The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

I have grown sceptical of humanities &c. degrees

I used to dismiss the idea that humanities and some social science degrees are less worthwhile than other degrees but I have recently begun to wonder whether I do at least think that some of these degrees are less valuable for different reasons. I think that part of it is that I used to conflate opposition to the teaching of certain degrees with opposition to the significance placed upon the subjects of those degrees in society.

I thought about typing up a long post explaining my embryonic position on this but I realised it can all be roughly summarised by the following quotation from Good Will Hunting:

Good Will Hunting
you dropped 150 grand on a ****in' education you could have got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library


I would like to hear what people think about this. I myself briefly studied an English Literature degree (thankfully at half the normal cost) and I can say with some confidence that I learned more in a ten minute conversation with an engaging teacher at school than I did in those two years at university.

What exactly do even the dons of Oxbridge teach students on a humanities degree that cannot be gained 'for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library'? In my brief study at Bristol University, the teaching consisted primarily of printouts of literary criticism and a few questioning interruptions in what were otherwise discussions started and maintained by students. In my experience at what is purportedly one of the best places to study English in the country the 'education' was nothing more than a feebly-adjudicated and feebly-resourced book club for the young.
(edited 8 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

You're right. But you're making the assumption that the same can't be done with a science degree. With all the resources out there (youtube videos, textbooks from libraries, online courses) it is perfectly possible to learn anything by yourself. Absolutely anything. You do not need an 'oxford don' to excel in chemistry for example - you just need access to a computer/library card.
I myself am embarking on a humanities degree in the future. And no I'm not one of those people who is humanities humanities humanities - I currently do maths, biology and chemistry A level (I also do Latin if you're wondering). But why, for heavens' sake, can't I just do something I enjoy? Isn't that what life and higher education is about? Why do we constantly fight about what's useless or not? Not to get all philosophical, but it's all useless in the end, isn't it?
And put it this way - if JK Rowling had taken, hmm let's say a degree in physics, Harry Potter probably wouldn't have been created. Yes, perhaps that oncologist may have saved a cancer patient's life, but Harry Potter may have made the chemotherapy a bit more bearable.
Original post by Phoebus Apollo
You're right. But you're making the assumption that the same can't be done with a science degree. With all the resources out there (youtube videos, textbooks from libraries, online courses) it is perfectly possible to learn anything by yourself. Absolutely anything. You do not need an 'oxford don' to excel in chemistry for example - you just need access to a computer/library card.


Labs.
Reply 3
Avatar for Maker
Maker
20
Original post by Phoebus Apollo
You're right. But you're making the assumption that the same can't be done with a science degree. With all the resources out there (youtube videos, textbooks from libraries, online courses) it is perfectly possible to learn anything by yourself. Absolutely anything. You do not need an 'oxford don' to excel in chemistry for example - you just need access to a computer/library card.
I myself am embarking on a humanities degree in the future. And no I'm not one of those people who is humanities humanities humanities - I currently do maths, biology and chemistry A level (I also do Latin if you're wondering). But why, for heavens' sake, can't I just do something I enjoy? Isn't that what life and higher education is about? Why do we constantly fight about what's useless or not? Not to get all philosophical, but it's all useless in the end, isn't it?
And put it this way - if JK Rowling had taken, hmm let's say a degree in physics, Harry Potter probably wouldn't have been created. Yes, perhaps that oncologist may have saved a cancer patient's life, but Harry Potter may have made the chemotherapy a bit more bearable.


I doubt many people would choose a good book as an alternative to life saving treatment. Its a bit daft to conjecture a writer has to study humanities to be able to write. Many writer like Shakespeare, The Brontes and Jane Austen did not or could not go to university but that did not stop them writing fiction to a high standard. I am sure there are good reasons to study humanities but you haven't made a good case so far.
Yeah but a degree is useful since it allows you to apply for graduate schemes, which usually pay better than non graduate or apprenticeship roles. So it's an investment in a way.
A degree is rigorous or not. I don't think the subject really comes into it, if you're just looking in terms of intellectual development.

