The Student Room Group

"English Literature is an absolutely pointless degree"

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by SNichol
[...] [1] Firstly, you know those people that taught you English at school/college/university? All will have English degrees, with post-grad courses on top. Our lecturers get paid a minimum of £56k a year, and you're telling me their jobs are irrelevant? Madness.

Also, there are job routes into various places; media, journalism, politics, business, law? [...]

Lastly, all the books you'll read if you do change course to something "more worthwhile", they're still going to be written English, because you know, the use of the language in written form is so irrelevant.


Not all English teachers have English degrees, some might not even have a degree, and a tiny number will have a postgraduate qualification.

Your lecturers are not paid a minimum of £56,000 per year. A lecturer gets paid just over £30,000 per year, depending on location and university. It is rather complex because most universities have pay scales and do not generally appoint staff based on seniority, but on their subject knowledge (i.e. they will have money to appoint a senior lecturer on a higher band if one applies, but they will primarily being looking for someone to cover a gap in their curriculum). For example, see this job advert at Newcastle University. Someone earning over £50,000 is at the very least a senior lecturer with a lot of experience behind them.

You are presenting a circular argument which completely misses the point. The person you are criticising is asking what he gets out of an English degree. Studying English so we can train English teachers and future researchers is not a legitimate defence; you are simply dodging the question. He is asking what is the purpose of studying English. What does he get out of it. People study medicine because it saves lives, not because anatomy and physiology are interesting things to learn about.

You do not need an English degree to get into any of the 'routes' you mentioned. In fact, law is the only one that you even need a qualification for. Of course, the English graduate will have to study for at least another three years as a postgraduate before qualifying as a barrister or solicitor. Their English degree means absolutely nothing and does not help them whatsoever.

What are you even trying to say with your last point? He was criticising the content of fiction, highlighting its irrelevance to him, not saying English language was irrelevant. Nor does English have some grip on written language. All subjects expect good written and spoken communication from their students, and some disciplines will produce far more knowledge students of language than English (e.g. linguistics, modern languages and sometimes even philosophy. depending upon what they have studied).
Job offers I have received from financial institutions I could not have achieved without the skills learned from studying English to a degree level. Each time I have been against people studying Finance/Engineering/Mathematics. You have to use your skills to engage in a wide variety of extra-currics at university.
Reply 42
Original post by geetar
I did an English degree, and I don't think it's pointless (but then I would say that, wouldn't I?)


It seems to me that many of the people here detracting from it actually did one. Doesn't exactly fill me with hope for September.

Original post by Jade1994
Your friend's right: English Literature is an absolutely pointless degree. I'm an English student too and I despise my course: so much so that I'm actually contemplating dropping out of University and re-doing my A Levels. The only thing that's stopping me is the realisation that I'll have spent £9000 on nothing. So far, there has only been one novel on my course that's actually captivated my interest; the rest have bored me to tears. My last set-text was so uninteresting I couldn't even finish it; I relied entirely on Google's knowledge of it to get me through my assessment.


Maybe your interests aren't wide enough to merit studying literature at university if you've only enjoyed one book.

I haven't actually enjoyed reading since I started the course, if I'm honest, which is strange because I still enjoyed reading during my A Levels. My favourite novel is 'Wuthering Heights' but lately I've not been able to read it without unintentionally looking for Gothic elements of excess/transgression, and involuntarily evaluating how Bronte's presentation of Catherine's character compares with the typical gender conventions of the time period.


That doesn't make the degree pointless, it just means you don't enjoy critical study. Personally I'd love to have a better understanding of the context and content of the books that I read.

I only decided to study English because it came easy to me in school and I didn't see the point in spending hours studying the other subjects that interested me when I could get A*s in English for doing nothing. Now, though, I totally regret choosing to study English and I'm currently researching ways of getting back into A Level education to study science.

Most of my friends who are studying Literature do so because they think it'll help them to become writers; in reality, though, the chances of any of them becoming writers are so incredibly slim that it's just not worth wasting your life, and your money, on a boring degree.

I hope your friend's at least managing to enjoy his course, though; I have to force myself to attend lectures and when I get there I sit through them thinking 'why am I wasting my time evaluating imaginary people when there are so many other more useful things I could be studying right now?' Some of the things you study are so pathetic, too. Like, we recently discussed the concept of the author and some critics argue that there is no such thing as an author and meaning originates from the reader, which is obviously a load of rubbish. Gr. I hate it, and so do a lot of other people my course: you have to really passionate about critiquing Literature to stick with it, I think.


