Experiences as an English major?

[hot4jwg]

I'm currently a high school junior and, as I'm going to have to apply soon, I was wondering if someone could supply some input for me about what it is (or was) like in an undergrad English program. I was curious about things like workload, how much is read and in what time frame, how much writing you did, ect. I am pondering all of my options within several fields but, as an avid classics reader with a propensity for "mature" vocabulary, I was curious.

[myrna22]

I'm currently a high school junior and, as I'm going to have to apply soon, I was wondering if someone could supply some input for me about what it is (or was) like in an undergrad English program. I was curious about things like workload, how much is read and in what time frame, how much writing you did, ect. I am pondering all of my options within several fields but, as an avid classics reader with a propensity for "mature" vocabulary, I was curious.

If you love literature and reading and are a good writer, it should not be any problem. I never considered the potential work load when I decided to major in English. For me, it was the only option, the only thing I was interested in doing. Honestly, it is your life, your future. Why would anyone consider majoring in something they are less interested in because of the workload for 4 years?

Major in what you are most interested in; major in a subject that will take you to the career you want. Workload should have nothing to do with it.

[The Comedian]

If you like reading and writing, then the "work" of and English major shouldn't be too bad. I started as an English and biology double-major and found that of the two, English had more homework while the biology was more class-intensive.

What do you plan to pair your potential English major with? Education? world language? business? chemistry? I think that planning your major/minor combination is pretty important when looking toward the future and future vocation.

[dfloyd]

but getting a bachelor's degree in English will get you a ride on a bus if you have the money. I started off trying for a BA in English, but I quickly changed to engineering. I love to read and have read many of the classics, but if you want to work within your degree, an advanced degee is a certain requirement. I have several friends with a BA in English, and they make their living as bartenders, real estate salesmen, clothing salesmen, bus drivers, etc. I don't wish to discourage you, but literature is one field, unless you are a succesful writer yourself, which abolutely requires an advanced degree, preferably a Ph D.

[Drkshadow03]

English undergrad was easy as hell. We read 5-7 books per a class (sometimes if it was poetry and really an intro class, it might even be like 4 short poems), usually with one major (10+ page with actual research into literary criticism paper) and 3-4 response style 4 page double-spaced papers with in-class midterm and final essays.

Grad school was a lot more difficult. 8-10 books per a class with additional supplemental literary criticism and theory for each class. Usually a response paper per a book/class (so about 8 of them), with one midterm paper and one 15+ page extremely well-researched paper. Also, with one session where you present on one the books as if you were teaching the class and guide the discussion of the group.

[JBI]

My university seems a bit more challenging than the curriculum posted above, but the important thing is that you know what you are doing, as a pure English stream won't cut it in this world anymore.

So if you plan on working outside of the field, it should be a relatively easy major if you do your work, and can write decently, but after that the options are limited.

I started as an English major, but switched quickly to languages and East Asian Studies (emphasis on China) as English is a sinking ship. So if you plan on continuing, diversifying your education to add other languages or traditions is a must. If you don't, no problem, shouldn't be too hard.

We read like 12 books for a novel class, and 4-5 text books for a poetry class - drama classes like 12-14 plays for a year, and other courses at the high level as half courses are at 7-8 books, or films.

Just a tip, if you do pursue it, do your work, and write things early, and always try to improve them, and then take note of any feedback you get - trying to improve your writing is the most important thing.

[stlukesguild]

English is a sinking ship.

And China is the rising sun in the East (Has nothing to do with the fact that its currently JBI's course of study:rolleyes:) Didn't we hear the same thing about 15 or 20 years ago with Japan?

[Drkshadow03]

JBI reminds me of another issue. It also depends a lot on the university you plan to attend. I imagine one of the top-tier universities are going to be a lot more rigorous than the private small university I attended for my undergrad, which isn't to say my education was bad, but I think the expectations for the students are slightly different.

It's worth noting that my undergrad university was completely devoid of theory for undergraduates. I had absolutely no theory as an undergrad. However, the university I attended for graduate school was a theory-heavy university; the professors there worshipped Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, and all things French and foreign. So the undergrads at the graduate school I attended are required to take an undergrad theory course, and theory is incorporated into undergraduate work. So things like that will vary from university to university. My undergrad now offers frequent courses on the graphic novel and other pop cultural literature with the more traditional "classics." Meanwhile, the undergraduate courses at the other school I attended for grad school tended not to offer straight classes like the graphic novel or Victorian novels, but often tended more toward themed courses: "Racial Boundaries of Intercontinental Discourse." This latter university also offers a lot of film courses because the film courses are run through the English department, while in my undergrad university the film department was entirely separate from English.

Little things like this matter. Are you interested in studying film alongside literature? Do you want more traditional studies? Do you want a mix? Do you want to explore specialized topics usually reflecting your professor's interest? Do you want to learn about theory? These are all questions you should consider when deciding on a university.

Generally, an undergrad education in English especially in America is more focused on helping you develop critical thinking skills and teaching you how to write a coherent paper than actually making you an expert in the hard facts of literature. Oh sure, you'll get an overview and some knowledge, but that isn't the focus. At least, that's what my experience was like, and having talked to some friends who were English majors at other universities in different parts of the country they had many of the same observations about their undergrad experience in English as well. Graduate Studies is where you really start developing a strong knowledge of the actual literature usually of some sort of specialization (i.e. American Colonial literature, Medieval Literature, Victorian literature, etc.)

[JBI]

English is a sinking ship.

And China is the rising sun in the East (Has nothing to do with the fact that its currently JBI's course of study:rolleyes:) Didn't we hear the same thing about 15 or 20 years ago with Japan?

It isn't perhaps, but it is better than English - in the US it is pretty established (Yale I think was the first major institution, starting their program in 1861!) but English as itself is exhausted. As a study though, I will head to comparative literature most likely, since I already have 3 other languages at reading fluency. English however is a sunken ship, not even just sinking. It is not possible to get a professorship in English - not only is their a vast surplus of Ph. D., the departments are also downsizing.

Korean studies, for instance, is a blooming field, Chinese is rather strong, though departments in the US, unlike Canada are relatively saturated - still there is great opportunity provided by the Chinese government. Something like Italian though is rather small - the biggest department outside of Italy, for instance, is a rather small department in the University of Toronto.

What the goal is is to find a niche and read everything around it, so that you can cultivate a sense of self-importance from which to establish an academic ego from. The whole thing is an elaborate game, but there are very many players right now - only so many can survive.

[mortalterror]

It is not possible to get a professorship in English - not only is their a vast surplus of Ph. D., the departments are also downsizing.

It's atrocious. Have you seen the stats on Classics over the last century? The department used to be a cornerstone of liberal education. Now, a lot of places don't even have them.

[JBI]

It's atrocious. Have you seen the stats on Classics over the last century? The department used to be a cornerstone of liberal education. Now, a lot of places don't even have them.

Well, classics in the traditional sense has been losing much of relevance, as the texts seem to become more and more obscure as time has shifted, especially in the 20th century with Vernacular study rising. Still, comparative classics would be interesting, with different classic traditions compared against each other. Though, I think all the time put into Roman history has been mostly wasted, to be honest.

[myrna22]

but getting a bachelor's degree in English will get you a ride on a bus if you have the money. I started off trying for a BA in English, but I quickly changed to engineering. I love to read and have read many of the classics, but if you want to work within your degree, an advanced degee is a certain requirement. I have several friends with a BA in English, and they make their living as bartenders, real estate salesmen, clothing salesmen, bus drivers, etc. I don't wish to discourage you, but literature is one field, unless you are a succesful writer yourself, which abolutely requires an advanced degree, preferably a Ph D.

It depends on what someone chooses to do with his or her degree. I have both a bachelors and masters degree in English, and I have a career that gives me the opportunity to live and travel all over the world.

