This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

To all those already reading English at uni - why did you choose it?

Lol, the dissertation at Cardiff is 5-6,000 words. And I think it's optional (if we don't do it we have to do two research essays instead which are shorter). I still wouldn't describe the course as a 'piss-take' though

Reply 21

hobnob

14

dreamqueen

What is the structure of your course? (I'm genuinely curious how similar our courses are and whether you think things are dossy as a result of the way they're taught, rather than what they are). Also even Oxford has elements that I'm sure you could take the piss out of - I did a presentation on fairy tales and carol ann duffy for which I made a poster (I loved it - I took 30 mins instead of 15 because I had so much to say!)

Well, but that's just classes. Only your finals will count towards your actual degree, though. And for those you'll be expected to submit a total of over 20,000-words in extended essays (plus a 6,000-word optional thesis if you're really keen) and to sit 17(ish) hours of exams for the remaining papers (writing 17(ish) essays during that time). Obviously you won't have to do all of that at once, but it represents quite a bit of work whichever way you look at it, really...

Reply 22

PinkPigeon

13

Angelil

Surely this is more due to the intelligence of the individuals than to the actual demands of the course?

I wouldn't say that through our experiences, I'm sure it shifts about throughout the duration of the courses...I've had an immense amount of reading this semester, and for example, the medics appear to have had a reasonably easy start.

Reply 23

PinkPigeon

13

Angelil

I can clearly identify elements of dreamqueen's course that don't exist in Exeter's English course e.g. study of the evolution of language. Of course I'm bound to base my judgement of English as a university subject on my own experience at my own university - aren't all of our opinions subjective, after all?

Surely thats a much more English language specific element and therefore won't be included on the courses that consider themselves to be more English Literature based...I know I wouldn't thank you for a module in the evolution of language, it's not what I'm interested in and not what I want to study.

Reply 24

silence

16

at birmingham there's a thing called a research project which is 12,000 words, or you can do what they call a dissertation (6000 words) alongside another module. most people do the 12,000 words can refer to it as their dissertation.

anyway, i decided to do english because i found the way in which you could read a text on so many levels to be fascinating. whilst you could read it autobiographically about an individual (the author himself), you could also read it as something representative of the entire culture in which it was written. also, literary tradition itself is something which constantly changes through the ages and every author, as original as he tries to seem, adds to it somehow. you can read a text on a broad contextual or thematic level or look at individual morphemes of words... a load of fun pretty much.

i did enjoy latin at school, but my course allows for the possibility of a module being taken outside the main discipline, so i took something called 'ancient greece and rome' in the first year. now doing something slightly closer to english - old english. slightly upsetting at times but i've missed the rigour involved in learning a language.

and i wouldn't change my course at all. ways of thinking, organising and manifesting such thoughts seem to me very valuable elements which can be applied to lots of different things later on (or even now) in life. i'm of the belief that subjects aren't static and fixed - if you want to make your degree one with a good reputation, you have to make the most out of the time you spend doing it. much like universities themselves - whichever university you attend and whatever subject you do, making the most of the facilities and learning as much as possible within the short space of three years determines how good your degree actually is, in my opinion.

Reply 25

Angelil

OP

19

dreamqueen - sorry to give a lazy answer but here's the link to the 1st, second and third year course structure/modules available at Exeter.

http://www.sall.ex.ac.uk/english/eng-ug-degrees/modules-2006-07-level1.html

(all of the modules in the first link have to be taken by all of those taking straight English)

http://www.sall.ex.ac.uk/english/eng-ug-degrees/modules-2006-07-level2.html

(choose 2 modules per semester in the 2nd year inc. one that's pre-1800)

http://www.sall.ex.ac.uk/english/eng-ug-degrees/modules-2006-07-level3.html

(choose 2 modules per semester including dissertation + 1 core module)

Reply 26

etherised

1

Fanzorme

I don't know dates, but i'm guessing English is about 100 years old as a subject? (rounding up, that is )

hobnob

Rounding down, actually. The school of English Language and Literature at Oxford was established in 1894, but the Merton chair for literature had already existed since the 1880s, so I'd assume other universities were introducing English degrees around the 1880s as well. Possibly even a bit earlier.

If anyone cares, yes, it was around before the 1880s, though not at Oxbridge. It starts as the poor man's Classics. Its reputation relative to Classics in the mid-late nineteenth c. is much as the reputation of Media Studies is to English today. Anyway, it begins in earnest as a subject at working men's colleges in the mid-1800s, and gradually penetrates the universities. I think King's London was one of the first.