This all sounds simply like you (and your friends) picked the wrong degree. How much you enjoy a subject has very little relevance to whether it is important to study or not. Maybe you should go back to A Levels after all.
Reply 43
Original post by arty
oh no, this doesn't sound very encouraging! I'm hoping to start an English Lit degree in September! Where are you studying?


I crossed science off when I didn't take any subjects at A Level! I always loved the arts - but am worried I'm going to waste £27000 tuition fees on a course with very little contact hours!


Same :O

Someone, quick, please tell us you love studying Literature!
A friend and I were ruminating on those who had graduated from our class last year. Most are in decent jobs in a variety of places. A few (but not excessively many) are unemployed, and they are angling for prestigious jobs hard to get even in the boom times.
Original post by evantej
Every writer studies. My point is reading the classics and writing do not have to take place in a classroom. You can do both at home and save yourself £15,000 per year going to university.* If you are interested in writing I do not see why you would go through the trouble of learning to write academic essays, then make that applicable to the real world. Why not just write the real world stuff first and save yourself a lot of trouble?

* - It costs me £50 per year to gain borrowing rights at my local university library so I have access to relevant secondary texts too.


I do write the real stuff. I also write academic essays. As a journalist, the ability to research, be critical and clearly express my opinion has been enhanced through studying. My editor shares a similar opinion, and he's the one who pays me to write.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
LOL another pathetic attack on the arts. Sure let's abolish it, and funding for it, so it becomes the preserve of the elite, and people who have a talent for this sort of analysis should go be cleaners! Then let's start gradually eroding our culture too.
Reply 47
Original post by evantej
The person you are criticising is asking what he gets out of an English degree. Studying English so we can train English teachers and future researchers is not a legitimate defence; you are simply dodging the question. He is asking what is the purpose of studying English. What does he get out of it.


The point I was making is that "what he can get out of it" is a job, should he choose one of the avenues available to him. Employability is a legitimate defence, in my opinion. As well as that, it's not up to us to decide what personal gains he should be getting from his degree. If he couldn't see any advantage (where it be personal or career related) he maybe should have reconsidered his course choice sooner. I began my degree with a clear idea of what I felt about the subject and where it would take me.

Original post by evantej
You do not need an English degree to get into any of the 'routes' you mentioned. In fact, law is the only one that you even need a qualification for.


No you don't NEED an English degree, you need academic experience in any curriculum subject for primary teaching (which English definitely is) and a specialism for secondary, reasonably you could expect an English teachers specialism to be English. Also, to be a teacher you need to have QTS status, the Q stands for "qualified", suggests to me there's a qualification involved.

Seems to me that what you did was see my post and choose to attack it, which I have no problem with, but considering your comments it appears a tad contradictory/hypocritical.
Reply 48
Original post by Anna.Karenina
I do write the real stuff. I also write academic essays. As a journalist, the ability to research, be critical and clearly express my opinion has been enhanced through studying. My editor shares a similar opinion, and he's the one who pays me to write. [...]

Those skills can be learned outside of university. Even if I accepted your argument, however, the skills are developed on every degree course, not just English. In fact, they will often be far more developed on other degree courses, where students have to learn the limitations of a wide variety of different research methodologies and have a basic level of mathematical literacy (e.g. dealing with statistics in history and logic in philosophy to use examples from the humanities).

This leads me back to the original question: what is the purpose of English as a degree subject. I do not think you have answered that at all. It is clear you think you have benefited, but that does not mean you actually have. Your argument can easily be comprised if, for instance, you were a journalist before you began university. Likewise, even if you started after you got to university that does not infer a causal relationship between the two. Simply having more time to read and practice writing could have developed your journalistic skills. This situation could have come about if you were at university or you were unemployed.

For context's sake, I would like to reiterate that I have studied both STEM and humanity subjects at university, so I am about as balanced a person as this thread is likely to see. I have also published journalism in the Guardian and Times Higher Education so I understand your argument personally. I felt my English degree made no difference whatsoever to my journalism; in fact, it was something I had to 'unlearn' to write effectively.
Reply 49
Original post by evantej
Those skills can be learned outside of university. Even if I accepted your argument, however, the skills are developed on every degree course, not just English. In fact, they will often be far more developed on other degree courses, where students have to learn the limitations of a wide variety of different research methodologies and have a basic level of mathematical literacy (e.g. dealing with statistics in history and logic in philosophy to use examples from the humanities).