Particularly at Oxford, humanities degrees are based on research rather than teaching (or mine certainly was). So yes in a sense almost all of what I learned at uni, I learned in the library. And the point of an undergraduate degree is to give you the grounding to be able to research independently in a subject. But without the guidance (e.g. reading list, course specification) and evaluation of your work (e.g. tutorials) you are not going to come on in the same way. Sitting down and reading Cicero's letters beginning to end is not going to teach you anything about the fall of the republic, for example.

A textbook is much more accessible than a paper on e.g. philosophy of time.
Original post by Phoebus Apollo
You're right. But you're making the assumption that the same can't be done with a science degree. With all the resources out there (youtube videos, textbooks from libraries, online courses) it is perfectly possible to learn anything by yourself. Absolutely anything. You do not need an 'oxford don' to excel in chemistry for example - you just need access to a computer/library card.


I disagree. All things equal, a grasp of a scientific subject typically requires the use of facilities and the guidance of tuition which a university can and a public library can not provide. Scientific subjects make use of resources which are inaccessible to the public. Subjects like English literature do not, or if they do do so to such a modest capacity as to make the venture a gesture and even a half-fraud for the benefit of keeping the instution going with their willing purse.

I myself am embarking on a humanities degree in the future. And no I'm not one of those people who is humanities humanities humanities - I currently do maths, biology and chemistry A level (I also do Latin if you're wondering). But why, for heavens' sake, can't I just do something I enjoy? Isn't that what life and higher education is about? Why do we constantly fight about what's useless or not? Not to get all philosophical, but it's all useless in the end, isn't it?


Continue this argument to its logical conclusion and you might as well not go into higher education at all. You might as well slump on the side of a road or do other things I do not advise and for which I would be warned for insincerely suggesting on this website. I am not saying you should not study a degree you enjoy. I am questioning what more you receive from a university degree in that subject if you could learn just as much if not more by educating yourself at the local library. This point is all the more potent now that university costs £9k a year, with those studying the subjects I am tentatively referring to commonly paying vastly more than their education is worth in any material terms when compared to those studying 'STEM' subjects.

And put it this way - if JK Rowling had taken, hmm let's say a degree in physics, Harry Potter probably wouldn't have been created. Yes, perhaps that oncologist may have saved a cancer patient's life, but Harry Potter may have made the chemotherapy a bit more bearable.


The implication here is that a university education in English literature is beneficial and/or necessary for the creation of great or notable works of literature. This is obviously nonsense. What precisely does a university education in literature do to enable writers who go on to write great or notable works of literature to write those works of literature? Nothing inherently. A writer is a writer by natural ability, by reading enormous quantities of other literature and by exerting concerted effort at honing their writing. I would go so far as to say that there is not a single case in the history of great literature in which the university education in English literature of that writer provided any material benefit to their writing. Many of them have said themselves that their university education did more harm than good to their creative output.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by a noble chance
I used to dismiss the idea that humanities and some social science degrees are less worthwhile than other degrees but I have recently begun to wonder whether I do at least think that some of these degrees are less valuable for different reasons. I think that part of it is that I used to conflate opposition to the teaching of certain degrees with opposition to the significance placed upon the subjects of those degrees in society.

I thought about typing up a long post explaining my embryonic position on this but I realised it can all be roughly summarised by the following quotation from Good Will Hunting:



I would like to hear what people think about this. I myself briefly studied an English Literature degree (thankfully at half the normal cost) and I can say with some confidence that I learned more in a ten minute conversation with an engaging teacher at school than I did in those two years at university.

What exactly do even the dons of Oxbridge teach students on a humanities degree that cannot be gained 'for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library'? In my brief study at Bristol University, the teaching consisted primarily of printouts of literary criticism and a few questioning interruptions in what were otherwise discussions started and maintained by students. In my experience at what is purportedly one of the best places to study English in the country the 'education' was nothing more than a feebly-adjudicated and feebly-resourced book club for the young.


Likewise, it is possible to lose weight without joining Weight-Watchers and a golf or tennis coach only tells a professional sportsman what that sportsman already knows.

A university is an organised environment for learning.