[sixsmith]

It's worth noting that my undergrad university was completely devoid of theory for undergraduates. I had absolutely no theory as an undergrad. However, the university I attended for graduate school was a theory-heavy university; the professors there worshipped Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, and all things French and foreign. So the undergrads at the graduate school I attended are required to take an undergrad theory course, and theory is incorporated into undergraduate work.

My undergrad English experience was basically ruined by the three charlatans mentioned above. Oh and de Saussure also played a part. I'd naively assumed that foundation courses would centre around Shakespeare and Milton, say, rather than semiotics, signs and ****ing signifiers.:rage: Plus i was lazy (or at best 'wrote within myself' as one of my professors put it). That said, I had a couple of great courses on Irish and American literature later in the major. But by that stage I was pursuing my second major, history.


I started off trying for a BA in English, but I quickly changed to engineering. I love to read and have read many of the classics, but if you want to work within your degree, an advanced degee is a certain requirement. I have several friends with a BA in English, and they make their living as bartenders, real estate salesmen, clothing salesmen, bus drivers, etc. I don't wish to discourage you, but literature is one field, unless you are a succesful writer yourself, which abolutely requires an advanced degree, preferably a Ph D.

My experience is that, today, most people will pursue a second degree, be it a doctorate, a JD or whatnot. Indeed, it seems that employers (and society generally) place less and less value (or perhaps it was always so) on the general analytic skills inherent in an undergrad degree, be it in English, Philosophy or what have you.

[The Comedian]

I'm not sure I subscribe to the English as "sinking ship" metaphor, hot4jwg. In the US, at least, the English department is one of the largest in most colleges and universities. However, many of those professors teach writing, so if college-level education is your vocational interest, developing an English major with an emphasis in writing is a good thing and a field that will continue to have some sort of demand. I've recently thought that a literature/technical writing double major would be a fun and practical way to build a love language that can help you pay the rent at the same time.

You can also work in business, at least for a while. I put my English major to work for a large computer company writing copy for their several websites for a couple years.

[Katy North]

I absolutely loved majoring in English, and there is no reason to fear the workload, in my opinion, any more than there is to fear the workload in another major.

However, the fact that it's hard to get a career with an english major is true. I had a double major in english and philosophy, was a member of my university's honors college, and graduated magna cum laude and all I could find in the way of work (starting fresh in this economy) was a job at a grocery store (yes, I'm a little bit bitter :brickwall) . Unless you plan on going straight up through school to get your Masters or Ph.D., I would recommend doing one of the following: Having a concentration in journalism, having a concentration in technical writing, majoring in English education, or having either a second major or at least a minor in business. Unless your dream job is to eventually become a manager of a retail store, majoring in straight English literature doesn't exactly open the doors to exciting, high flying careers.

[keilj]

I think most of what has been said in this thread is true - but, before we discourage high-schoolers from pursuing an English major, let's keep in mind that many majors fall into the same category (ie, you might end up driving a bus or bagging groceries). Political Science majors, Sociology majors, Economics majors, Biology majors, and many many more. Most of these, in today's world, will land you a pizza delivery job, and most of them will probably require that you go on to grad school or something.

In other words, unless you are pursuing some very specific majors, like engineering or law, a lot of the common undergrad majors will not give you much of a head start in the working world. Like many college grads, regardless of their majors, you will likely have to struggle in the working world for a few years, building up some experience to put on your resume. I was a Sociology major, and the only thing i was qualified for was an assistant manger job straight out of college. I have friends who were Poli Sci and Econ, who never used their degrees after graduation

[JBI]

I think most of what has been said in this thread is true - but, before we discourage high-schoolers from pursuing an English major, let's keep in mind that many majors fall into the same category (ie, you might end up driving a bus or bagging groceries). Political Science majors, Sociology majors, Economics majors, Biology majors, and many many more. Most of these, in today's world, will land you a pizza delivery job, and most of them will probably require that you go on to grad school or something.

In other words, unless you are pursuing some very specific majors, like engineering or law, a lot of the common undergrad majors will not give you much of a head start in the working world. Like many college grads, regardless of their majors, you will likely have to struggle in the working world for a few years, building up some experience to put on your resume. I was a Sociology major, and the only thing i was qualified for was an assistant manger job straight out of college. I have friends who were Poli Sci and Econ, who never used their degrees after graduation

My problem is even if you get the Ph. D you still head toward retail for work. There are essentially no real academic openings in English - when one opens, there are like 200 applicants, unless it is a obscurish specialist, like early English poetry or Drama or something, and then it's probably just 50 people, except jobs open every 20 years.

It is worse in other fields - classics and philosophy seem to be depressing places - law school or Walmart I guess.

[Drkshadow03]

My problem is even if you get the Ph. D you still head toward retail for work. There are essentially no real academic openings in English - when one opens, there are like 200 applicants, unless it is a obscurish specialist, like early English poetry or Drama or something, and then it's probably just 50 people, except jobs open every 20 years.

It is worse in other fields - classics and philosophy seem to be depressing places - law school or Walmart I guess.

In our Intro to Graduate Studies Course, which was a Pass/Fail required discussion course preparing us for English Graduate school with no actual work, just presentations by professors: (how to write a grant, how to apply for a job when you're done with your Ph. D., the dissertation process, etc.), our professor showed us how many applicants there were for positions they had recently posted and filled.

For a 20th century American lit position there were about 350 applicants, for 19th century American lit position there were about 250, for a medievalist position there were a little over a 100. It goes down the more specialized you get, as you noted, but there was still around 100+ applicant even for a medievalist position. Out of those 100+ maybe like 8 - 10 get interviewed at MLA, then from those 8 usually 3 get invited to give a demo lesson.

[Jeremydav]

As an English major in his first year, I can tell you that there are a lot of folks in my class who don't seem to be passionate about it. There are plenty as passionate as I am, but so many complain of reading or boast how they wrote their papers in less than an hour. If you are going to act like this, please don't major in English.

[Katy North]

For a 20th century American lit position there were about 350 applicants, for 19th century American lit position there were about 250, for a medievalist position there were a little over a 100. It goes down the more specialized you get, as you noted, but there was still around 100+ applicant even for a medievalist position. Out of those 100+ maybe like 8 - 10 get interviewed at MLA, then from those 8 usually 3 get invited to give a demo lesson.

Squash my dreams why don't you... :frown5::bawling:

[OrphanPip]

It's the same for all of academia. I think I've mentioned this in another thread, but in the basic sciences (that means the theoretical sciences not the practical ones like Engineering) there is the exact same problem. Theoretical math, physics, chemistry, and biology are all difficult to get jobs in. I ran into a fellow graduate who was selling popcorn at a movie theater. I'm lucky to have a ****ty lab job that I hate, and the only reason I have it is because I started volunteering there 4 years prior.

It is now expected in most of the sciences to have 10-15 years of post-doctoral studies before you even have a chance at an assistant professorship. This pretty much means expect to be around 40 before getting a job as a professor. In the meantime expect to move around constantly to different low paying post-doc research positions so that you can keep contact with academia.

I would just say study whatever you like, because these degrees are all pretty much equally useless. Anything you go into you have to distinguish yourself and work hard to succeed at.

Or go into law, medicine, nursing, dentistry, etc.

[Drkshadow03]

Squash my dreams why don't you... :frown5::bawling:

Hey you could be living the dream, and always end up like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Tf2WuEW1E)!

[kiki1982]

Or one can of course do something like woodwork, plumbing or so. It's not smart, but it will at least almost guarantee you a job (or at least in Europe).

I didn't finish in Germanic languages, but at the end of the day, it doesn't make a difference. Doing all that work to sit behind a desk and do something that a five-year-old can do? No way. Rather without the work and the financial burden.

[Katy North]

Hey you could be living the dream, and always end up like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5Tf2WuEW1E)!

:sosp::bawling:

[stlukesguild]

Or one can of course do something like woodwork, plumbing or so. It's not smart, but it will at least almost guarantee you a job...

