Peter G. Beidler presents some useful data in the new issue of the MLA journal Profession (2003). He surveys what former Lehigh University English majors considered most beneficial about their undergraduate English experience. Writing skills were at the top of the list, with almost 70% choosing them as one of their two most important benefits. Next were “critical thinking skills,” with 59%. Interestingly, when one gets down to the nitty-gritty of literary analysis and history—what many faculty consider the real meat of the major—the numbers fall off dramatically. Only 22% of respondents selected “literary appreciation and analysis” as one of their two most valued take-aways, and knowledge of the history of literature garnered a mere 1.4%.
The numbers, which Beidler acknowledges are specific to Lehigh as a “small, private, selective, eastern university,” are nonetheless noteworthy in that they represent an inversion of how the English major at a wide variety of institutions is typically structured, with its emphasis on literary genres and historical periods. Nearly all faculty would maintain that in the process of teaching literary history and appreciation they also teach critical thinking and writing: but Beidler’s numbers suggest that other approaches to the major should be given equally serious consideration.
Posted by mgk at December 15, 2003 09:30 PMMy theory is that you can't teach critical thinking on its own, and that the humanities (not just literature) provide a lot of scope for independent and critical thought. In which case maybe we needn't change the curriculum - simply be more aware of what we *really* want the students to learn.
Posted by: Jill at December 16, 2003 04:26 AM | Link to CommentI wonder if students interpreted "beneficial" as "marketable"?
If so, the numbers are less surprising to me; I imagine that many students feel that knowing when Chaucer wrote the Tales isn't likely to land them a job.
I do wonder if "knowledge of the history of film" would have garnered a higher response?
Posted by: Jason at December 16, 2003 07:33 AM | Link to CommentNot students--these were alumni, some of whom had been out of school for decades.
Posted by: MGK at December 16, 2003 09:05 AM | Link to CommentI was prompted by this entry to read the Beidler article, and his points seemed rather convincing to me. To be fair, my focus on film studies is outside typical English department categorizations according to period.
But intuitively, this approach (teaching critical thinking and writing skills) seems more crucial to me than re-affirming a set of disciplinary norms, especially when so few English majors become professors. In fact, I'd guess (along with the author) that a more flexible major would attract many bright students to major in English. Anecdotally, I have several students who were drawn to the study of literature, but avoided majoring in it because their parents regarded it as impractical.
Posted by: chuck at December 16, 2003 11:04 PM | Link to CommentI don't quite understand why "relevance for future career options" is a useful heuristic for shaping the curriculum. (To put that another way, maybe, I think that this is only a worry because of our own disciplinary anxieties. I doubt you see this kind of handwringing in, say, biology or math.)
If you did a similar survey of other majors' alums--even putatively hardheaded, practical majors like computer science or business--you would, I fearlessly predict, get similar results: That the content of the major is less relevant to what one does at one's job than anyone ever anticipates. If you want an education where your classroom experiences anticipate your career, then you probably shouldn't go to a 4-year college or university. (I think this is probably close to Jill's point above.)
Posted by: JBJ at December 17, 2003 11:32 AM | Link to CommentI don't quite understand why "relevance for future career options" is a useful heuristic for shaping the curriculum. (To put that another way, maybe, I think that this is only a worry because of our own disciplinary anxieties. I doubt you see this kind of handwringing in, say, biology or math.)
If you did a similar survey of other majors' alums--even putatively hardheaded, practical majors like computer science or business--you would, I fearlessly predict, get similar results: That the content of the major is less relevant to what one does at one's job than anyone ever anticipates. If you want an education where your classroom experiences anticipate your career, then you probably shouldn't go to a 4-year college or university. (I think this is probably close to Jill's point above.)
This is widely misunderstood, hence the objections of Chuck's students' parents.
Sorry about the double-posting idiocy--shouldn't post when I'm on baby patrol . . .
Posted by: JBJ at December 17, 2003 11:35 AM | Link to Comment