It reduces the amount of self-discipline required in order to learn (by requiring the student to demonstrate learning at regular intervals). It arranges that all the facilities required to learn are on hand (by providing libraries, books, labs, accommodation, sustenance, lecture theatres, spaces for private study, practice facilities, teachers and peers to interact with in an environment where distractions to learning are organised around the primary activity of learning) . It provides a ratings and recommendations system of facilities for learning (reading lists). It provides a system for correcting erroneous learning (feedback, answers to questions and marks). It provides a system for monitoring whether learning has taken place (examinations and assessments). It validates to third parties that the student has learnt (by awarding certificates)

In addition to all this, it tends to provide a method of learning, called teaching. Students, who have come from a previous environment where this method has been the primary method of learning, have become increasingly obsessed by the provision of this method of learning by universities to a greater extent than at any time since the invention of printing. Critics of universities are now judging universities generally and particular universities by the absence of or poor quality of this method of learning.

To the extent that a course of study involves learning skills as opposed to knowledge (e.g. surgery, advocacy, running a hotel reception, playing the trombone) the prioritisation of teaching and the making available of facilities to practice those skills over other methods of learning, tends naturally to magnify the importance of those methods of learning in institutions where a large number of learning programmes are skills based.

Universities have always been expected to provide non-learning based opportunities for socialisation to mark a change from youth to adulthood according to the social position of the generality of students (whether that is singing the Offices of a monastic order; riding with the Christ Church Beagles and dumping social inferiors in Mercury or sitting on the committee of the water polo club). There is some suggestion that universities are starting to fail in that provision.

Increasingly, in modern times universities are being asked to provide non-learning based opportunities for increasing employability and there is still debate about whether that is part of the proper function of a university.
Original post by ThomasPassion
A degree is rigorous or not. I don't think the subject really comes into it, if you're just looking in terms of intellectual development.

Particularly at Oxford, humanities degrees are based on research rather than teaching (or mine certainly was). So yes in a sense almost all of what I learned at uni, I learned in the library. And the point of an undergraduate degree is to give you the grounding to be able to research independently in a subject. But without the guidance (e.g. reading list, course specification) and evaluation of your work (e.g. tutorials) you are not going to come on in the same way. Sitting down and reading Cicero's letters beginning to end is not going to teach you anything about the fall of the republic, for example.


'Intellectual development' is a meaningless phrase in that context. What I am questioning is - are some degree courses at most or all universities offering 'education' which cannot be obtained independently of a university? I am of the growing belief that this is the case.

I do not see any reason why someone cannot teach themselves to 'research independently in a subject'. Why can't a 'reading list' and 'course specification' be constructed independently? I have done this myself on subjects of personal interest to me. It is not difficult. Academics are not so far removed from the intellectual abilities of the enthusiastic autodidact as to command a monopoly on educational compilations which are partly made up and very often distinguished by the works of people who never even attended university themselves - something which makes this argument all the more ridiculous.

Oxbridge tutorials are already available for those with willing brains. They are contained in works like Orwell's essays on pacificism for PPE students and the English language for English students. So far all that you have really made in defence of the university education of humanities subjects is that your reading lists - which an Oxford student should of all people be quite capable of composing themselves - and the intellectual digestion - which an Oxford student should of all people be quite capable of conducting themselves - are pre-prepared. The only advantage I am seeing so far is one of convenience rather than quality - that university education at any level in these subjects is a ready meal to one of potentially higher quality and nutrition prepared oneself.

A textbook is much more accessible than a paper on e.g. philosophy of time.


Textbooks can be purchased and borrowed from libraries by those not at university.
(edited 8 years ago)
A STEM superiority thread. How novel.
@Asexual Demigod You seem to have deleted your post, but I thought I would reply since I had it saved on another tab.

asexual demigod
This could be due to a whole host of reasons. Complacency on your part, a lack of interest in the subject at university, poor academic engagement with other students and staff, improper facilities i.e. inadequately stocked libraries, poor teaching quality, etc. Your anecdotal experience of one subject at one institution simply cannot be considered worthy evidence of anything let alone the apparent uselessness of humanities degrees as a whole.


Putting aside your evasion of what was quite obviously humourous exaggeration, this makes zero sense. I say that I learned more in a ten minute conversation with an engaging teacher at school than in two years of university. You respond by suggesting that I became so unfathomably complacent at university on a course I had such a pathetic level of interest in that I committed myself to it for two years, had such a drop in interest and academic engagement with other students and staff and had so few facilities and libraries and such a lamentable standard of teaching that I managed to learn less in a period of two years at this top Russell Group university at the top of the tables for its subject than I acquired in a ten minute conversation with an inspiring secondary school teacher. Pick your battles.

asexual demigod
Oxbridge has a unique system that employs a supervision/tutorial system in which students have the opportunity to debate their own arguments with a leading expert in their field. You could pose the question as such; "what is the difference between reading a book/article by this author and actually sitting in a room debating about the topics/issues/ideas raised in the book with the author themselves or, at least, a prominent literary critic who specialises in that author's work/general area?" The difference is stark as you could imagine.