I felt my English degree made no difference whatsoever to my journalism; in fact, it was something I had to 'unlearn' to write effectively.


Hello! I have a disagree that you learn those skills on other degree courses. The people I know who are soon graduating on their science or other humanities based course still can't write a complete sentence. Their writing is terrible - and the people I am thinking of are all at a top Russell Group institution.

I don't think students learn that intense, close analysis with any other degree. I don't want to sound dramatic but it has totally changed my understanding of the world! This has been achieved by closely studying emotion, love, death, history & events through analysis. My communication has improved tenfold.

Sure, a lot of it is tedious and I have often questioned why I am doing this (maybe I should have chosen something more immediately relevant or vocational). BUT then English is so rewarding when you realise how much you have learnt. Every year I end up thinking: "oh my God last year I couldn't write at all! I have learnt so much since then, I've really got it now" and then the following year I realise it all over again!

I understand what you said about the Journalism aspect! I did a placement in a newspaper office and their writing style is VERY different to anything taught academically! I don't think I would want to get into the habit of writing like that. Although, my English tutor used to be a journalist, so it can't have that much of a negative impact.

In my experience though, of all the teachers and tutors I have experienced, English representatives usually appear the most knowledgeable. Unlike people who studied a content based degree like science, geography, languages etc, their intelligence and understanding can be applied to any situation (not just on one specific specialist area).

I have to agree though that current research is a missing element from the skills of an English degree. Sadly I'm not too interested in doing pages of research on a 500 year old novel. That is the part where I wish I had elected to study geography or a social science!

Communication & understanding = English Degree.
Research and initiative = sciences
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 50
Original post by SNichol
The point I was making is that "what he can get out of it" is a job, should he choose one of the avenues available to him. Employability is a legitimate defence, in my opinion. As well as that, it's not up to us to decide what personal gains he should be getting from his degree. If he couldn't see any advantage (where it be personal or career related) he maybe should have reconsidered his course choice sooner. I began my degree with a clear idea of what I felt about the subject and where it would take me.

No you don't NEED an English degree, you need academic experience in any curriculum subject for primary teaching (which English definitely is) and a specialism for secondary, reasonably you could expect an English teachers specialism to be English. Also, to be a teacher you need to have QTS status, the Q stands for "qualified", suggests to me there's a qualification involved. […]

Only one of the jobs you listed even requires a qualification, and it is not an English degree, so your employability argument is a non-starter. English graduates go into law because they struggle to find any graduate level employment otherwise; they are essentially rejecting three or four years of study as worthwhile. Lots of people do this. This is why there are master's level conversion courses and accelerated programmes in things like nursing and social work. People finish their degrees, release it does not help them get a job, and decide to transfer to something with employment prospects. To put things bluntly, when people talk about the employability of English graduates, the reason lots of routes are open to them is because they are not qualified to do anything.

As far as your teaching point is concerned, I have worked in schools, colleges, universities and even in a prison. I had an offer to do a PGCE and turned it down. I do not need to be patronised by someone who does not even know what QTS is.
Reply 51
Original post by evantej
Only one of the jobs you listed even requires a qualification, and it is not an English degree, so your employability argument is a non-starter. English graduates go into law because they struggle to find any graduate level employment otherwise; they are essentially rejecting three or four years of study as worthwhile. Lots of people do this. This is why there are master's level conversion courses and accelerated programmes in things like nursing and social work. People finish their degrees, release it does not help them get a job, and decide to transfer to something with employment prospects. To put things bluntly, when people talk about the employability of English graduates, the reason lots of routes are open to them is because they are not qualified to do anything.

As far as your teaching point is concerned, I have worked in schools, colleges, universities and even in a prison. I had an offer to do a PGCE and turned it down. I do not need to be patronised by someone who does not even know what QTS is.


I wasn't aware that anyone here was having an argument, my mistake.

You are entirely missing my point, if you begin a course with an idea of where you want it to go, there is a purpose and a route. I personally already knew what my degree was for: English degree, PGCE, teacher. That's the purpose of my degree, so there evidently is one.

You absolutely cannot "know" why people embark on English degrees only to do masters conversion course, and appear to be overlooking the possibility that people who do that WANT to, not because they feel forced to through lack of option.

I wasn't patronising you, I was stating a fact.

"Qualified teacher status is the accreditation that enables you to teach in state-maintained and special schools.

