Majoring in English—why so much disrespect?

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

I'm not the PP but seems to me the English PP was talking about the word phrasing whereas you're talking about the mathematics so it seems to me you're completely missing PP's point! Maybe more English lessions?!

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Major lawsuits have been won and lost because of the Oxford comma.

[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%.

AI also likes to hallucinate

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.

[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.

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wealthiest person I know (a multi-millionaire) majored in English, went on later to get an MBA, and successfully started two companies. He encouraged his own children to get a solid liberal arts education before picking a career.

Two of the wealthiest people (Gates and Zuckerberg) on the planet didn’t even graduate college at all.

You can’t start making arguments for a field of study based on ultimate financial success because it always ends with the wealthiest people who were nearly all STEM majors or college dropout STEM majors.

I am pretty sure Zucks finished Harvard.

[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.

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%.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wealthiest person I know (a multi-millionaire) majored in English, went on later to get an MBA, and successfully started two companies. He encouraged his own children to get a solid liberal arts education before picking a career.

Two of the wealthiest people (Gates and Zuckerberg) on the planet didn’t even graduate college at all.

You can’t start making arguments for a field of study based on ultimate financial success because it always ends with the wealthiest people who were nearly all STEM majors or college dropout STEM majors.

I am pretty sure Zucks finished Harvard.

Are you the only person on the planet that doesn’t know he dropped out after freshman year?

[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.

But, it was really good for a job description. It's not the Harvard Review.

Well if one can barely string two sentences together, I'm sure its great.

It was actually half a page with bullets. It was pretty good - clear and concise. If an English major wrote it would've been verbose and flowery. That doesn't fly in my industry.

My kid was in an IB magnet, and I think it was a great program for them, made them stronger writers. But, do you know what all the kids called IB? "I Bulls*!t".

I'm not an English major but I know enough that English majors are taught precisely not to be flowery and verbose!

I don't recall being taught anything about writing. I think most people who choose to major in English are pretty good writers beforehand.