What percentage of Oxbridge humanities students discuss issues raised in books with the author themselves or prominent literary critics as compared to other universities? I would wager the difference was not great. If anything, I don't think that at best there is any difference at all.

Moreover, I do not see any reason why this should be necessary to educating oneself to an equal or better standard alone using these person's published writings in a public library or lectures streamed on a library computer. It is certainly not a good way to spend upwards of £9k a year. A conversation plan hastily written up on a train journey up to Oxford or half-improvised within a tutorial seems a markedly poor substitute to that same person knowingly and carefully immortalising their thoughts and feelings in lengthy published texts, which people of serious ability and regard invariably do in these areas.

asexual demigod
Oxbridge ensure their students remain engaged throughout their time there. This could be through encouraging questions after lectures, holding seminars with an academic/supervisor in the room to guide the discussion, extra classes, setting more consistent deadlines with a higher expectation in the quality of the work produced, the encouragement of other crucial skills i.e. diligence, proper time management, critical thinking, abstract reasoning, etc.


You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. These qualities and behaviours are commonly possessed by Oxbridge students because of the rigorousness of the admissions process. Oxbridge can do little to nothing to ensure that their students are engaged throughout their time there, and none of these qualities or behaviours are provided by Oxbridge or any other university in a way that is unavailable to those not attending. Confirmation bias.

asexual demigod
Without a university education you would have no continuous assessment or guidance in your study either which would place limitations on how adept you could become at your chosen field.


This is not unique to university education. It can be provided by friends, mentors and most importantly by oneself. The idea that 'continuous assement or guidance' needs to be provided by a university in any area of the general subject areas I am referring to is not demonstrated by you simply stating that it is so.

Equally it could be argued that the prejudices and constraints of university education would suffocate someone's natural abilities and prevent them from ascending to heights which they would have otherwise reached in their chosen field. How many ordinary people have declared that studying English literature at school and/or university ruined their love of reading? How many burgeoning literary geniuses have been extinguished before even setting the manuscript alight by the asphyxiating straight jacket of formal literary 'education'?

asexual demigod
You could be whittling away reading book after book and analysing them, but how would you ever know if you're any good at it?


'Sanity is not statistical'. Additionally, university academics do not have a monopoly on the recognition of artistic and intellectual distinction. Moreover, this thread is not in the mental health forum: requirement for external and internal recognition suggests some kind of deep-seated insecurity that does not so much as tangentially relate to my OP.

asexual demigod
It wouldn't give you the recognition from other experts in your field that a top class degree would.


Only for a small number of inferiority complex-ridden twits. The previous President of the Royal Society is evidence against this paranoid nonsense.

asexual demigod
You wouldn't be able to enter graduate schemes or postgraduate education. It's severely limiting all around.


It is limiting only in this this sense. For the reasons I have outlined above, I think this is a sad and backwards state of affairs. I have no doubt that other employers will follow Penguin publishing's lead by removing the requirement of a 'degree' from recruitment in the near future.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Ethereal World
A STEM superiority thread. How novel.


You clearly haven't read the OP.
Original post by a noble chance
You clearly haven't read the OP.


No I have, and I did a science degree so not butt hurt.

I'm just confused as to how all humanities degrees have been lumped together and all STEM subjects have been ignored. Like do you need to go to university to teach yourself computer science or maths?!

What's the point in teaching humanities subjects in schools? We should have schools for STEM and then kids can just read to learn about the way the world works in a non-physical sense.
Re textbooks, you've got me backwards. Textbooks are rare in humanities at degree level. If reliance on resources is all you are interested in, then the obvious target is maths. Do you think that maths degree are pointless?