Woodworking and plumbing are not "smart"? So in theory anyone can do it, right? Can you?

[L.M. The Third]

Ow! These stats are squashing my dreams as well.
It's being mentioned its the same for many other majors. Anyone know about history? And, yeah, I guess that one probably depends on specialty too.

[Drkshadow03]

Ow! These stats are squashing my dreams as well.
It's being mentioned its the same for many other majors. Anyone know about history? And, yeah, I guess that one probably depends on specialty too.

Pretty much all the humanities: history, philosophy, etc. are plagued with a glut of academics.

Sciences have this problem too, but too a slightly lesser degree.

I would say your best bet would be to also major in English education so you can teach English at the high school or middle school level, but even the lower grade education jobs are suffering in this economy. Although that just may be temporary.

[Night_Lamp]

As someone who is in my mid-thirties, and an undergrad I have a somewhat more realistic outlook. Yes, even with a post grad designation jobs in your field are hard to come by. But just having those two letters after your name allows a whole world of new options. None of my friends are working in their fields but have jobs they like which they would not have even been considered for if they had not been university grads.

So my advise is study what you enjoy, get as much out of it as you can, and finish your degree. You be surprised how relevant your studies are to other fields.

I love books and have been a book-junkie my whole life, but I would just be happy to have a decent paying and interesting job that allows me to use my mind instead of the mindless retail and factory jobs I have done over the years. That's why at my age I am reading and enjoying an english degree.

[myrna22]

I'm currently a high school junior and, as I'm going to have to apply soon, I was wondering if someone could supply some input for me about what it is (or was) like in an undergrad English program. I was curious about things like workload, how much is read and in what time frame, how much writing you did, ect. I am pondering all of my options within several fields but, as an avid classics reader with a propensity for "mature" vocabulary, I was curious.


Popular Careers for English Majors - Full List

Popular Careers for English Majors Median Salary All U.S.

Technical Writer $65,700

Administrative Assistant $34,800

High School Teacher $49,400

Executive Assistant $49,400

Administrative / Office Manager $41,500

Copywriter $53,400

Retail Store Manager $52,500

Marketing Coordinator $39,900

Middle School Teacher $47,400

Paralegal $54,300

Editorial Assistant $30,500

Managing Editor $62,300

Elementary School Teacher $45,200

Assistant Editor $36,100

Editor $51,500

Customer Service Representative (CSR) $34,600

Executive Director, Non-Profit Organization $64,100

Copy Editor $47,000

Associate Editor, Print $42,200

Legal Secretary $51,900


Methodology
All data is limited to those with a Bachelor's degree and no higher degrees who work full-time in the United States. Jobs are listed in order of relative popularity amongst graduates with a Bachelor's degree in the given major from any college. Median salary for each job title is for individuals with any major who have a typical amount of experience at that job. Salary is the sum of compensation from base salary, bonuses, profit sharing, commissions, and overtime, if applicable. Salary does not include equity (stock) compensation. This chart is based upon PayScale Salary Survey data, and may not represent all individuals in these categories.

I would suggest to anyone to get more than a bachelor's degree. Nowadays, a bachelor's degree isn't worth that much to anyone in most fields.

[Night_Lamp]

Exactly.

These are the kind of non pure academic options I was alluding to. The other thing that no one has mentioned yet is complimentary college work after university. What about TEFL or ESL designations? With the growing immigrant populations here in Canada there are many options at home, without having to go overseas. As well, many people I know with psychology and english degrees go to college after for human resources and end up in decent jobs in middle management and HR departments of big companies.

[JBI]

Pretty much all the humanities: history, philosophy, etc. are plagued with a glut of academics.

Sciences have this problem too, but too a slightly lesser degree.

I would say your best bet would be to also major in English education so you can teach English at the high school or middle school level, but even the lower grade education jobs are suffering in this economy. Although that just may be temporary.

Depends on the field - I think English teachers have a harder time than science teachers, for instance.

[JBI]

Exactly.

These are the kind of non pure academic options I was alluding to. The other thing that no one has mentioned yet is complimentary college work after university. What about TEFL or ESL designations? With the growing immigrant populations here in Canada there are many options at home, without having to go overseas. As well, many people I know with psychology and english degrees go to college after for human resources and end up in decent jobs in middle management and HR departments of big companies.

I don't know if that is one hundred percent true though - I don't know what London is like, but Toronto seems saturated with teachers, even for ESL, and private schools for adults seem to pay less, so I am told.

I think more applied fields of teaching, such as computer science, or physics will have an easier time getting a teaching job.

[hellsapoppin]

"In the US, at least, the English department is one of the largest in most colleges and universities. "


That's not what I've heard over the years.

As for me, I never found any use for my English major degree which I got with high honors all those years ago. If I could go back in time and had a crystal ball, I would pass up college and law school. Hate to say it but education is no guarantee of a remunerative future.

[The Comedian]

"In the US, at least, the English department is one of the largest in most colleges and universities. "


That's not what I've heard over the years.

So what have you heard?

[hellsapoppin]

That there has been much decline in the studies of humanities and other forms of liberal arts. These programs do not generate revenues as do business and scientific research programs which get much money from the federal government. This is why so many programs have been reduced or eliminated from colleges.

Have you heard otherwise?

[wat??]

Or one can of course do something like woodwork, plumbing or so. It's not smart, but it will at least almost guarantee you a job...

Woodworking and plumbing are not "smart"? So in theory anyone can do it, right? Can you?

Carrying a three thousand pound boulder up a cliff with your bare hands is not "smart"? So in theory anyone can do it right? Can you?

So what theory is this exactly?

That said, specialising in a trade obviously isn't academic, but that's not to say that it's not a smart decision.

[kiki1982]

Or one can of course do something like woodwork, plumbing or so. It's not smart, but it will at least almost guarantee you a job...

Woodworking and plumbing are not "smart"? So in theory anyone can do it, right? Can you?

Sorry, didn't see your message there.

I am not showing any contempt here, because those skills do need training. Bearing that in mind, though, traditionally (mind, I say: 'Traditionally'), it is not the cleverest people intellectually who do those jobs. I am confident I could do it, if I had some training. Sadly, these days, no-one has training like that, unlike our grandfathers who could do some of that stuff like basic electricity, basic woodwork, basic plumbing and so forth.

We only need people who are trained to do this because we haven't got the time to do them. And now, because we didn't have the time to do them, we haven't been trained, so we are useless at them. That is not to say that, if we spent a little time, we couldn't learn them.

Do you argue that it requires a four year or more study to master those skills, with a lot of theory and essay-writing? Don't exaggerate. The only thing that is required is experience and maybe just that little theory (how many tiles do I need to cover the kitchen floor, f.i.).

[wat??]

There's no essay writing, but to become a true master in a craft like sculpting or... painting, or woodworking, or... anything really it will take much much longer than four years.

Since you're not a tradesman or artisan yourself what you're saying should be dismissed as simple ignorance.

[kiki1982]

Ignorance? Really, do you think that all those youngsters who start work at 19 as a plumber have 10 years experience?

There are two kinds of things really you have to look at. There are the plain things like plumbing, building walls (mind I say 'walls', not 'houses'), electricity laying and things like that. Pretty simple. And then there are the more artistic things that need that little bit more experience to be done well like sculpting, certain types of woodworking (so not in a factory making windows) .

You cannot just throw everything on the same pile. Sculpting requires skill because otherwise you are liable to destroy your own sculpture at some point. The only thing that will happen when you are building a wall, will be that it's a little crooked and you have to build it again.

What I meant with 'smart' is that it requires intellectual strength, or are you arguing that all those plumbers etc (whose work I do appreciate!) are geniuses who can teach at uni?

So, ignorance?

It was a mere comparison on an absolute level. Every skill has its worth in this world and the world has gone down by letting everyone study because there are just no jobs for them. I was not referring to any inferiority whatsoever and I do not at all understand why possibly people get upset about this.