If you are Terry Eagleton, you believe it was intended as a way of pacifying the working class, filling the ideological needs of an increasingly secular society, and allowing them education without admitting them to the upper class study of Classics. But that's another matter...

Reply 27

hobnob

14

zigguratted

If anyone cares, yes, it was around before the 1880s, though not at Oxbridge. It starts as the poor man's Classics. Its reputation relative to Classics in the mid-late nineteenth c. is much as the reputation of Media Studies is to English today. Anyway, it begins in earnest as a subject at working men's colleges in the mid-1800s, and gradually penetrates the universities. I think King's London was one of the first.

If you are Terry Eagleton, you believe it was intended as a way of pacifying the working class, filling the ideological needs of an increasingly secular society, and allowing them education without admitting them to the upper class study of Classics. But that's another matter...

Interesting. I already suspected it would have been first introduced somewhere else. :biggrin:

But it wasn't actually taken very seriously until the end of the 19th century, was it?

Reply 28

silence

16

could it be said that to access some of the jewels of english literature, a vague knowledge and understanding of classics at the very least would be required? reading the faerie queene is fairly different to reading middlemarch for example...

one could also argue that english literature in the past was too recent to be seen in any classical way; however, it's now possible for us to look retrospectively at the great works written in our own language and consider them to be classics themselves.

Reply 29

hobnob

14

silence

one could also argue that english literature in the past was too recent to be seen in any classical way; however, it's now possible for us to look retrospectively at the great works written in our own language and consider them to be classics themselves.

Hmm, I'm not so sure I'd agree with that, actually... That may be true for stuff like Victorian novels or Romantic poetry, but what about writers like Chaucer, Spenser or Milton? They were definitely well established as English "classics" by the nineteenth century and far from being too recent to be studied.

Reply 30

pharmakos

8

hobnob

Rounding down, actually. The school of English Language and Literature at Oxford was established in 1894, but the Merton chair for literature had already existed since the 1880s, so I'd assume other universities were introducing English degrees around the 1880s as well. Possibly even a bit earlier.

Sorry, I just happened to come across this rather useless bit of information by accident while researching a slightly obscure topic... :redface:

As described in the web page of UCL's English Dept:

UCL was the first university in England to offer English as a degree subject. As soon as it opened for instruction in 1828, a professor of English was appointed, arguably the first in the country and the world.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/english/about/index.htm

Reply 31

silence

16

hobnob

Hmm, I'm not so sure I'd agree with that, actually... That may be true for stuff like Victorian novels or Romantic poetry, but what about writers like Chaucer, Spenser or Milton? They were definitely well established as English "classics" by the nineteenth century and far from being too recent to be studied.

as great as they are, they seem to be anomalies in a sense that they're from different periods of time. with us having, by studying english literature itself, become more interested in previously unsignificant or unknown authors, with new manuscripts having been found over the last century or two, you could say that we've filled in the gaps chronologically and generically. having a few prescribed classic texts doesn't make the entire collection of the nation's literary works one of classics; popularity is required for that to happen and whilst chaucer, spenser and milton etc were popular in their day and a few years later, the greatest amount of popularity comes with time, as does the ability to contextualise them into periods/genres with greater numbers of works (something which only time and the interest of scholars can throw up).

in other words, having individual authors' works as 'classics' (i perceive that word in the sense that you'll see 'penguin classics' use it, referring to single great or significant texts) is not that same as a nation's whole collection of literary texts being read, studied and viewed in the same way that scholars were/are able to look at the classics (with that word meaning the collection of greek and roman literature). so, in terms of the types of eras we access and texts by which we do so when studying english, to me, it feels like a new kind of classics.

Reply 32

hobnob

14

1828? That's surprisingly soon. They don't mention any actual figures about student numbers back then, though, do they?

Edit:

silence

whilst chaucer, spenser and milton etc were popular in their day and a few years later, the greatest amount of popularity comes with time, as does the ability to contextualise them into periods/genres with greater numbers of works (something which only time and the interest of scholars can throw up).

I was just citing those three as more or less random examples, really. There was a great deal of interest in those three during the nineteenth century, actually, and they were definitely popular (in Spenser's case probably more so than today), although what was written about them probably wouldn't strike us as particularly "scholarly" today. I'll give you that contextualising beyond an individual author's biography is something that only became popular with (old) historicism, but does that necessarily mean anything before that wasn't literary criticism?
As for treating individual authors authors and texts as "classics" rather than looking at the great whole, isn't that exactly how the ancient classics were being read during the nineteenth century? :confused: