Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Huh? We are talking about emails to an analyst saying you better have the f**king pitch book done by 6.

What’s the lawsuit? People at work cursed at me?

Curse words are discouraged in company emails. It is very unprofessional and all emails are discoverable.

Again, so what? Are you implying the existence of curse words somehow lead to a lawsuit?

You clearly don’t work in an environment where this is commonplace, so not sure why you keep responding.

Hey jerk, I was initially responding to the post that company writing was not important. Why don’t you crawl back into your hole if you don’t know what the heck you’re talking about.

What hole am I supposed to crawl back into? If you are the moron that keeps repeating over and over that cursing is unprofessional and emails are discoverable…maybe just admit that you don’t work in finance or a similar profession where this is all commonplace.

Your arsehole. That’s where you should crawl back to. Thats the only thing that needs to be admitted

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:History and English were considered respectable majors in the past. I know many who went on to law school or medical school. They’re generally thought to have good writing and analytical skills. Now, people scoff when you saying you’re majoring in English or history. I know there’s AI to worry about, but isn’t that true for CS and accounting too?

It's because English is the epitome of the sort of liberal arts degree that committed hara-kiri and now is a brainless zombie shuffling through the graveyard of academe. English majors at mid-tier colleges are unable to read anything difficult, because their degree doesn't prepare them for it. English majors at higher end colleges might be better able to read difficult texts -- rigorous data is not available, but see here for concerns ( https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/11/the-elite-college-students-who-cant-read-books/679945/ ) -- but don't have the need to do so to make their way through the major.

Allow me to shamelessly plagiarize my post, from here: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1275855.page

This recently published paper looked at the reading ability of English majors at two colleges in the middle tier. Not particularly selective, but also not open enrollment. Average reading ACT score of the participants was 22.4, around the 74th percentile. Perhaps a 550 in SAT English terms, ie a group of students which should have a substantial portion of 'college material'.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/922346

"This paper analyzes the results from a think-aloud reading study designed to test the reading comprehension skills of 85 English majors from two regional Kansas universities. From January to April of 2015, subjects participated in a recorded, twenty-minute reading session in which they were asked to read the first seven paragraphs of Charles Dickens’ Bleak House out loud to a facilitator and then translate each sentence into plain English. Before subjects started the reading tests, they were given access to online resources and dictionaries and advised that they could also use their own cell phones as a resource. The facilitators also assured the subjects that were free to go at their own pace and did not have to finish reading all seven paragraphs by the end of the exam. As part of the study, each subject filled out a survey collecting personal data (class rank, G.P.A., etc.) and took a national literacy exam (the Degrees of Reading Power Test 10A). After the 85 taped reading tests were completed, the results were transcribed and coded."

As can be expected, the results are horrendous.

"Beyond their reading tactics, problematic readers were continually challenged by the figures of speech that are woven into the novel’s descriptions. 57 percent of the subjects would ignore a figure of speech altogether and try to translate the literal meanings around it while 41 percent would interpret at least one figure of speech literally, even if it made no sense in the context of the sentence. One subject even imagined dinosaurs lumbering around London:

Original Text:

As much mud in the streets, as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill.
Subject:

[Pause.] [Laughs.] So it’s like, um, [Pause.] the mud was all in the streets, and we were, no . . . [Pause.] so everything’s been like kind of washed around and we might find Megalosaurus bones but he’s says they’re waddling, um, all up the hill.

The subject cannot make the leap to figurative language. She first guesses that the dinosaur is just “bones” and then is stuck stating that the bones are “waddling, um, all up the hill” because she can see that Dickens has the dinosaur moving. Because she cannot logically tie the ideas together, she just leaves her interpretation as is and goes on to the next sentence. "

This next one is an attempt by someone described as a 'competent reader'

"Original Text:

LONDON. Michaelmas Term lately over, and the Lord Chancellor sitting in Lincoln’s Inn Hall. Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets, as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill. Smoke lowering down . . .
Facilitator:

Before you go on, I’m going to ask you to kind of explain.
Subject:

Oh, O.K.
Facilitator:

what you read so far, so.
Subject:

O.K. Two characters it’s pointed out this Michaelmas and Lord Chancellor described as sitting in Lincoln’s Inn Hall.
Facilitator:

O.K.
Subject:

Um, talk about the November weather. Uh, mud in the streets. And, uh, I do probably need to look up “Megolasaurus”— “meet a Megolasaurus, forty feet long or so,” so it’s probably some kind of an animal or something or another that it is talking about encountering in the streets. And “wandering like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill.” So, yup, I think we’ve encountered some kind of an animal these, these characters have, have met in the street. yup, I think we’ve encountered some kind of an animal these, these characters have, have met in the street."


To add to the horror, this study is based on data collected in *2015*. However bad things were then, they are much worse now.

I will add: if the liberal arts had not destroyed themselves, these kids could very well have done better. Abandonment of the slow process of scaffolding kids through more and more difficult texts through elementary and then high school has helped breed rampant failures by English departments in colleges.

If anything, this points to the need for more and better English education in high school and in college. We can't abandon the liberal arts in college because clearly students aren't learning what they need. I bet a similar study of historical analysis/understanding would be just as dim.

If we accept as true DCUM belief that AI is taking over everything, the skills that these students lack will be even more important.

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.

My DH majored in philosophy and theology and is now highly successful in a business career. You know why? He is an exceptional critical thinker and writer.