Anone who wants to teach in a state-maintained school in England or Wales needs to gain QTS"

Apart from my not considering the necessary qualification to teach in an academy, I think your accusation that I "don't know what QTS is" is unfounded.

Just as an aside, I am yet to see you agree with anyone on this topic. Does one enjoy an argument?
Reply 52
Original post by SNichol
I wasn't aware that anyone here was having an argument, my mistake.

You are entirely missing my point, if you begin a course with an idea of where you want it to go, there is a purpose and a route. I personally already knew what my degree was for: English degree, PGCE, teacher. That's the purpose of my degree, so there evidently is one.

You absolutely cannot "know" why people embark on English degrees only to do masters conversion course, and appear to be overlooking the possibility that people who do that WANT to, not because they feel forced to through lack of option.

I wasn't patronising you, I was stating a fact.

"Qualified teacher status is the accreditation that enables you to teach in state-maintained and special schools.

Anone who wants to teach in a state-maintained school in England or Wales needs to gain QTS"

Apart from my not considering the necessary qualification to teach in an academy, I think your accusation that I "don't know what QTS is" is unfounded.

Just as an aside, I am yet to see you agree with anyone on this topic. Does one enjoy an argument?

Look up the definition of argument.

I am not missing your point at all. You suggested English graduates have lots of options open to them. They do not. They have the same options open to them as non-graduates and graduates of other subjects. There are few options open exclusively to English graduates or options which their degree puts them at an advantage; clearly a number of users disagreed with me on this point, but the number of unemployed and underemployed English graduates suggests otherwise.

The fact you knew you wanted to do with your English degree is irrelevant. Most people do not. In fact, you will find when you apply yourself that lots of people on your PGCE panicked in their second year and applied for teaching because they realised they did not have any other options. The interview process gets rid of many of them but not all I can assure you.

I did not say people do English degrees then switch to other areas. It is probably the case that most English students are naïve about the job market or frankly do not care and decide to deal with the situation when it comes to them. Your suggestion that I have overlooked the possibly that people want to do an English degree then switch subjects is true. I overlooked it because it is stupid. I know more than most users who have replied because I have actually graduated and know what my classmates have done. In addition, I know how expensive it is to switch disciplines so this idea that people choose to take the most expensive route, the route which takes the longest to become, for example, a solicitor is just illogical. Some people honestly change their minds and interests after finishing their degrees, but those who do conversation courses do so for employment reasons (myself included).

You are not stating a fact at all. You suggested QTS infers there is a qualification involved. There is not. QTS is a set of professional standards that have to be met before you are allowed to practice on your own, and the qualification is completely separate (i.e. there are different levels of qualifications or no qualifications at all). Likewise, you do not need to QTS to teach in a state school. For starters, there is a payscale for unqualified teachers and most headteachers will use their discretion when dealing with candidates who may, for whatever reason, not have a formal teaching qualification. People in academies and private schools do not have to have teaching qualifications either. It is down to the headteacher to decide whether the person is qualified enough.

No, I do not agree with the one-sided English students who cannot see that their degree does not give them all that many options. But I do not agree that it is completely useless either. Having studied subjects on both sides I am merely trying to present a balanced argument. My own views were stated on the previous page.
Reply 53
Original post by evantej
Look up the definition of argument.


No. I know exactly what "argument" means, in both contexts. However this exchange we're having seems less like putting across "arguments" and more than an "argument" each time you post.

Original post by evantej

I am not missing your point at all. You suggested English graduates have lots of options open to them. They do not. They have the same options open to them as non-graduates and graduates of other subjects. There are few options open exclusively to English graduates or options which their degree puts them at an advantage; clearly a number of users disagreed with me on this point, but the number of unemployed and underemployed English graduates suggests otherwise.


Not for one second have I suggested that English graduates have more options than graduates of other subjects, I just refute the idea that there is a considerable amount less. Logically, an English graduate will have far less chance at gaining a position in an engineering position than one with a relevant degree, that goes without saying. What I am suggesting is that there are options, because there are. Most providers of the BA in English Studies put options such as journalism, media and communication, creative and cultural industries, education, performing arts and law. There are quite a few options there.

Original post by evantej
I know more than most users who have replied because I have actually graduated and know what my classmates have done. In addition, I know how expensive it is to switch disciplines so this idea that people choose to take the most expensive route, the route which takes the longest to become, for example, a solicitor is just illogical. Some people honestly change their minds and interests after finishing their degrees, but those who do conversation courses do so for employment reasons (myself included).


