What degree do you have no respect for?
Scroll to see replies
You could technically say that about any subject though
If you wanted to do work on literature from e.g. the Early Modern Period for example; at the graduate level, you would need to pick up a range of skills beyond just the content of (most) English lit degrees:
•
you would need languages (both modern languages of scholarship and varieties of the languages used in writing the original texts at that time, as well as potentially other contemporaneous languages). (Some areas might need more considerable philological training e.g. anything medieval or earlier or most literature not written in English.)
•
you would need historical skills in source evaluation and handling primary sources, as the texts are not just literary editions frozen in time as often encountered in English literature but, especially the farther back you go, have multiple editions and variations - they are also material objects and the materiality of the original texts/manuscripts is essential to consider as well. This materiality may also extend to needing some art historical awareness depending on the nature of it (e.g. illuminated manuscripts, detailed decorative bindings, etc).
•
You also you need a broader historical awareness of the period e.g. in this example the development of the printing press and how this influenced (or didn't) the text you are working on. This is not just a case of reading a textbook on it but you may need to actually do some microhistorical work looking at that one printer that actually printed editions of your text, what else they printed, their own background and what legal privileges they had in printing that.
•
And for anything that is not contemporary, Western, and written by what may be considered the "dominant" cultural hegemonic powers, at least a certain level of understanding that you need to engage with things from a certain amount of an anthropological perspective, recognising that fundamentally even British society in the 15th Century was significantly different enough that you will be approaching it from an etic perspective to a large extent.
•
Add to that the literary criticism skills that you need at the core of things, and broaden that by recognising a lot of those are rooted in continental philosophy and early structural linguistics, and these are important to at least consider when determining what if any particular theoretical framework you are working out of.
A lot of single honours undergraduate degrees in particular fields obviously can't develop all of these things, much as they would like to. This is I suspect a large part of why for humanities PhDs a masters is usually basically required - it's not just about depth, but also about a certain level of breadth from methodological and skills based matters - and a lot of masters degrees specifically will develop not just depth in particular areas of research but include ancillary "skills" courses in e.g. language work, palaeography, papyrology, diplomatic, etc. Sometimes the language work is actually the major focus of the entire masters course!
So I think it's really a bit naive to claim it's not a suitable training ground - there are potential issues (e.g. a great risk that a student could choose a bunch of random totally unrelated modules without an coherent thematic or intellectual focus, which might make some of the issues of diluting their study a bit more notable), but I think they ultimately fall into how the individual course is run rather than the concept of the course. But in the humanities "complementary" study does in fact build up the essential foundations of knowledge - as they aren't as linear from a knowledge (and probably pedagogical, barring languages) perspective as STEM subjects.
Also outside of academia it literally does not matter. Goldman Sachs doesn't care if you did liberal arts or theoretical quantum biology if you're applying to an investment banking grad scheme with them.
Yes - my own work spans religion, philosophy, linguistics, history, translation, literature. Very difficult to divorce all these aspects.
PRSOM!
Exactly
If you wanted to do work on literature from e.g. the Early Modern Period for example; at the graduate level, you would need to pick up a range of skills beyond just the content of (most) English lit degrees:
•
you would need languages (both modern languages of scholarship and varieties of the languages used in writing the original texts at that time, as well as potentially other contemporaneous languages). (Some areas might need more considerable philological training e.g. anything medieval or earlier or most literature not written in English.)
•
you would need historical skills in source evaluation and handling primary sources, as the texts are not just literary editions frozen in time as often encountered in English literature but, especially the farther back you go, have multiple editions and variations - they are also material objects and the materiality of the original texts/manuscripts is essential to consider as well. This materiality may also extend to needing some art historical awareness depending on the nature of it (e.g. illuminated manuscripts, detailed decorative bindings, etc).
•
You also you need a broader historical awareness of the period e.g. in this example the development of the printing press and how this influenced (or didn't) the text you are working on. This is not just a case of reading a textbook on it but you may need to actually do some microhistorical work looking at that one printer that actually printed editions of your text, what else they printed, their own background and what legal privileges they had in printing that.
•
And for anything that is not contemporary, Western, and written by what may be considered the "dominant" cultural hegemonic powers, at least a certain level of understanding that you need to engage with things from a certain amount of an anthropological perspective, recognising that fundamentally even British society in the 15th Century was significantly different enough that you will be approaching it from an etic perspective to a large extent.