[wat??]

You are a fool. I never implied that any artisan or tradesman would necessarily be a genius who could teach at a university...

This is your statement referring to artisans;

"Do you argue that it requires a four year or more study to master those skills,"

This is an extremely ignorant statement and I certainly do argue. I never said anything about the intellectual requirements of becoming a skilled artisan. I wonder where you read that?

[kiki1982]

Pardon? I was clearly talking about intellectual requirements. What do you think "smart" meant, then? Or what d you believe that was the topic of this conversation? You went off on a rant that came out of nowhere. I have never said anyting denigrating and I wonder where your touchyness comes from. I could repeat the same question to you, as you apparently totally read past the meaning of my words.

I am not a fool and I do not care to be compared to one. You either take it back or I report you for abuse.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

As the first poster said, if you love to read and you're a relatively good writer, you'll be fine. In fact, you'll probably enjoy being an English major, as you will be exposed to so much you wouldn't otherwise be.

Of course, the problem is that all your classes will be dependent on the quality of the professor. It won't change the literature, of course, but when you have a good professor who is knowledgeable, the discussions can be extremal interesting and stimulating, sometimes enough so that you will end up liking what you didn't at first.

I've only gone to one college, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, and their English department is amazingly good.

[OrphanPip]

Ignorance? Really, do you think that all those youngsters who start work at 19 as a plumber have 10 years experience?

There are two kinds of things really you have to look at. There are the plain things like plumbing, building walls (mind I say 'walls', not 'houses'), electricity laying and things like that. Pretty simple. And then there are the more artistic things that need that little bit more experience to be done well like sculpting, certain types of woodworking (so not in a factory making windows) .

You cannot just throw everything on the same pile. Sculpting requires skill because otherwise you are liable to destroy your own sculpture at some point. The only thing that will happen when you are building a wall, will be that it's a little crooked and you have to build it again.

What I meant with 'smart' is that it requires intellectual strength, or are you arguing that all those plumbers etc (whose work I do appreciate!) are geniuses who can teach at uni?

So, ignorance?

It was a mere comparison on an absolute level. Every skill has its worth in this world and the world has gone down by letting everyone study because there are just no jobs for them. I was not referring to any inferiority whatsoever and I do not at all understand why possibly people get upset about this.

You are at least ignorant of what it requires to build a wall. You have to consider load bearing, width, insulation, space for electrical wires, etc. Acquiring a license in a trade does not make you a master artisan, it takes several years of experience under a master to be allowed to have that distinction.

I've met enough people with university degrees who are next to useless, even if they did use their "intellect" to regurgitate some crap into an essay. I'm sure most electricians and plumbers have a better understanding of physics and mathematics than the average liberal arts major.

[Paulclem]

One of my regrets is that I didn't do some practical skill, such as plumbing, when I had the chance between school studies and University.

If you become a teacher as I did - not many jobs require English Lit solely in the UK except teaching English- then the skill is useful at home and saves you a shed load of cash.

You can also work in the holidays as I have when we were poorer - except that I would have been able to offer a real skill instead of humping stuff about in a factory. And you'll have appreciative friends...:D

And your family will think you're great...:D

You'll have the intellectual stimulation of your study, and the extra skill for the odd bit of cash.

Get irons in the fire - that's my advice. You never know when a skill you have will lead to some cash or a good job - they don't always come through the usual applications channels. It's who you know - where you are at a particular time- and what people are looking for. Another name for it is luck.:D

[kiki1982]

You are at least ignorant of what it requires to build a wall. You have to consider load bearing, width, insulation, space for electrical wires, etc. Acquiring a license in a trade does not make you a master artisan, it takes several years of experience under a master to be allowed to have that distinction.

I've met enough people with university degrees who are next to useless, even if they did use their "intellect" to regurgitate some crap into an essay. I'm sure most electricians and plumbers have a better understanding of physics and mathematics than the average liberal arts major.

Now, who is talking about licences here?

I was merely referring to the building of a simple wall inside a place where you need one, not one with isolation, electrical wiring, and what not. Of course, one needs a lot of experience before one gets a licence. Imagine the problems we would have (in Belgium that is a reality, though).

Of course people who come from uni with a degree in English are more useless at maths and physics (at least part of them). That's why they are doing English and not maths or physics, but that does not mean of course that builders have a better knowledge of those subjects than the average architect or the average physicist. Or does it?

Normally, if you go to study 'building' in school when you are about 14 (or that is how it works in Belgium), you'll be ready to go to a building firm to work under a boss on a building site at the age of 18. In the meantime you'll have had lots of practical classes, and prefereably an apprenticeship.

An English major on the other hand, only starts when he is 18 and goes on until? But he has been educated in certain subjects of the programm before, in school. So the load is much greater, but for what, actually? To sell pop corn at the cinema like someone else said?

I was going on merely about the intellectual contents of these two ways of life alone. Certainly for a well-paid job you might want to convert to more handy than intellectual work/study. Even if you have to get some experience before you can get a licence.

[hellsapoppin]

Plumbers I have known (espcially those with union membership) make considerably more money than those who graduate with English degrees. Hate to say it but that's the way it is.

[pooteeweet]

Plumbers I have known (espcially those with union membership) make considerably more money than those who graduate with English degrees. Hate to say it but that's the way it is.

Too many students say, "I'm in college to make more money" and really they probably shouldn't be in school.

Back to the original post: An English undergraduate degree is pretty much a universal one, that is, you can do many things with it if you decide not to teach as a career. Studying English is not necessarily about “loving to read and write” as many suggest, rather it is about having an interest in the work’s artistic qualities and historical value(s) while wanting to make a contribution to the major.

There is also a lot of research involved, so if Easter egg hunting is one of your favorite times of the year, you’ll do fine.

Another thing I have noticed. The majority of English majors are mean. You will have to learn to ignore these people and not let their rolling eyes bother you. Engage in conversation and not debate, that is, open your mind to other student’s ideas (and the professor’s).

Good luck,

Patrick

[wat??]

Pardon? I was clearly talking about intellectual requirements. What do you think "smart" meant, then? Or what d you believe that was the topic of this conversation? You went off on a rant that came out of nowhere. I have never said anyting denigrating and I wonder where your touchyness comes from. I could repeat the same question to you, as you apparently totally read past the meaning of my words.

I am not a fool and I do not care to be compared to one. You either take it back or I report you for abuse.

No you weren't. You said that a trade or artisan skill could be mastered in under four years. I never disagreed with what you said about the intellectual requirements for pursuing a trade.

But I will end this conversation here as you seem unable to understand English entirely - which is obviously not your fault; though it's ironic considering the nature of this thread.

[kiki1982]

No you weren't. You said that a trade or artisan skill could be mastered in under four years. I never disagreed with what you said about the intellectual requirements for pursuing a trade.

But I will end this conversation here as you seem unable to understand English entirely - which is obviously not your fault; though it's ironic considering the nature of this thread.

I warn you I am seriously thinking about reporting you. I do understand English very well, as you can tell by my writing I hope. It seems that another person here cannot.

At first, I was going on about intellectual requirements alone, then you started talking about the period in which skills can be mastered, which was never my object. They can definitely be mastered in a shorter time, look at artisans' schools. They do not do 9 years over their courses (English BA plus A-level/GCSE). At least not where I come from. Where I come from the whole would be a total of 9-10 years for a BA English. For an artisan we are looking at 6. Maybe the students' skills are not on a licence level, but definitely on a workable level.

But we will stop the conversation as someone refuses to understand what the other is saying. Ironic, seeing the concept of the thread as well.

[wat??]

"They can definitely be mastered in a shorter time"

Again you dismiss my arguments with an offhand statement like this. What exactly are you so certain of? Can carpentry truly be mastered in a lifetime, yet alone four years? How about painting, sculpting, etc? I don't think you understand the vast field of people who you disparage when you condescendingly make remarks like "do you really think it takes four years to "MASTER" their skill?".