What I am gathering from this is that my expression of my experiences in invalid, because other people don't plan ahead or consider their studies in the same way, but yours is not invalid? I was suggesting that some people enjoy English, so study it an undergrad, with the intention of doing a post-grad course in, for example journalism, therefore switching avenues to reach an intended course. I may not have graduated, but I know of people on my course who intend on doing just that - people have aims regardless of their year of study.

To my knowledge the payscale for unqualified teachers is, at present, mainly used for School Direct (salaried) candidates, in which case they are aiming for a teaching qualification. Also, if the Q in QTS stands for "Qualified", how is that not to be taken to infer a qualification? Again, the www.education.gov.uk website specifies that anybody who wishes to teach in a state school will need to have QTS, you'd best get onto them about their misleading information.

Overall, the talk of employability here, including your own assertions regarding the "unemployed or underemployed" is disregarding a crucial factory; economy. You and I both live in the North (from what I can gather), and without making generalisations about your area, my own has absolutely appalling employment rates regardless of qualifications. There are people with degrees that would be deemed more directly routed towards employment that are working in jobs that are far beneath their expectations, it may be worth bearing that in mind when considering the current experience of graduates when it comes to employment.
Original post by Jade1994
How could studying imaginary people - which is what it basically boils down to - ever be interesting? If you want to write a novel, you can do that without a degree.


You've completely missed the point. What you're really studying is real people- the author and their society- through the medium of literature. English is essentially a History course but explored through literature.
Reply 55
Original post by Jade1994
Of course; I was only ever giving my opinion. Some people truly enjoy Literature - I enjoyed it, to some extent - but since enrolling in the course I have begun to hate it for my own reasons. I personally believe it is pointless because the job prospects are ridiculously low and, like many humanities degrees, you can't give anything back. You're probably right that the course has put me off but, either way, it has put me off, and I do think it's pointless. How could studying imaginary people - which is what it basically boils down to - ever be interesting? If you want to write a novel, you can do that without a degree.



The job prospects are low due to their being quite severe unemployment within the UK at the moment, particularly, if I may add, within the youth of society; the bulk of graduates occupying this section of society. So what you really mean is that the "job prospects are really low for young people" at the moment. I certainly do not see any evidence in the idea that it is English Literature graduates who are the prevailing strugglers in the job market.

If one studies medicine then it is palpable that becoming a doctor is an option. Equally, for English, it is palpable that becoming an English teacher or lecturer/researcher is a vocational pathway from the degree. To say that English is not a vocational degree assumes that the job of teaching English literature does not exist. I doubt many English lecturers or secondary school teachers would get their job without a degree. But, the medicine or English graduate has the option of not taking this vocational pathway. A medicine applicant could try to become a journalist just as an English graduate could. The reason why English seems less 'vocational' than medicine is that the majority of medicine graduates go into that field of study whereas English graduates fan out into a variety of occupations. All this assumes that the 'point' of a degree is founded on job prospects. This is certainly not the case and English has a lot more to offer than just meat to feed the career.

It is the study of language primarily and the power in which ideas can be expressed through its medium. Yes, it is true to say that many of the people are not 'real' within novels, plays and poetry (although many literature degrees involve the study of very real people; for example within speeches, the bible or philosophical writings). However, the main reason for this is that it gives the writer a method to explore ideas which may not be unique to the writer. It is a 'window' into other minds which develops a feeling of empathy and understanding. Such virtues may be scoffed at in the modern day which is, I think, as good evidence as you will find for their necessary re-establishment through portals such as literature.

Several times on this thread it has been remarked that there is nothing 'singular' about literature and that it offers nothing that another humanity degree would also offer. This is just not true. If one wished to write comically is it really feasible that the study of Dickens does not aid in such a venture? If we analyse how Dickens portrays his comedy (for example his hilarious use of names and exaggerated characters) it gives certain clues as to what would be effective when we write. Such skills learned from such criticisms is what makes English seem so versatile. Dickens's comedy can be analysed and the same technique he uses in 'The Pickwick Papers', applied in a different context, in journalistic endeavours, advertisement, or even the legal field. By studying Hamlet we learn the art of tragedy, such knowledge can then be transferable to jobs where impact and feeling is vital. To say that if you analyse and break something down won't make you better at that something yourself is clearly foolish. If one wishes to write music, they study and analyse music to give them ideas for what to write. This doesn't mean that the writer only scripts the music he listens to. A rap artist can get ideas from Mozart, just like a journalist can get ideas from Milton.