Anonymous wrote:What matters is how it's viewed in the real world/industry as they actually pay for the value of the education/product. Doesn't matter what you feel. They know the best.

It's obviously less respected for reasons.

If you use it as a step for law school, then you'll be respected when you go to a law schools and become a lawyer.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many from the LMC view education as vocational training and don’t understand the value of a liberal arts education.

There is some value for liberal arts but if you are not independently wealthy, don't have nepotism other connections it's not enough to live you need a graduate degree in something useful so it's not useful on its own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:History and English were considered respectable majors in the past. I know many who went on to law school or medical school. They’re generally thought to have good writing and analytical skills. Now, people scoff when you saying you’re majoring in English or history. I know there’s AI to worry about, but isn’t that true for CS and accounting too?

It's because English is the epitome of the sort of liberal arts degree that committed hara-kiri and now is a brainless zombie shuffling through the graveyard of academe. English majors at mid-tier colleges are unable to read anything difficult, because their degree doesn't prepare them for it. English majors at higher end colleges might be better able to read difficult texts -- rigorous data is not available, but see here for concerns ( https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/11/the-elite-college-students-who-cant-read-books/679945/ ) -- but don't have the need to do so to make their way through the major.

Allow me to shamelessly plagiarize my post, from here: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1275855.page

This recently published paper looked at the reading ability of English majors at two colleges in the middle tier. Not particularly selective, but also not open enrollment. Average reading ACT score of the participants was 22.4, around the 74th percentile. Perhaps a 550 in SAT English terms, ie a group of students which should have a substantial portion of 'college material'.

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/922346

"This paper analyzes the results from a think-aloud reading study designed to test the reading comprehension skills of 85 English majors from two regional Kansas universities. From January to April of 2015, subjects participated in a recorded, twenty-minute reading session in which they were asked to read the first seven paragraphs of Charles Dickens’ Bleak House out loud to a facilitator and then translate each sentence into plain English. Before subjects started the reading tests, they were given access to online resources and dictionaries and advised that they could also use their own cell phones as a resource. The facilitators also assured the subjects that were free to go at their own pace and did not have to finish reading all seven paragraphs by the end of the exam. As part of the study, each subject filled out a survey collecting personal data (class rank, G.P.A., etc.) and took a national literacy exam (the Degrees of Reading Power Test 10A). After the 85 taped reading tests were completed, the results were transcribed and coded."

As can be expected, the results are horrendous.

"Beyond their reading tactics, problematic readers were continually challenged by the figures of speech that are woven into the novel’s descriptions. 57 percent of the subjects would ignore a figure of speech altogether and try to translate the literal meanings around it while 41 percent would interpret at least one figure of speech literally, even if it made no sense in the context of the sentence. One subject even imagined dinosaurs lumbering around London:

Original Text:

As much mud in the streets, as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill.
Subject:

[Pause.] [Laughs.] So it’s like, um, [Pause.] the mud was all in the streets, and we were, no . . . [Pause.] so everything’s been like kind of washed around and we might find Megalosaurus bones but he’s says they’re waddling, um, all up the hill.

The subject cannot make the leap to figurative language. She first guesses that the dinosaur is just “bones” and then is stuck stating that the bones are “waddling, um, all up the hill” because she can see that Dickens has the dinosaur moving. Because she cannot logically tie the ideas together, she just leaves her interpretation as is and goes on to the next sentence. "

This next one is an attempt by someone described as a 'competent reader'

"Original Text:

LONDON. Michaelmas Term lately over, and the Lord Chancellor sitting in Lincoln’s Inn Hall. Implacable November weather. As much mud in the streets, as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth, and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus, forty feet long or so, waddling like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill. Smoke lowering down . . .
Facilitator:

Before you go on, I’m going to ask you to kind of explain.
Subject:

Oh, O.K.
Facilitator:

what you read so far, so.
Subject:

O.K. Two characters it’s pointed out this Michaelmas and Lord Chancellor described as sitting in Lincoln’s Inn Hall.
Facilitator:

O.K.
Subject:

Um, talk about the November weather. Uh, mud in the streets. And, uh, I do probably need to look up “Megolasaurus”— “meet a Megolasaurus, forty feet long or so,” so it’s probably some kind of an animal or something or another that it is talking about encountering in the streets. And “wandering like an elephantine lizard up Holborn Hill.” So, yup, I think we’ve encountered some kind of an animal these, these characters have, have met in the street. yup, I think we’ve encountered some kind of an animal these, these characters have, have met in the street."


To add to the horror, this study is based on data collected in *2015*. However bad things were then, they are much worse now.

I will add: if the liberal arts had not destroyed themselves, these kids could very well have done better. Abandonment of the slow process of scaffolding kids through more and more difficult texts through elementary and then high school has helped breed rampant failures by English departments in colleges.

Anonymous wrote:History and English were considered respectable majors in the past. I know many who went on to law school or medical school. They’re generally thought to have good writing and analytical skills. Now, people scoff when you saying you’re majoring in English or history. I know there’s AI to worry about, but isn’t that true for CS and accounting too?

Anonymous wrote:Many from the LMC view education as vocational training and don’t understand the value of a liberal arts education.

Anonymous wrote:Due to the high cost of a college degree, people started to treat college like trade school rather than valuing it for education’s sake. High-income majors like computer science and engineering grew, while purely academic majors declined. As AI hits CS and engineering, I think we’ll see students returning to more traditional academic majors and liberal arts degrees that show a well-rounded education and adaptability vs highly specific training.