•
Add to that the literary criticism skills that you need at the core of things, and broaden that by recognising a lot of those are rooted in continental philosophy and early structural linguistics, and these are important to at least consider when determining what if any particular theoretical framework you are working out of.
A lot of single honours undergraduate degrees in particular fields obviously can't develop all of these things, much as they would like to. This is I suspect a large part of why for humanities PhDs a masters is usually basically required - it's not just about depth, but also about a certain level of breadth from methodological and skills based matters - and a lot of masters degrees specifically will develop not just depth in particular areas of research but include ancillary "skills" courses in e.g. language work, palaeography, papyrology, diplomatic, etc. Sometimes the language work is actually the major focus of the entire masters course!
So I think it's really a bit naive to claim it's not a suitable training ground - there are potential issues (e.g. a great risk that a student could choose a bunch of random totally unrelated modules without an coherent thematic or intellectual focus, which might make some of the issues of diluting their study a bit more notable), but I think they ultimately fall into how the individual course is run rather than the concept of the course. But in the humanities "complementary" study does in fact build up the essential foundations of knowledge - as they aren't as linear from a knowledge (and probably pedagogical, barring languages) perspective as STEM subjects.
Also outside of academia it literally does not matter. Goldman Sachs doesn't care if you did liberal arts or theoretical quantum biology if you're applying to an investment banking grad scheme with them.
Has anyone with Liberal Arts degree got into Goldman Sachs? Show me their linkedin page
They literally themselves wrote an entire blog article about it: https://www.goldmansachs.com/careers/blog/posts/ask-the-recruiter-liberal-arts-edition.html
Please google "sad trombone noise" so you can listen to that as you read it.
Please google "sad trombone noise" so you can listen to that as you read it.
Sorry, neither Erika or Dianne in this article mentioned they studied Liberal Arts. You also need to distinguish corporate diversity appeal vs what they really do. My employer drumbeats about wellbeing and work-life balance and we work till 11:30 every night. All I asked for is someone's LinkedIn page out of curiosity, I'm just asking for evidence and you seem quite offended in your reply. You don't have to act so defensive/confrontational y'know?
"Erika: Yes. We recruit talent from all backgrounds who show an ability and aptitude to do well here. Of course, JDs and PhDs are hired into certain areas more often than others."
Maybe there are some truths in here.
It's a Latin expression ("per se"), so the error very pleasingly highlights both the value of studying Classics and the OP's ignorance.
I see
Without maths the other natural sciences (Biology, Physics and Chemistry) effectively don’t exist or function, maybe Biology would at a push, subjects such as CS, Economics, IT, maybe psychology, engineering, statistics etc wouldn’t exist or function either without Mathematics. Really puzzling to see Maths on the list and I’m not saying this simply because I love Mathematics and Statistics.
I'm not really directing this at you, but in general: what most students don't realise when they have this weirdly instrumental, regressive view of education is that it's not just about jobs. It is about knowledge, transferrable skills, brain plasticity, and character building. Education isn't (well, actually, it sorta is, but shouldn't be) just a sausage machine for jobs.
EDIT: actually, know what, if people want to treat it that way then that is actually fine. But some people do not, and they should be afforded that opportunity because it is really a matter of good civic hygiene and the social good.
Even if he were not, a pithy comment like this demonstrates what, exactly?
That’s why I said at a push
Agree with First one and last one but if you work at a finance company its pretty helpful tho
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Not sure about what uni course to apply to
- History and Economics degree
- Careers with a degree in anatomy, developmental human biology
- online degree
- Switching from Economics to Business
- urgent course advice needed - brutal advice
- what should i choose for my alevels?
- Advice on what to do after college??t
- English Language vs. English Literature
- Uni degree advice
- English, geography or sociology?
- Depressed about Uni Subject Choice
- Most Respected And Least Respected A-Levels
- RG ‘traditional’ subject degree v non-RG NCTJ accredited Journalism degree
- How important is an English degree in order to become a good writer?
- advice on taking a gap year VS going to university?
- A level choosing is painful
- A level choices
- what degrees can i do ?
- A-levels
Last reply 2 days ago
Govt considers raising tuition fees and bringing back maintenance grants in EnglandLast reply 1 month ago
Russell Group universities are actually very good. We should stop dismissing them.Last reply 3 months ago
Recognition of UK Universities in Germany - Anabin Database Inquiry
