

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An example of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in Middle English. Understanding it is only the beginning.

"Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote

The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote,

And bathed every veyne in swich licour,

Of which vertu engendred is the flour."

but, why do people need to understand this? I read Shakespeare, Flaubert, etc.. but I don't see the point in needing to understand very old English. My DH is English. He doesn't even like reading those types of books

Which then begs the question, why do I need to study so many subjects that I will never use in my career? It's not necessarily the specific subject matter that's important, its the the thought processes and skills that we develop that's important.

I can understand learning history, social science, but none of those classes are taught in ye olde English. So, again, why does one need to understand Chaucer's old English?

I think it's important to read some classics, but I don't think it's important to read every classic.

Majoring in English is not only (or primarily) about reading the classics. It's about thinking about literature and the ways that literature reflect (or doesn't reflect) society and our culture. It's about expanding our imaginations and empathy through seeing the world through others' perspectives. And it's about close reading and defending ideas with specific examples.

I agree with you, but sadly that is what is lacking in today's society and spefically here on DCUM

Dcum -- and the world -- would be a better place with more English majors and fewer business majors.

We need more doctors and nurses.

Yes. And at least one med school thinks that English majors make better doctors: https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2015/npr-all-things-considered-a-top-medical-school-revamps-requirements-to-lure-english-majors

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

dony898 wrote:Everyone dunks on English majors until they need help writing a single coherent sentence on LinkedIn.

I had to write a job description recently and used AI for the first to time to do it. It was pretty dam* good. I just had to tweak it a bit. I was a bit shocked.

I saw a video of a fake podcast created by Google Gemini for a technical manual. It was shockingly amazing.

I think many, if not most, people find it to be good because they can't write to save their arse so anything that's comprehensible is going to be good.

95% of all communication in the business world is simply communicating the equivalent of the chicken crossed the road.

Who cares if your company earnings press release is written well. It just needs to communicate that revenues were up 5% and earnings increased 10%.

Who cares if advertising copy is well written? Almost nobody which is why it’s literally being taken over by AI.

Who cares if a Company’s IPO perspectus is well written? Nobody considering few read them…however you do need to make sure AI doesn’t hallucinate something to cause a lawsuit down the road.

This isn’t about “good” writing…it’s just is it good enough. That’s all the corporate world cares about.

I disagree. You should see the unprofessional emails and memos that Doge sends me on a daily basis. Good writing matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An example of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in Middle English. Understanding it is only the beginning.

"Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote

The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote,

And bathed every veyne in swich licour,

Of which vertu engendred is the flour."

but, why do people need to understand this? I read Shakespeare, Flaubert, etc.. but I don't see the point in needing to understand very old English. My DH is English. He doesn't even like reading those types of books

Which then begs the question, why do I need to study so many subjects that I will never use in my career? It's not necessarily the specific subject matter that's important, its the the thought processes and skills that we develop that's important.

I can understand learning history, social science, but none of those classes are taught in ye olde English. So, again, why does one need to understand Chaucer's old English?

I think it's important to read some classics, but I don't think it's important to read every classic.

Majoring in English is not only (or primarily) about reading the classics. It's about thinking about literature and the ways that literature reflect (or doesn't reflect) society and our culture. It's about expanding our imaginations and empathy through seeing the world through others' perspectives. And it's about close reading and defending ideas with specific examples.

I agree with you, but sadly that is what is lacking in today's society and spefically here on DCUM

Dcum -- and the world -- would be a better place with more English majors and fewer business majors.

We need more doctors and nurses.

Yes. And at least one med school thinks that English majors make better doctors: https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2015/npr-all-things-considered-a-top-medical-school-revamps-requirements-to-lure-english-majors

If they thought they made better doctors then why do have their med school students come from science backgrounds?

They think it’s valuable to bring humanities majors in to become doctors but if they believed they were better then one would assume they would take the majority of their class through this program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An example of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in Middle English. Understanding it is only the beginning.

"Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote

The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote,

And bathed every veyne in swich licour,

Of which vertu engendred is the flour."

but, why do people need to understand this? I read Shakespeare, Flaubert, etc.. but I don't see the point in needing to understand very old English. My DH is English. He doesn't even like reading those types of books

Which then begs the question, why do I need to study so many subjects that I will never use in my career? It's not necessarily the specific subject matter that's important, its the the thought processes and skills that we develop that's important.