I think you may misusing the word "master"...

From definition for "master" in the context of "to master a skill" on the web;

"a. An artist or performer of great and exemplary skill."
"a. a person with exceptional skill at a certain thing a master of the violin"

You may be referring to someone who is "adept" at a certain task. For example you could train for a few years and then be adept at fairly linear and specific types of wall or structure building, but it couldn't be said that you had mastered a particular craft.

I think at this point you simply need to admit that you were mistaken when you said that these crafts could be mastered in under four years. See here I'm not referring to an accredited contractor who has a permit to work on home renovations. I'm directly responding to your usage of the term "to master".

In summary...



Do you argue that it requires a four year or more study to master those skills

Yes I argue. The fact that you are unable to differentiate my real argument with this statement from your straw man regarding the intellectual requirements of becoming a tradesman is your failing, not mine.

[kiki1982]

Collins English Dictionary: to master (verb) 1 to become thoroughly proficient (skilled) in 2 to overcome defeat 3 to rule or control as master

Firstly you tell me the word 'master' as a noun. I was using the verb.

Secondly, when is one 'thoroughly proficient in'? Apparently, even in your own country, Canada, there is no real time. Even one who hasn't got any formal training is allowed to do it. In Germany, one becomes a journeyman after about 4 years training. Then, journeymen take up some experience and do an exam for master carpenter. This study, though, requires legal and economic knowledge so as to saveguard future companies. In Britain they learn for GCSE and A-level while they do an apprentieship. Belgium trains their carpenters in school like Britain and after that they get a job at a carpenter/company with their learned skills. They are free to become their own employer at any time, although that costs a lot of money.

Do not tell me that after school, of about 6 years, or a training of 4, one is not able to master a skill like carpentry. Of course, it depends what kind of carpentry, as there are several kinds as there are several kinds of stone masons (one that can make sculptures and ones that can only do straight grave stones). I think you confuse the most elementay with highly artistic ones.

I believe you need to admit that you went off on a rant that had nothing to do with intellectual capacity whatsoever and you even went personal without knowing me.

I tell you again, and I will keep telling you, that I was talking on an intellectual level, not on any other. Or has someone forgotten my statement earlier?

'There are two kinds of things really you have to look at. There are the plain things like plumbing, building walls (mind I say 'walls', not 'houses'), electricity laying and things like that. Pretty simple. And then there are the more artistic things that need that little bit more experience to be done well like sculpting, certain types of woodworking (so not in a factory making windows).'

You seem to confuse more advanced and artistic practical skills (making chairs, wardrobes, etc with sawing parts for windows in a factory; making scultures with standing at a machine that carves letters in grave stones; making fitted suits with sitting behind a sewing machine in a factory stitching the same stuff together every day; etc).

I agree with you that the most artistic skills need more experience, but that was not the ones I was talking of. So stop trying to make me admit it because that is just not true. Grow up and look for another victim to vent your boredom.

[wat??]

"to master (verb) 1 to become thoroughly proficient"

This definition suits me just fine. The fact that you honestly believe that carpentry as a whole can be "mastered" (to become THOROUGHLY proficient) in under four years simply testifies to your ignorance of how difficult carpentry, in all it's many forms really is.

"Do not tell me that after school, of about 6 years, or a training of 4, one is not able to master a skill like carpentry."

That's exactly what I'm telling you.

"I believe you need to admit that you went off on a rant that had nothing to do with intellectual capacity whatsoever and you even went personal without knowing me."

Would you mind quoting to me where exactly I argued with you about intellectual capacity? Or would you mind explaining to me why the argument about intellectual capacity is more pressing than what we're discussing currently? Strawmen need not apply.

"I tell you again, and I will keep telling you, that I was talking on an intellectual level, not on any other. Or has someone forgotten my statement earlier?"

What are you talking about? So what you're saying is that you were talking about how long it takes to master trades or artistic skills on an intellectual level? Seriously... what does that even mean? You need to stop bringing this up.

For the record... I AGREE THAT PURSUING, OR EVEN MASTERING A TRADE OR ARTISTIC SKILL DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE ANY PARTICULAR INTELLECTUAL GIFTS OR INTELLECTUAL ABILITY. I DISAGREE WITH YOUR CONTENTION THAT THESE SKILLS CAN BE COMPLETELY MASTERED IN MUCH LESS TIME THAN IT TAKES TO COMPLETE A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY BA. SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO BRING THIS UP AGAIN I WILL SIMPLY NOT RESPOND.

"(mind I say 'walls', not 'houses')"

Since you earlier addressed carpentry as a whole I certainly do mind when you point to a very specific task and say "that doesn't take four years to learn". It didn't take me four years to read Oliver Twist either, but that's not all an English major needs to do.

"Pretty simple."

Really? Can you perform these supposedly simple tasks to perfection? Flawlessly? I doubt that fully mastering the trade of an electrician is simple at all.

So let me get this straight. You were choosing to conveniently ignore the trades and artistic skills which require large investments of time and effort to master; and when you stated that "they will take under four years time to master" you were, in fact, referring to factory workers and general laborers? I'm sorry but you can't blame me for replying to what you said opposed to what you meant to say.

[kiki1982]

Would you mind quoting to me where exactly I argued with you about intellectual capacity? Or would you mind explaining to me why the argument about intellectual capacity is more pressing than what we're discussing currently? Strawmen need not apply.

There is no carpenter that has mastered all disciplines. So it is fruitless even arguing about the whole of carpentry. They specialise in cabinet maker, furniture like chairs and tables, doors and windows etc. And indeed, you never argued about that, so what are you talking about then? I was definitely going on about that alone or are you going to question that too? I still know what I was thinking.


What are you talking about? So what you're saying is that you were talking about how long it takes to master trades or artistic skills on an intellectual level? Seriously... what does that even mean? You need to stop bringing this up.

Nonono. You really don't get it, do you. Honestly, who does not speak English now? It can't be very difficult. Firstly I was saying that one does not need to be intelligent for becoming an artisan. Then, I was saying, after you prompted me to it, that it does not take long to master BASIC skills in those trades so that one can work in them. Hence why people learn it in secondary school. It's a perfectly simple statement.


For the record... I AGREE THAT PURSUING, OR EVEN MASTERING A TRADE OR ARTISTIC SKILL DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE ANY PARTICULAR INTELLECTUAL GIFTS OR INTELLECTUAL ABILITY. I DISAGREE WITH YOUR CONTENTION THAT THESE SKILLS CAN BE COMPLETELY MASTERED IN MUCH LESS TIME THAN IT TAKES TO COMPLETE A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY BA. SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO BRING THIS UP AGAIN I WILL SIMPLY NOT RESPOND.

I said the above.


Really? Can you perform these supposedly simple tasks to perfection? Flawlessly? I doubt that fully mastering the trade of an electrician is simple at all.

My father and grandfather could. The one is civil engineer and the other was a tailor. However, my father could lay electricity way before he went to uni. They laid their own electricity in their own two houses. They also laid their own floors. It's not that difficult. And no, no short circuit. It is not that difficult.


So let me get this straight. You were choosing to conveniently ignore the trades and artistic skills which require large investments of time and effort to master; and when you stated that "they will take under four years time to master" you were, in fact, referring to factory workers and general laborers? I'm sorry but you can't blame me for replying to what you said opposed to what you meant to say.

Not every person who works in tailoring, carpentry, iron works, plumbing and that kind of thing is actually a skilled master, if you wish. They are not general labourers because they are skilled, yet they are not really fully skilled, but they can become it. Like a Bachelor English. Building a straight wall, my grandfather and father can do as well. They will not build a house, but they will build a wall together if need be.