Without some level of instruction, how are you going to navigate secondary literature? How are you going to develop the kind of early comprehensive understanding of a topic that lets you access the sources?
There are plenty of (mostly historical) examples of amateurs who made significant contributions to a subject. This does not mean that you can do away with universities. Or maybe you can - maybe you are just intellectually on a different level to me. Personally, I needed a lot of assistance!

I don't know why you'd ask a question if you're just going to flatly contradict the answer to be honest. I wasn't actually trying to make an argument, I was trying to explain something to you. Something which I'm probably in a better position to know about than you, no?

Maybe you don't see the difference between academia and debate club. It's not the same. FYI academia is also not the same as reading a book and then just spouting an opinion along with some over the top rhetoric.
Original post by ThomasPassion
Re textbooks, you've got me backwards. Textbooks are rare in humanities at degree level.


No, they aren't. See such examples as An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory. They are rare only in the technical sense that there are a small number of them but they are large tomes and used by the vast majority of half-decent universities.

If reliance on resources is all you are interested in, then the obvious target is maths. Do you think that maths degree are pointless?

Without some level of instruction, how are you going to navigate secondary literature? How are you going to develop the kind of early comprehensive understanding of a topic that lets you access the sources?


I have clearly argued that the nature of the instruction and how necessary it is to understanding a topic is important in deciding whether a degree is worthwhile or not. I am not convinced that this instruction is necessary in English literature or similar humanities subjects which can be understood by using a library. It may well be in maths, I don't know. A university is not required to access sources for even someone of the most modest abilities. Comprehensive understanding of topics can be obtained by reading literature and related literary theories for example. There is even a special book called a dictionary to help you understand words you don't understand. If you need further help, there are literally thousands upon thousands of books aiding in the understanding of an even larger number of literary texts.

There are plenty of (mostly historical) examples of amateurs who made significant contributions to a subject. This does not mean that you can do away with universities. Or maybe you can - maybe you are just intellectually on a different level to me. Personally, I needed a lot of assistance!


I have not suggested doing away with universities. I have suggested that several humanities and social science courses are not worth the money and education because this education can be just as if not better obtained on one's own. There is nothing particular about a university's tuition or resources in these areas that cannot normally be obtained independent of a university.

I don't know why you'd ask a question if you're just going to flatly contradict the answer to be honest. I wasn't actually trying to make an argument


University has clearly not got you used to robust and healthy debate.

I was trying to explain something to you. Something which I'm probably in a better position to know about than you, no?


Why? If you are in the mentality of 'explaining' rather than debating then you have not been educated very well and nor do you understand what you're talking about fluently enough to make a strong enough case for it without resorting to a patronising tone of superior authority.

Maybe you don't see the difference between academia and debate club. It's not the same. FYI academia is also not the same as reading a book and then just spouting an opinion along with some over the top rhetoric.


This condescending and substanceless aside only makes you seem insecure in your own position.
Original post by a noble chance
No, they aren't. See such examples as An Introduction to Literature, Criticism and Theory. They are rare only in the technical sense that there are a small number of them but they are large tomes and used by the vast majority of half-decent universities.Degree level work should be majority primary and secondary literature. And that's not a technical sense of 'rare' at all!

Original post by a noble chance
I have clearly argued that the nature of the instruction and how necessary it is to understanding a topic is important in deciding whether a degree is worthwhile or not. I am not convinced that this instruction is necessary in English literature or similar humanities subjects which can be understood by using a library. It may well be in maths, I don't know. A university is not required to access sources for even someone of the most modest abilities. Comprehensive understanding of topics can be obtained by reading literature and related literary theories for example. There is even a special book called a dictionary to help you understand words you don't understand. If you need further help, there are literally thousands upon thousands of books aiding in the understanding of an even larger number of literary texts.Whether you are convinced has no bearing on whether or not it is true. You haven't argued, you have simply repeatedly stated that the resources a university provides are not required for humanities, (which you seem to have divined a priori). You don't seem interested in the examples from my own experience (or maybe I just don't have even modest ability). So I really don't know what you're looking for that you can get from a discussion on the internet.

Original post by a noble chance
University has clearly not got you used to robust and healthy debate.

Why? If you are in the mentality of 'explaining' rather than debating then you have not been educated very well and nor do you understand what you're talking about fluently enough to make a strong enough case for it without resorting to a patronising tone of superior authority.More specifically, four years at Oxford has both (a) made me sick to the teeth of speculation and pontification dressed up as debate and (b) made me appreciate real analysis and real debate where both parties have something to contribute and the aim is to come to a more accurate understanding on a question.