I can understand learning history, social science, but none of those classes are taught in ye olde English. So, again, why does one need to understand Chaucer's old English?

I think it's important to read some classics, but I don't think it's important to read every classic.

Majoring in English is not only (or primarily) about reading the classics. It's about thinking about literature and the ways that literature reflect (or doesn't reflect) society and our culture. It's about expanding our imaginations and empathy through seeing the world through others' perspectives. And it's about close reading and defending ideas with specific examples.

I agree with you, but sadly that is what is lacking in today's society and spefically here on DCUM

Dcum -- and the world -- would be a better place with more English majors and fewer business majors.

We need more doctors and nurses.

Yes. And at least one med school thinks that English majors make better doctors: https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2015/npr-all-things-considered-a-top-medical-school-revamps-requirements-to-lure-english-majors

If they thought they made better doctors then why do have their med school students come from science backgrounds?

They think it’s valuable to bring humanities majors in to become doctors but if they believed they were better then one would assume they would take the majority of their class through this program.

We don't know who applies. It's hard fulfilling pre med science requirements and majoring in the humanities. But it's very likely that majoring in the humanities is a plus factor, making it easier to be accepted in a competitive environment.

[Anonymous]

Because we are living in a minor dark age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An example of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in Middle English. Understanding it is only the beginning.

"Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote

The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote,

And bathed every veyne in swich licour,

Of which vertu engendred is the flour."

but, why do people need to understand this? I read Shakespeare, Flaubert, etc.. but I don't see the point in needing to understand very old English. My DH is English. He doesn't even like reading those types of books

Which then begs the question, why do I need to study so many subjects that I will never use in my career? It's not necessarily the specific subject matter that's important, its the the thought processes and skills that we develop that's important.

I can understand learning history, social science, but none of those classes are taught in ye olde English. So, again, why does one need to understand Chaucer's old English?

I think it's important to read some classics, but I don't think it's important to read every classic.

Majoring in English is not only (or primarily) about reading the classics. It's about thinking about literature and the ways that literature reflect (or doesn't reflect) society and our culture. It's about expanding our imaginations and empathy through seeing the world through others' perspectives. And it's about close reading and defending ideas with specific examples.

I agree with you, but sadly that is what is lacking in today's society and spefically here on DCUM

Dcum -- and the world -- would be a better place with more English majors and fewer business majors.

We need more doctors and nurses.

Yes. And at least one med school thinks that English majors make better doctors: https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2015/npr-all-things-considered-a-top-medical-school-revamps-requirements-to-lure-english-majors

If they thought they made better doctors then why do have their med school students come from science backgrounds?

They think it’s valuable to bring humanities majors in to become doctors but if they believed they were better then one would assume they would take the majority of their class through this program.

Not PP, but I think its because medicine is inherently rooted in science whereas the humanities brings in the art.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know women’s studies, studio art, and political science majors from my LAC, who went to medical school.

3% of med school students were/are humanities majors

It’s safe to say nobody knows many English majors who became doctors because it’s statistically impossible.

But you may know some.

Statistically if you know 33 doctors one of them majored in humanities. To know two you need to know 67 doctors. To know “a few” or you need to know hundreds of doctors.

That’s all humanities…not just English (poli sci most popular humanities major BTW). We are talking specifically English majors which is the title of the thread.

You probably have to know 150-200 doctors to know one that was an English major.

Gracious, I was an English major and even I understand that's not how probability works. You do not "have to know 150-200 doctors" to know one who was an English major. You can know just one doctor - the one in 150 who was an English major.

And that’s why people look down on English majors. If you look at the prior post it started with the word “statistically”, meaning on average. You’re confusing a possible outcome with the probability that said outcome is realized. Where’s that sharp critical thinking that English majors supposedly develop while analyzing Shakespeare? Businesses will not pay you money for these trite arguments, you need to be productive.

I'm the PP English major. Precision matters, and you were being imprecise to serve a false argument.
The statement "Statistically if you know 33 doctors, one of them majored in humanities" is not the same as "Statistically you would need to know 33 doctors to know one who majored in humanities."
But, you (or somebody) conflated the two and then doubled down on that second formulation to suggest that it's impossible the other PP knows a few / more than a few doctors who were humanities majors. "You'd have to know x number of people ..." was offered to show that there's no way they actually know that many people in the category. But, of course, that does not follow from the statistic. It's entirely possible that PP knows a dozen humanities majors who became doctors, for all sorts of reasons - perhaps PP is a member of an alumni club with that focus. Perhaps several friends all met at a liberal arts college and then became doctors. Perhaps all of PP's family members have that educational background. When you misuse statistics, you come to false conclusions and overlook interesting possibilities.

This post might be described as probability astrology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

dony898 wrote:Everyone dunks on English majors until they need help writing a single coherent sentence on LinkedIn.

I had to write a job description recently and used AI for the first to time to do it. It was pretty dam* good. I just had to tweak it a bit. I was a bit shocked.

I saw a video of a fake podcast created by Google Gemini for a technical manual. It was shockingly amazing.

I think many, if not most, people find it to be good because they can't write to save their arse so anything that's comprehensible is going to be good.

95% of all communication in the business world is simply communicating the equivalent of the chicken crossed the road.

Who cares if your company earnings press release is written well. It just needs to communicate that revenues were up 5% and earnings increased 10%.

Who cares if advertising copy is well written? Almost nobody which is why it’s literally being taken over by AI.

Who cares if a Company’s IPO perspectus is well written? Nobody considering few read them…however you do need to make sure AI doesn’t hallucinate something to cause a lawsuit down the road.

This isn’t about “good” writing…it’s just is it good enough. That’s all the corporate world cares about.

I disagree. You should see the unprofessional emails and memos that Doge sends me on a daily basis. Good writing matters.

I don’t know what “professional” means…but in finance much communication is unprofessional and filled with expletives…but it’s not unclear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

dony898 wrote:Everyone dunks on English majors until they need help writing a single coherent sentence on LinkedIn.

I had to write a job description recently and used AI for the first to time to do it. It was pretty dam* good. I just had to tweak it a bit. I was a bit shocked.

I saw a video of a fake podcast created by Google Gemini for a technical manual. It was shockingly amazing.

I think many, if not most, people find it to be good because they can't write to save their arse so anything that's comprehensible is going to be good.

95% of all communication in the business world is simply communicating the equivalent of the chicken crossed the road.

Who cares if your company earnings press release is written well. It just needs to communicate that revenues were up 5% and earnings increased 10%.

Who cares if advertising copy is well written? Almost nobody which is why it’s literally being taken over by AI.

Who cares if a Company’s IPO perspectus is well written? Nobody considering few read them…however you do need to make sure AI doesn’t hallucinate something to cause a lawsuit down the road.

This isn’t about “good” writing…it’s just is it good enough. That’s all the corporate world cares about.

I disagree. You should see the unprofessional emails and memos that Doge sends me on a daily basis. Good writing matters.

I don’t know what “professional” means…but in finance much communication is unprofessional and filled with expletives…but it’s not unclear.

Company maiings and prospectesus are filled with expletives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because we are living in a minor dark age.

I agree. Those in power want us to be uneducated and work in their widget factories - making poverty wages while they make billions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

dony898 wrote:Everyone dunks on English majors until they need help writing a single coherent sentence on LinkedIn.

I had to write a job description recently and used AI for the first to time to do it. It was pretty dam* good. I just had to tweak it a bit. I was a bit shocked.

I saw a video of a fake podcast created by Google Gemini for a technical manual. It was shockingly amazing.

I think many, if not most, people find it to be good because they can't write to save their arse so anything that's comprehensible is going to be good.

95% of all communication in the business world is simply communicating the equivalent of the chicken crossed the road.

Who cares if your company earnings press release is written well. It just needs to communicate that revenues were up 5% and earnings increased 10%.

Who cares if advertising copy is well written? Almost nobody which is why it’s literally being taken over by AI.

Who cares if a Company’s IPO perspectus is well written? Nobody considering few read them…however you do need to make sure AI doesn’t hallucinate something to cause a lawsuit down the road.

This isn’t about “good” writing…it’s just is it good enough. That’s all the corporate world cares about.

I disagree. You should see the unprofessional emails and memos that Doge sends me on a daily basis. Good writing matters.