At any rate, Bachelor English, which is what we are talking about here, and that's not a master either, because that's stlll a level higher. For a bachelor, you need to get through secondary school 6 years at least, then through uni/college for another 3-4 years. That is 9-10 years together, and you're still not even a master. For becoming a basic carpenter you need about 6 years, through secondary school and apprecticeship part-time. For becoming a master, in some countries, you need to do an exam, which also includes economic and legal knowledge. I don't know how you count, but I see a great difference.

Really, what is the problem here? Calling someone a fool, ignorant, and saying that he cannot speak English properly. Will you now want to understand me, or will you keep on going?

[pooteeweet]

Standards of mastery have changed over the times, 4-6+ years of education doesn't make you a master, even if the degree says so. Even professors are learning more on more about their subjects the more they teach.

Of course I'm not comparing carpentry to his line of work, but my father has owned a pet shop for twenty-three years and while I consider him a master at his trade, he still learns something new on a regular basis.

When I think of mastering a subject I consider someone with many years of experience, who is a professional (or could be), and I feel confident going to them for service/advice.


Calling someone a fool, ignorant, and saying that he cannot speak English properly.

c'mon guys, this is a discussion board. The great thing about conversation is that we can be wrong, it's when you publish your thoughts/findings that you better have your facts straight :)

...and posting to a mesage board is not what I mean by publishing ;)

so, let's play nice?

[wat??]

"Firstly I was saying that one does not need to be intelligent for becoming an artisan."

And I never argued with this. So my question remains; why have you been bringing it up in every message?

"Then, I was saying, after you prompted me to it, that it does not take long to master BASIC skills in those trades so that one can work in them. Hence why people learn it in secondary school. It's a perfectly simple statement"

It's a perfectly simple statement which, unfortunately, you never made. You never specified anything about learning the "basics" of carpentry. The word you used was master, as in "to master" a trade/craft.

"At any rate, Bachelor English, which is what we are talking about here, and that's not a master either, because that's stlll a level higher. For a bachelor, you need to get through secondary school 6 years at least,"

This is irrelevant since I never argued that mastering a trade would take more time than obtaining a thoroughly proficient knowledge of the English language and English literature would take. Another weak straw man missing his brain.

"Not every person who works in tailoring, carpentry, iron works, plumbing and that kind of thing is actually a skilled master,"

I never said that they were. And you never said that it "doesn't take long to be able to work in carpentry/plumbing". You used the term "master" which is what I disagreed with. I could start up a freelance carpentry business tomorrow, but I would hardly have mastered the craft.

{edit}

[kiki1982]

Correction, the other woman was in Europe doing something useful in the afternoon.

Then my response stays with the fact: what are you arguing about then? Really, you either agree or do not agree with something. Nit-picking is not really showing the fact that one can argue. It is rather showing that one has trouble understanding the other.

I was clearly talking about teenagers learning a craft. What were you thinking? That a teenager is a man of 30 or 40 with 20 years experience? Do you even know what the word teenager means?

And how proficiently skilled is a Bachelor English in literature then? There are specialisations for it and professors who specialise in certain domains. They even say they learn every day. So what chance does a bacherlor have? At least in Europe since the Bologna agreement, they start to doubt the set-up of 'bachelor' and certainly the non-English speaking countries are moving to a master degree as the norm. But ok, irrelevant.

I am sorry that I apparently used the term a little out of context. Still, it is no reason to become abusive. If there is anyone here who cannot argue on an adult level, it will be you. And it is not the first time.

[wat??]

You never even mentioned teenagers.

I never said that a bachelors in English meant anything. I never said anything about an English degree period.

You are seriously confused.

[kiki1982]

Oh, now that is clearly not understadning the word! I posting inflamatory messages to provoke you??? Really, you should get your eyes cleaned out.

And I will not, I repeat, will not get into an argument about the meaning of the verb 'to troll'.

Regarding the fact that '[I] never said anything about teenagers':

quote myself: 'Normally, if you go to study 'building' in school when you are about 14 (or that is how it works in Belgium), you'll be ready to go to a building firm to work under a boss on a building site at the age of 18. In the meantime you'll have had lots of practical classes, and prefereably an apprenticeship.' And that counts for all trades.

Since when does a 14-year-old not belong to the class 'teenager'. :rolleyes:

If you feel you are being victimised here, then you are free to leave the discussion. I was never the one who insulted, even being insuted myself. But you are free to interpret my words the way you want in your head, I am just not very confident that all will agree with that method.

[wat??]

"in school when you are about 14 (or that is how it works in Belgium), you'll be ready to go to a building firm to work under a boss on a building site at the age of 18."

Like I said. I have no problem with this. I only take up arms when I read things like...

"Do you argue that it requires a four year or more study to master those skills?"

You clearly never mentioned teenagers, or even referred to teenagers in particular when you made this statement.

Anytime you feel like admitting that you were completely in the wrong when you made this claim I'll be willing to end this.

And as for trolling, I don't feel like you've insulted me, but I do feel like you may be leading me on for fun. But don't worry,l I also have absolutely no desire to debate about the term troll in this context.

[kiki1982]

"in school when you are about 14 (or that is how it works in Belgium), you'll be ready to go to a building firm to work under a boss on a building site at the age of 18."

Like I said. I have no problem with this. I only take up arms when I read things like...

"Do you argue that it requires a four year or more study to master those skills?"

You clearly never mentioned teenagers, or even referred to teenagers in particular when you made this statement.

Anytime you feel like admitting that you were completely in the wrong when you made this claim I'll be willing to end this.

And as for trolling, I don't feel like you've insulted me, but I do feel like you may be leading me on for fun. But don't worry,l I also have absolutely no desire to debate about the term troll in this context.

If you think I am leading you on, then why do you not leave it? The question is, do you let yourself be led on? It really depends on oneself if one is lead on.

To quote my earlier post:

"[...] traditionally (mind, I say: 'Traditionally'), it is not the cleverest people intellectually who do those jobs. I am confident I could do it, if I had some training. Sadly, these days, no-one has training like that, unlike our grandfathers who could do some of that stuff like basic electricity, basic woodwork, basic plumbing and so forth."

When I said what you quoted above, I was clearly talking of basic skills as I referred to them in an earlier paragraph.

Already in your next post you started one level higher. I was never talking about the higher level, so who steered the discussion the wrong way then? :rolleyes:

So no, I will not admit I am wrong, because I was simply not wrong. You did not read very well and interpreted my post your way. It is not what I have said.

[wat??]

Okay then. I'm off to study for four years and then I'm painting the Mona Lisa! Or maybe I'll study for four years and sculpt David...

OR OR OR

I might study for four years and then build a few modern houses of various types of architecture from scratch... After all these skills only take four years to MASTER.

[kiki1982]

I clearly said basic skills. Do not turn it the other way, because it does not work. And, indeed, as it turns out, basic skills they teach in about four years in school. So, basic skills can be mastered in 4 years.

[Scheherazade]

W a r n i n g

Post containing personal/inflammatory comments have been and will be removed without any further notice.

If you do not want your ideas to be questioned by others, please refrain from taking part in discussions.

[myrna22]

Plumbers I have known (espcially those with union membership) make considerably more money than those who graduate with English degrees. Hate to say it but that's the way it is.

It may be, and I could probably make more money if I worked outside of education, where money is the bottom line (which is what I did do for years). But 1) money being the bottom line bores me stiff, 2) spending my life doing manual labor would bore me stiff. I cannot imagine spending one's life, 8 hours or more a day, doing something that was not intellectually compelling. Money is not the bottom line for me. I say take your degree in what interests you most, get a job that interests you most. Everything else is secondary.

[stlukesguild]

I am not showing any contempt here, because those skills do need training. Bearing that in mind, though, traditionally (mind, I say: 'Traditionally'), it is not the cleverest people intellectually who do those jobs. I am confident I could do it, if I had some training. Sadly, these days, no-one has training like that, unlike our grandfathers who could do some of that stuff like basic electricity, basic woodwork, basic plumbing and so forth.