I don't know if this is how you talk all the time, but your tone was hectoring and aggressive from the start. Maybe you call that healthy debate but I can't see the point in it.
It's more important to be right than to win the argument. Sayonara
Original post by ThomasPassion
Degree level work should be majority primary and secondary literature. And that's not a technical sense of 'rare' at all!


I was referring to the 'textbooks' you mentioned. You are deliberately misinterpreting what I was saying.

Whether you are convinced has no bearing on whether or not it is true.


A truistic, misleading and hypocritical comment.

You haven't argued, you have simply repeatedly stated that the resources a university provides are not required for humanities, (which you seem to have divined a priori).


If you had made even the most elementary comprehension of my posts you would see that I have spent two years in university humanities education. I speak from experience and not 'a priori'. What I have done is to challenge the idea that universities provide any education in some humanities and social science subjects that cannot be procured at a library. I do not believe that the resources provided by a university are necessary for all of these subjects at least. I have given reasons for this position and responded to counterarguments. You have responded by misinterpreting what I have said, refusing to engage with my position when you run out of ammunition and asserting that you simply know better than a pleb like myself in that unmistakable, muffled-wannabe-establishment scorn.

You don't seem interested in the examples from my own experience (or maybe I just don't have even modest ability). So I really don't know what you're looking for that you can get from a discussion on the internet.


It is not that I am not interested in them, I simply don't think they support your argument very well.

More specifically, four years at Oxford has both (a) made me sick to the teeth of speculation and pontification dressed up as debate and (b) made me appreciate real analysis and real debate where both parties have something to contribute and the aim is to come to a more accurate understanding on a question.


But I take it not also sick of meaningless waffle designed to superciliously dismiss your opponent without making any effort to properly engage with their argument?

It's more important to be right than to win the argument. Sayonara


You end by implying that you are 'right; without demonstrating that you have 'won the argument'. I take it you were on the side of those receiving an extraordinarily expensive library education at university. Perhaps you are understandably incensed at the prospect that tens of thousands of pounds have not cured you of the condition of having the intellectual capacity of a biscuit tin.
(edited 8 years ago)
In fairness to both parties I suppose that ThomasPassion's degree, Classics, is likely one of the ones given a pass when ANobleChance says "most arts courses". There is technical instruction here, in Greek and Latin, and it is one of few enough Oxford arts degrees for which there will have been small class teaching provided in addition to lectures and tutorials. It can fairly be said too that many of the books needed for that degree aren't standardly kept even in large lending libraries. It as well confers, what might usefully be the measure of it here, an objective and non-bluffable skill: because you can or cannot translate a page of Latin.

I am a more than usually intelligent person, academically anyway, and as well a complete ********ter. Given a month and sufficient incentive I could persuade an appropriately expert panel that I have (what I don't have) an undergraduate degree in Politics or IR or English Literature or History or Sociology. I couldn't do that for Classics or German or Economics, no way in the world.
Original post by cambio wechsel
Given a month and sufficient incentive I could persuade an appropriately expert panel that I have (what I don't have) an undergraduate degree in Politics or IR or English Literature or History or Sociology. I couldn't do that for Classics or German or Economics, no way in the world.


I'm curious, would philosophy also probably fall under this category if you had not have studied it?
Original post by cambio wechsel
In fairness to both parties I suppose that ThomasPassion's degree, Classics, is likely one of the ones given a pass when ANobleChance says "most arts courses". There is technical instruction here, in Greek and Latin, and it is one of few enough Oxford arts degrees for which there will have been small class teaching provided in addition to lectures and tutorials. It can fairly be said too that many of the books needed for that degree aren't standardly kept even in large lending libraries. It as well confers, what might usefully be the measure of it here, an objective and non-bluffable skill: because you can or cannot translate a page of Latin.

I am a more than usually intelligent person, academically anyway, and as well a complete ********ter. Given a month and sufficient incentive I could persuade an appropriately expert panel that I have (what I don't have) an undergraduate degree in Politics or IR or English Literature or History or Sociology. I couldn't do that for Classics or German or Economics, no way in the world.


get you dear

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you