I don’t know what “professional” means…but in finance much communication is unprofessional and filled with expletives…but it’s not unclear.

Company maiings and prospectesus are filled with expletives?

Internal company communications…I doubt the unprofessional DOGE emails referred by PP are company mailings or prospectuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

dony898 wrote:Everyone dunks on English majors until they need help writing a single coherent sentence on LinkedIn.

I had to write a job description recently and used AI for the first to time to do it. It was pretty dam* good. I just had to tweak it a bit. I was a bit shocked.

I saw a video of a fake podcast created by Google Gemini for a technical manual. It was shockingly amazing.

I think many, if not most, people find it to be good because they can't write to save their arse so anything that's comprehensible is going to be good.

95% of all communication in the business world is simply communicating the equivalent of the chicken crossed the road.

Who cares if your company earnings press release is written well. It just needs to communicate that revenues were up 5% and earnings increased 10%.

Who cares if advertising copy is well written? Almost nobody which is why it’s literally being taken over by AI.

Who cares if a Company’s IPO perspectus is well written? Nobody considering few read them…however you do need to make sure AI doesn’t hallucinate something to cause a lawsuit down the road.

This isn’t about “good” writing…it’s just is it good enough. That’s all the corporate world cares about.

I disagree. You should see the unprofessional emails and memos that Doge sends me on a daily basis. Good writing matters.

I don’t know what “professional” means…but in finance much communication is unprofessional and filled with expletives…but it’s not unclear.

Company maiings and prospectesus are filled with expletives?

Internal company communications…I doubt the unprofessional DOGE emails referred by PP are company mailings or prospectuses.

I'd doubt that would be allowed since it is all discoverable in any lawsuit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know women’s studies, studio art, and political science majors from my LAC, who went to medical school.

3% of med school students were/are humanities majors

It’s safe to say nobody knows many English majors who became doctors because it’s statistically impossible.

But you may know some.

Statistically if you know 33 doctors one of them majored in humanities. To know two you need to know 67 doctors. To know “a few” or you need to know hundreds of doctors.

That’s all humanities…not just English (poli sci most popular humanities major BTW). We are talking specifically English majors which is the title of the thread.

You probably have to know 150-200 doctors to know one that was an English major.

Gracious, I was an English major and even I understand that's not how probability works. You do not "have to know 150-200 doctors" to know one who was an English major. You can know just one doctor - the one in 150 who was an English major.

And that’s why people look down on English majors. If you look at the prior post it started with the word “statistically”, meaning on average. You’re confusing a possible outcome with the probability that said outcome is realized. Where’s that sharp critical thinking that English majors supposedly develop while analyzing Shakespeare? Businesses will not pay you money for these trite arguments, you need to be productive.

I'm the PP English major. Precision matters, and you were being imprecise to serve a false argument.
The statement "Statistically if you know 33 doctors, one of them majored in humanities" is not the same as "Statistically you would need to know 33 doctors to know one who majored in humanities."
But, you (or somebody) conflated the two and then doubled down on that second formulation to suggest that it's impossible the other PP knows a few / more than a few doctors who were humanities majors. "You'd have to know x number of people ..." was offered to show that there's no way they actually know that many people in the category. But, of course, that does not follow from the statistic. It's entirely possible that PP knows a dozen humanities majors who became doctors, for all sorts of reasons - perhaps PP is a member of an alumni club with that focus. Perhaps several friends all met at a liberal arts college and then became doctors. Perhaps all of PP's family members have that educational background. When you misuse statistics, you come to false conclusions and overlook interesting possibilities.

Actually, mathematically they are the same. Good job showing what English majors are good for. Taking a position and putting forward a vacuous argument on why they are right.

Imagining some unlikely outcome then is passed along as “critical thinking”. Nobody said knowing a few doctors is impossible, only that it’s very unlikely. Don’t use the unlikely professional success of one English major as indicative that English majors in general will do well professionally.

Those two statements are only the same if you ignore the actual words written. But, that's pretty characteristic of people who denigrate the humanities - they think numbers matter, but the words that give the numbers meaning can be hand-waved and vague because everybody should have known what you meant to say. That's not how it works (especially with statistics) which is why people with strong humanities backgrounds continue to succeed.