This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

What are English Lit students like?!

Scroll to see replies

jaydoh

Whatever your pre-conception, I GUARENTEE I won't fit it.

I pre-concieve that they are like jaydoh ie dress in the same way,talk in the same way and act in the same way. They are jaydoh :p:

Reply 81

Bluelight

jaydoh

Whatever your pre-conception, I GUARENTEE I won't fit it.

Well you like Manchester united so probably not.

Reply 82

Affectation

Lol harsh...
The only way in which I probably 'fit the mould' is my tendency to be extremely verbose and over-articulate in my essays and speech. People think I'm being deliberately snobby but I seriously can't help it! I just think that way...lol.
If it wasn't that, I'd be some raving lunatic who wears neon yellow and doesn't comb their hair much.

Reply 83

Emmy18

Yeah Im a lit student and don't reallllly fit the mould albeit I listen to indie music and wear boho clothes(sometimes I MUST STRESS, sometimes). I don't think Lit students aren't clever enough for science tho. I breezed thru science and maths at GCSE just thought they were lame subjects lol. And yeah it's tru lit students are lazy(well I am) because it is an art and you either have it or you dont and no amount of revision (unless its contextualising or memorising) will help whereas in science u can be an idiot so long as you can memorise formulae and apply it. In short - Do Science, no talent necessary :biggrin:

. As for me, am inarticulate in speech completely, you'd never guess I did lit but it's not about how you say it neway!At my warwick interview I said that 'those who think Tennessee Williams is a fantasist are simply HAVING A GIRAFFE MATE'....and I still got in. God I love this subject. P.S I admit most lit students are girls bt pretty.....you aint seen my class mate lol.

Reply 84

turbochargedk

Affectation

I don't blame you there are so many great words in English, it seems a waste not to use as grandiose-a-variety, as it is concieveably viable to pontificate with.

Reply 85

yorkshirelass

Emmy18

I don't think Lit students aren't clever enough for science tho. I breezed thru science and maths at GCSE just thought they were lame subjects lol.

That's a very naive view. At GCSE, you might be able to memorise facts but I believe it gets a lot tougher than that as you go further into these subjects (GCSE is pretty much not really what Science/Maths is about about, anyway). The people on Scientific research teams are not brain-dead idiots who got through by memorising material; they're most likely the most intelligent people our country has. Being 'good' (as you so crudely put it) at English Literature is a gift, and an intelligence by itself, but is hardly comparable in terms of usefulness and IQ required for Science/Maths.
I would certainly admit that I'm not bright enough to study either of those subjects.

Reply 86

Da Bachtopus

yelwalkietalkie

Being 'good' (as you so crudely put it) at English Literature is a gift, and an intelligence by itself, but is hardly comparable in terms of usefulness and IQ required for Science/Maths.

Really? I'd not say that the kind of intelligence measured by IQ tests excludes a capacity for critical thinking (analogies and logic) or even language acquisition, both of which are very useful to English students. Surely at some level the ability to note connections and similarities, and to memorise then constructively deploy information, is connected to traditional, albeit limited, notions of 'intelligence'? Whilst the arts and sciences might employ these capacities in different ways, I don't think you can say that there is one form of intelligence entirely exclusive to studying literature (which is not quantifiable) and another to studying mathematics or science (which is quantifiable). I'd suggest that people I consider to be 'good' at English have relatively high IQs, though perhaps not as high as the best mathematicians.

A second point: what do you mean by "in terms of usefulness"? The skills (I'm trying to be specific here rather than simply referring to 'basic intelligence' or whatever) required to excel in arts subjects I'd suggest are far more "useful" than sh*t-hot calculus powers. In studying literature, you're continually cultivating your ability to communicate and to follow others' thoughts. When it comes to demonstrating your ideas to others, you're only as intelligent as your ability to communicate them allows (a point that's equally true in maths and science, though constructing a clear proof isn't a skill transposable to everyday discourse). It's also very useful to intelligently read what other people say, especially in telling when an argument is rhetorical rather than substantial. And a developed verbal dexterity can always enliven your conversation.

Diverging from simple "skills", somewhat, I rather atavistically have faith in the value of art and philosophy. Reading and thinking about Beckett or Cioran or Kierkegaard or Shakespeare can affect - and inform - your perception of the world, and your responses to it, in a way that studying mathematics cannot. Perhaps this lies outside the scope of your definition of "useful", though.