Ooh! It seems I missed out on the furor I started. Again, I take some offense at the suggestion that careers such as carpentry, plumbing, or electrician employ people who are less intelligent or "clever". The problem with this concept is that it assumes intelligence in one area as superior to all others. As an educator I am well aware of Dr. Howard Gardner's studies on multiple intelligences" and I have seen the same in practice with my students. Gardner studied stroke victims and recognized that different aspects of intelligence were linked to different parts of the human brain. He realized that intelligence is not limited to knowledge and abilities in mathematics and language... where most IQ test focus... but are actually quite broad. He came to recognize that a brilliant athlete was not merely physically superior to his or her opponents... he is she was also more intelligent... able to think and anticipate further in advance... rather like chess master. The term "talent" was a misnomer... and an insult used in such a way that it essentially underplayed the intelligence needed for mastering skills outside of language and mathematics: music, art, sports, interpersonal relationships, leadership, etc...

Perhaps carpentry does not demand that a person be of the greatest intelligence... but neither does academia. There are any number of mediocre professors... persons who have mastered their skills to a level required of the discipline... but certainly no geniuses.

We only need people who are trained to do this because we haven't got the time to do them. And now, because we didn't have the time to do them, we haven't been trained, so we are useless at them. That is not to say that, if we spent a little time, we couldn't learn them.

We could learn to do the most basic aspects of these disciplines with a little training... but this is not the same as having mastered these disciplines. As an artist I probably have more carpentry skills than the average person. Most artists learn a certain amount of carpentry because it is almost a prerequisite for art: it is far more inexpensive to build one's own stretchers and stretch the canvases than it is to buy them... it is also quite advantageous to be able to build walls to a certain degree of proficiency when one is establishing one's studio. A good many of artists, including myself, have worked in carpentry... albeit at the lowest level... as simple laborers. Becoming a master in the field demands far more.

Do you argue that it requires a four year or more study to master those skills, with a lot of theory and essay-writing? Don't exaggerate. The only thing that is required is experience and maybe just that little theory (how many tiles do I need to cover the kitchen floor, f.i.).

That arrogantly assumes that the thinking involved in researching and writing and essay or understanding literary theory is more challenging than the skills involved in mastering carpentry, plumbing, etc... I assure you that to me writing an essay or understanding some arcane literary theory would be far easier than building a fine cabinet... but that is because my thinking leans in that direction. The skills involved in language and writing make sense far more rapidly to me than the skills demanded of intricate wood-working. Even f one is to master basic carpentry there is much to be learned that goes beyond driving a nail into a 2x4.

...journeymen take up some experience and do an exam for master carpenter. This study, though, requires legal and economic knowledge so as to saveguard future companies.

If one is talking a licensed union carpenter there is a prerequisite training before one is even put into the position of apprentice of common laborer. Those in this position are under constant supervision of journeymen, master carpenters, and the foremen. Once one has achieved a certain level one moves into the journeyman level where one is still under a master builder... but one can be sent on one's own to follow the blueprints. The master builder or master carpenter must have the ability to read blueprints for carpentry, electrical, and plumbing. They must be able to improvise as the job demands (dealing with pre-existing structures that are not square, finding a means to minimize cost while still meeting the codes). The understanding of the legal and economic aspects of building has nothing to do with safeguarding the company. A master carpenter must understand the economics of a given job because it is the master carpenter who will often make the job estimate when a company is bidding on a job. He of she must have a good idea of the man-hours needed to complete a given job according to the codes... and the cost of the materials. The knowledge of the laws are focused upon building codes, which vary from country to country and even city to city. New York city, for example, has very strict fire codes which demand walls be built in a very specific manner. I was involved on one job in which the code stipulated that there be a fire escape for every 60 feet of distance. As the space we were building was some 7 feet over the distance we would have been required to build a metal fire escape at the cost of at least $50,000 US. The master builder worked with the architect and came up with a plan of creating a foyer which entered into the space some 8 feet thus eliminating the huge expense that would have led to the client pulling out. The creative thinking involved in... demanded of the carpenter or electrician or plumber is something that no one understands until they have worked in the field and witnessed it first hand.

For the record... I AGREE THAT PURSUING, OR EVEN MASTERING A TRADE OR ARTISTIC SKILL DOES NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRE ANY PARTICULAR INTELLECTUAL GIFTS OR INTELLECTUAL ABILITY.

Again... I may agree... with the addition of suggesting that pursuing a career in academia does not require any particular intellectual "gifts" or abilities, either. Of course a certain basic aptitude or ability may be demanded of either, if one is to actually succeed in the chosen field. True "mastery" of the chosen disciplines... let alone genius... is in no way limited to academic studies.

[myrna22]

Some people will make an argument out of anything, whilst hijacking a thread to do so. Tiresome.

[stlukesguild]

Some people will make an argument out of anything, whilst hijacking a thread to do so. Tiresome.

Hmmm... and yet you were participating in the same "hijacking". Of course its quite likely that the digressions involved in many discussions here are far more interesting than the subject of the original posts.

[kiki1982]

Ooh! It seems I missed out on the furor I started. Again, I take some offense at the suggestion that careers such as carpentry, plumbing, or electrician employ people who are less intelligent or "clever". The problem with this concept is that it assumes intelligence in one area as superior to all others. As an educator I am well aware of Dr. Howard Gardner's studies on multiple intelligences" and I have seen the same in practice with my students. Gardner studied stroke victims and recognized that different aspects of intelligence were linked to different parts of the human brain. He realized that intelligence is not limited to knowledge and abilities in mathematics and language... where most IQ test focus... but are actually quite broad. He came to recognize that a brilliant athlete was not merely physically superior to his or her opponents... he is she was also more intelligent... able to think and anticipate further in advance... rather like chess master. The term "talent" was a misnomer... and an insult used in such a way that it essentially underplayed the intelligence needed for mastering skills outside of language and mathematics: music, art, sports, interpersonal relationships, leadership, etc...

Haha! But finally someone who discusses the real point.

That is why I said 'intellectually' by which I mean the certain type of intelligence needed not to put a cupboard together (which is not easy), but for seeing certain motifs/metaphors in literature for example. My husband cannot do it and wonders what I am on about, yet he speaks 10 languages. So, I agree with you that there are different types of intelligence, but that is why I made the distinction when I said what I said.


We could learn to do the most basic aspects of these disciplines with a little training... but this is not the same as having mastered these disciplines. As an artist I probably have more carpentry skills than the average person. Most artists learn a certain amount of carpentry because it is almost a prerequisite for art: it is far more inexpensive to build one's own stretchers and stretch the canvases than it is to buy them... it is also quite advantageous to be able to build walls to a certain degree of proficiency when one is establishing one's studio. A good many of artists, including myself, have worked in carpentry... albeit at the lowest level... as simple laborers. Becoming a master in the field demands far more.

Of course a master demands far more. That was not what I was on about.


That arrogantly assumes that the thinking involved in researching and writing and essay or understanding literary theory is more challenging than the skills involved in mastering carpentry, plumbing, etc... I assure you that to me writing an essay or understanding some arcane literary theory would be far easier than building a fine cabinet... but that is because my thinking leans in that direction. The skills involved in language and writing make sense far more rapidly to me than the skills demanded of intricate wood-working. Even f one is to master basic carpentry there is much to be learned that goes beyond driving a nail into a 2x4.

Yes, but the same problem goes for the carpenter. But, still, one has to be aware of the fact that the intellectual requirements to do theory in those trades are different to the ones needed in uni. And again, I was not on about making a fine cabinet, I was talking basic.