I would also like to address the issue of people saying that literature has no value to be studied at university. "If you want to write a novel, you can do that without a degree". The better you become at dissecting language, learning the way the cogs and machinery of a body of work is formed and then, as a result, the effect the language has; the better you become at being able to use such language yourself. It is this skill that develops in the study of literature, the ability to recognise why language is effective which then logically leads to one being able to notice and utilise the power of language. Within a degree, this skill is honed, effective language can be immediately spotted and this could then be used by the graduate in any form of daily life that requires language. Any reader can sense when something is well written. If you asked someone who was an out and out scientist they would struggle to say 'how'. When asked to write in the style of the piece they would falter. An English student would point out the word order, the use of language, the structure, the rhyme, the reflection of content linguistically. They would then use this knowledge and effectively be able to adapt their visualisations of the techniques used in their own writings.
Reply 56
Original post by Wellie

If one studies medicine then it is palpable that becoming a doctor is an option. Equally, for English, it is palpable that becoming an English teacher or lecturer/researcher is a vocational pathway from the degree. To say that English is not a vocational degree assumes that the job of teaching English literature does not exist. I doubt many English lecturers or secondary school teachers would get their job without a degree. But, the medicine or English graduate has the option of not taking this vocational pathway. A medicine applicant could try to become a journalist just as an English graduate could. The reason why English seems less 'vocational' than medicine is that the majority of medicine graduates go into that field of study whereas English graduates fan out into a variety of occupations. All this assumes that the 'point' of a degree is founded on job prospects. This is certainly not the case and English has a lot more to offer than just meat to feed the career.
.


What a silly thing to say! The main vocation for studying an English literature degree is not to become an English teacher!! That's like saying the main career from studying History is to become a history teacher! It is simply not true!

I can think of lots of specialist careers that could lead from English- careers that would use the intense study of drama and literature in an Eng Lit degree. Obviously, employability permitting), becoming a: researcher, writer, actor, working in a publishing house, theatre work, journalist etc. Also, areas like marketing and promotion - every company needs people who can write and communicate well.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by spartakist
...so I was told recently by a friend of mine studying it. I have to say I partally agree with him. It's not even studying books, it seems to be mainly studying people studying books, writing essays and coming up with points that have been made before and better by others. Any eng lit students care to disagree? Surely the main point of the subject, enjoying and forming interpretations of books, can be done without doing a degree in it?


By this logic, maths degrees are pointless too, because the majority of maths students are just going to come up with proofs that have been done before and more rigorously by others.
Reply 58
Original post by arty
What a silly thing to say! The main vocation for studying an English literature degree is not to become an English teacher!! That's like saying the main career from studying History is to become a history teacher! It is simply not true!

I can think of lots of specialist careers that could lead from English- careers that would use the intense study of drama and literature in an Eng Lit degree. Obviously, employability permitting), becoming a: researcher, writer, actor, working in a publishing house, theatre work, journalist etc. Also, areas like marketing and promotion - every company needs people who can write and communicate well.


I never said that the 'main vocation' of an English degree is to become an English teacher. Rather that it is clear that if you become an English teacher you directly use the skills that learning to become a critic of texts teaches you. A researcher/lecturer is another pathway that I actually highlighted so you are unwittingly agreeing with me. If it was a silly thing to say that an English degree is 'vocational', thus you use the skills learnt directly, and then you list a pathway that is the same as mine, then logically what you say is deemed silly. You are contradicting yourself as you didn't read that I also suggested researchers.

Writing and communicating well is something that you do learn as an English graduate but is not particular to that English graduate. Marketing, promotion, a publishing house (more of a business than a critique of literature, look at the shelves of the best sellers), even a theatre (where it is clear that drama would be more 'vocational') are not jobs that directly use the skills of an English graduate. The only jobs that seem to directly utilise the skills of such a graduate are lecturers/researchers and teachers, and hence I think my point still stands.
Reply 59
Original post by Kousar
Same :O

Someone, quick, please tell us you love studying Literature!


I'm studying Literature and I'm enjoying it a lot! Albeit with the Open University so there's a tad more flexibility about the modules you can study. Even the novels I didn't enjoy so much (did 'Hard Times' by Dickens on my last module and it was AWFUL), I still managed to engage with due to the brilliant teaching materials, critical theories and so on.

Quick Reply