Reply 87

sophieD

english students are definately better looking than science students...and better dressed...you just have to look at them coming out of lectures compared with those who do chemistry/economics/maths etc.

and they're not lazy, i keep gettin called this @ uni...the fact is, they've had to work v.hard at gettin into uni..coz english is one of THE most competative subjects, which means higher grades etc, whereas most unis are crying out for science students - theyll basically take anyone.

Science students are just bitter coz they chose a subject with 50 contact hours a week....no one made them....

And to suggest that english isnt a proper subject is absurd and ignorant. A life without the arts would be horrendous. Obviously an uncultured person cannot regonise this, but those of us who are cultured, certainly do.

Reply 88

symun

But English isn't a proper subject..... :rolleyes:

Reply 89

silence

there is a certain element of truth in the sense that today we tend to study 'the arts' rather than actually have them incorporated into our academic life as a default attribrute of culture to which we can add instead of merely studying.

that is, 'english' so to speak is actually something quite modern as an academic subject of pure study. it used to be a byproduct of academic study in the more traditional disciplines (i.e. classics, philosophy). the self-awareness and self-examination which has always been somewhat typical in literature throughout millenia seem to have mutated into the study of literature which is somewhat quite distant (in terms of those who carry out the study and the studies which they write) from literature itself.

thus, although english might be a proper subject in terms of having a ucas course code and being well 'respected' in this day and age, there are some highly abstract elements to it, in my opinion.

Reply 90

Danny the Geezer

I don't convey myself with my dress-sense, it's not good. People may look at me and think "Chav", but I can assure you it's not the case.

Reply 91

supercat

Haha, I have the worst fashion sense EVER. Oh dear.

Reply 92

Da Bachtopus

symun

But English isn't a proper subject..... :rolleyes:

Exactly, it is the monarch.

Reply 93

Tyler Durden

Da Bachtopus

Exactly, it is the monarch.

Majestic reply.

Reply 94

slk999

I'm not at University yet, but I have known and do know quite a few English students and their friends and also the people in my A-Level english classes and I can honestly say they are all really really nice people and hardly pretentious. However, there are exceptions, especially because I go to an Independent school you get (especially girls) types who really make the most of the whole public school rah english image and take it to the MAX. But those a few and far between. I agree with the argument that English students are among the better looking group of students- some of the ones I know are damn hot.

I also think that on the whole English students are more talkative and definitely more extroverted- because of the nature of English and reading, you naturally wish to talk and be creative and that certainly overlaps in social situations. I'd also agree that SOME English students are probably lazy, and I agree with someone else here who said that no matter how much revision you do, especially at A-Level standard exams, this probably changes at degree level, but at A-Level you don't really need to do revision at all as you have it all stored up in your head. I maybe talking crap but I'm pretty sure there's some truth in this.

But I think the vulgarity of the thread title is far too ambigous because of course by the nature of an art subject- you get ALL types of people who are expressive and creative in their own way so I'd also say that English students are among the most varied and cosmopolitan types.

Reply 95

symun

Da Bachtopus

Exactly, it is the monarch.

All hail

Reply 96

icedout

It's weird that English is one of the most competitve courses to get into, yet one of the worst degrees to have in terms of employment.

Reply 97

silence

statistically speaking, but that's perhaps because it's offered at almost every institution in the country i'd imagine. same doesn't go so much for the other big ones like law and medicine.

Reply 98

dharmabum06

I've followed this thread a bit and felt like throwing in my two cents:

I just wanted to point out that just because you're an English student does not mean you aren't clever enough to study a math or science. Personally, I studied both Economics and English as an undergrad (in the states) but ultimately decided to continue my postgraduate studies in the latter discipline. Not to mention that most of my Econ/Math buddies couldn't sting a sentence together to save their lives. Your average Lit student might not be able to tackle a tough Game Theory course, but then again, your average math whiz might read Hamlet 20 times and never get the point of what is being said. As for classifying a group of people based on what subject they study -- nonsense. There will always be those stereotypical math/literature/science/ students, but everyone has their own personality, style, and eccentricities. In terms of importance as a subject -- its all relative. Clearly Econ, for instance, is a more important subject in terms of business, but then again, without music and literature, there would hardly be a point to getting up to go to work in the morning. Science makes life easier, art makes life worth living.