If one is talking a licensed union carpenter there is a prerequisite training before one is even put into the position of apprentice of common laborer. Those in this position are under constant supervision of journeymen, master carpenters, and the foremen. Once one has achieved a certain level one moves into the journeyman level where one is still under a master builder... but one can be sent on one's own to follow the blueprints. The master builder or master carpenter must have the ability to read blueprints for carpentry, electrical, and plumbing. They must be able to improvise as the job demands (dealing with pre-existing structures that are not square, finding a means to minimize cost while still meeting the codes). The understanding of the legal and economic aspects of building has nothing to do with safeguarding the company. A master carpenter must understand the economics of a given job because it is the master carpenter who will often make the job estimate when a company is bidding on a job. He of she must have a good idea of the man-hours needed to complete a given job according to the codes... and the cost of the materials. The knowledge of the laws are focused upon building codes, which vary from country to country and even city to city. New York city, for example, has very strict fire codes which demand walls be built in a very specific manner. I was involved on one job in which the code stipulated that there be a fire escape for every 60 feet of distance. As the space we were building was some 7 feet over the distance we would have been required to build a metal fire escape at the cost of at least $50,000 US. The master builder worked with the architect and came up with a plan of creating a foyer which entered into the space some 8 feet thus eliminating the huge expense that would have led to the client pulling out. The creative thinking involved in... demanded of the carpenter or electrician or plumber is something that no one understands until they have worked in the field and witnessed it first hand.

Of course journeymen need to have training before. In Germany, they have training as a teenager, after which they go for a full-time apprenticeship I believe. Once they are done they become 'Zimmermänner' who go through the country doing carpentry jobs for a competitive price so as to gain experience. In former days, this was to learn the manner of building in the several regions of the country. Now, they tend to stay more in one place. But, in the end, they do an exam and can become a master carpenter. I don't know how many years that takes, but apparently it is quite expensive and there are few who can do it financially. The Zimmermänner I don't think work under supervision because they are considered as already skilled


Again... I may agree... with the addition of suggesting that pursuing a career in academia does not require any particular intellectual "gifts" or abilities, either. Of course a certain basic aptitude or ability may be demanded of either, if one is to actually succeed in the chosen field. True "mastery" of the chosen disciplines... let alone genius... is in no way limited to academic studies.

Well, of course it is not limited to academic studies.

Still I would disagree with the fact that 'academia does not require any particular intelectual gifts or abilities'. If that was so, a person of lesser intelligence or with other abilities (handywork) could in theory go to university and have an academic career. We do not have to lie to ourselves about that.

There needs to be a certain inteligence involved to be able to understand and see large theories in small things. How many children in school just at a certain level give up physics, chemistry, even English? How many people come on here to ask for help, and not only out of laziness?

It is very dangerous to say it in a politically correct world, but academic intelligence is needed in academia. Practical intelligence is needed in practical things and some of those professors would saw their hands off if you let them, but that does not change the fact that the professor is more intelligent on an intellectual level than the carpenter whom he no doubt appreciates and whose work he would certainly not be able to copy.

[wat??]

{EDIT}

"Again... I may agree... with the addition of suggesting that pursuing a career in academia does not require any particular intellectual "gifts" or abilities, either. Of course a certain basic aptitude or ability may be demanded of either, if one is to actually succeed in the chosen field. True "mastery" of the chosen disciplines... let alone genius... is in no way limited to academic studies."

You'll find no argument from me.

"Still I would disagree with the fact that 'academia does not require any particular intelectual gifts or abilities'. If that was so, a person of lesser intelligence or with other abilities (handywork) could in theory go to university and have an academic career. We do not have to lie to ourselves about that."

So you didn't understand her (his?) post at all then?

"Of course a master demands far more. That was not what I was on about. "

But it's exactly what you said! Do I really have to explain to you that I'm not in a position to argue with your unstated thoughts? I can only respond to what you say. And you said that it takes less than four years to master these skills. Which is what I've been fighting about this entire thread.

[stlukesguild]

SLG (quote)- Again... I may agree... with the addition of suggesting that pursuing a career in academia does not require any particular intellectual "gifts" or abilities, either. Of course a certain basic aptitude or ability may be demanded of either, if one is to actually succeed in the chosen field. True "mastery" of the chosen disciplines... let alone genius... is in no way limited to academic studies.

Well, of course it is not limited to academic studies.

Still I would disagree with the fact that 'academia does not require any particular intelectual gifts or abilities'. If that was so, a person of lesser intelligence or with other abilities (handywork) could in theory go to university and have an academic career. We do not have to lie to ourselves about that.

There needs to be a certain inteligence involved to be able to understand and see large theories in small things. How many children in school just at a certain level give up physics, chemistry, even English? How many people come on here to ask for help, and not only out of laziness?

It is very dangerous to say it in a politically correct world, but academic intelligence is needed in academia. Practical intelligence is needed in practical things and some of those professors would saw their hands off if you let them, but that does not change the fact that the professor is more intelligent on an intellectual level

Certainly, I agree that one going into academia in whatever area of discipline need a given level of intelligence related to the sort of skills he or she will need to master and the sort of challenges he or she will face. The level of overall intelligence of an individual in any given discipline, however, will vary from individual to individual and is not necessarily greater among academics. There are any number of academics who are adequate within their discipline, but show little intelligence anywhere else: in social skills, as teachers, let alone if faced with the challenge of building a wall or even changing the oil in the car. At the other end of the spectrum I have met carpenters who had more than a rudimentary level of understanding of plumbing, electrical wiring, auto mechanics, as well as art, literature, music, etc... The only place in which I think we are disagreeing is upon the term "intelligence" or the phrase "intelligence of an intellectual level"... and this may simply be something lost in translation.

"Intelligence"... as per Gardner's theory of "multiple intelligences"... a theory largely accepted by this time and expanded upon... is not a term used to denote only the abilities to master the understanding of language, mathematics, science, etc... Rather, Gardner recognized that "intelligence"... a complexity of thinking... was involved in areas that had long been dismissed as mere "skills", "talent", or the result of experience. The mastery of literature or mathematics owes just as much to experience as do the mastery of carpentry, art, music, chess, or basketball.

The visual arts, for example, have been plagued since the mid-20th century by academics who stress the philosophical, theoretical, narrative, symbolic aspects of art over everything else... in other words, those aspects of art best understood in terms of language. As a result we have seen the evolution of academic art... the plethora of conceptual art supposed profound in concept... but commonly weak in form. This is because the academics lack an understanding of and a respect for the thinking that occurs during the process of drawing a line, selecting a color, adjusting an edge here or a degree of focus there. To the academic, the "thinking" (the intelligence) in art is limited to the initial idea. As such we have found artists since Andy Warhol who rarely even touch their own art. It is rendered by hired hands because it is not understood how much of the actual thinking process occurs during the process.

The division of labor or specialization of labor that is virtually essential to 20th and 21st century culture has led to assumptions that certain disciplines involve a great deal of intelligence, while others are merely the result of innate ability, talent, or mere experience. Certainly, there are those jobs that involve little more than sheer manual labor: working in a factory on the assembly line, moping the floors at McDonald's, unloading the boxes from the trucks at WalMart. Other jobs may demand but the most rudimentary level of intelligence: flipping burgers at Burger King, the cashier working the check-out at the grocery store, driving the truck for UPS. Any field or discipline that demands a level of "training", experience, or education, however, should not be thought of as being made up of persons who are intellectually inferior. Just as in academia, these areas are made up of persons with a wide array of levels of intelligence.

[mortalterror]

New York city, for example, has very strict fire codes which demand walls be built in a very specific manner. I was involved on one job in which the code stipulated that there be a fire escape for every 60 feet of distance. As the space we were building was some 7 feet over the distance we would have been required to build a metal fire escape at the cost of at least $50,000 US. The master builder worked with the architect and came up with a plan of creating a foyer which entered into the space some 8 feet thus eliminating the huge expense that would have led to the client pulling out.
It was a matter of pure coincidence that five years later the client would die trapped in his foyer when the building burned down, and you know what, the widow had enough left over for a splendid funeral. The whole city came out for the man, and with 'em the master carpenter, who as a sign of contrition, offered to undercut the mortician's rate by sawing the deceased in half and building two baby coffins instead, and by golly that's what we did!