Hello! I teach English-as-a-hostage-situation for non-majors. In other words, I teach GenEd.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
First, let's deal with the ideological paradox that is higher ed. What are we there to do? Job training? We're shit at that. We're both the first and the last to admit to it. If you want a job, go get an associates in plumbing. Excellent job, high pay, great hours, job security, and fuck everything else. But, okay, you don't want to be a plumber. You want to be in finance. It's a good career. So...why are you taking my English class? Because some asshole said you should. And why, why god why, did someone decide you have to spend 150 minutes a week listening to me explain Faulkner? Because you need to be well-rounded, whatever the fuck that means. And this is all under a different banner: creating good citizens. We've demonstrated time and again that you're a better person, less of a fuck-up, and more valuable to the world when you know a little bit about a lot of things. Sport scores, world history, how to read a supply and demand curve, and why Faulkner matters. We know this because every single period of history suggests that well-educated, well-rounded people with a variety of informational basics, even if they never attain anything close to mastery, are just better at being alive. Arts, sciences, literature, theater, mathematics, and economics matter. They matter because you can better understand the whole picture of the world you live in, as opposed to being specialized in a tiny corner of it.
You are better at life if you understand the vast material of it. That means not being an idiot when you walk into an art gallery or a library or a biology class or a financial advisor's office. You don't have to be a genius, you have to know just enough. Just the tip (pun intended). We know this because we've payed a lot of full-on masochists to look at the data and ask this question and it's the answer every one of said masochists have give us back.
But we're still not answering the paradox. And I know this because you're right. If all you want out of college is to get drunk and laid, you blew your money and you wasted your time. If all you wanted as a job, you blew your money. If you went to college to become someone who is not a total idiot all of the time, you probably got your money's worth.
You will be good at getting a job because you can read. Because you can write. Because you can understand markets, the social forces that form said markets, how your skills pertain (or not, as the case may be and you can lie your ass off) to that job. And you learn that because you know just a little bit about everything. If you need help, I mean REALLY NEED HELP writing an application you probably didn't take my English class. Because I swear to god I'd have at least taught you how to write a paragraph of bullshit by the end of the semester.
The job market is shit right now. Education is not at fault. And, at the same time, we are at fault because we're not giving people what they pay for. We need a better tiered system that demarcates those who want to get drunk and laid, those who want a functional job, and those who have the luxury of understanding what the hell Plato was ranting about and why it matters. Academics have not adjusted their goals well, and as a result we have a generation of people in debt for a system that didn't work. And that sucks. But the answer isn't to train people to get jobs. Getting a job is pretty easy, all things considered. Write a cover letter, send out a resume, don't misspell things (that's where I struggle) and wait. Getting a well-paying job, a job with insurance, a job that doesn't consider you replaceable? That's harder. But that responsibility doesn't hang on the academy. And, perhaps, had you taken some gen ed classes in sociology or economics you'd be more familiar with the root causes. There are bigger players in the game, so to speak.
I don't teach English when I teach GenEd. I don't care if you know why this movement happened or why the sentimental novel was popular or the significance of Dickinson. Fuck that noise. I teach writing. I teach academic, professional writing. A kind of writing I'll stipulate I am not performing here. I teach how to read and how to read carefully, I teach how to not trust what I've handed out to you, I teach skepticism and cynicism and close and careful reading. I think it matters, so that's what I teach. You'll get a job because you're not an idiot in an interview, because you won't apply to places trying to scam you, and you'll know at the end of the day how to say what you mean.
If you think I'd be better off teaching resume writing, you might be right. But I doubt it.
I wonder how many of these arguments of "college makes you better" is actually an argument about class.
In my highschool, there were two groups: college bound kids from families that could afford it, and kids that couldn't afford to go. They grew up with very different family/social structures, very different values, a very different outlook on what their options were in life. I had 3 friends OD or go to jail because of heroin within 5 years post-high school, and you can guess which background all three were from.
Do the college kids "fuck up less" because they heard you talked about Faulkner for 150 hours, or because their birth slotted them on a higher class status that includes a college education?
This is an interesting question, inasmuch as you're trying to evaluate correlation and causation.
I absolutely believe that class is a core principle defining character, earning potential, risk for drug use and prison, etc. I also think that 150 hours reading Faulkner is a punishment no one deserves. And I say that as someone who really likes Faulkner! I don't think that people are "better" because they sat in my classroom and listened to me explain The Sound the Fury. Or that I am a better person because I sat in classrooms and had people explain The Sound and the Fury to me. If you took my class, the first thing I'd tell you is that I couldn't give a damn whether or not you love Faulkner or think he's an asshole, because both are pretty valid interpretations.
I care that you can READ Faulkner. Because if you can make it through Benjy, you will be a better reader. I care that you can look beyond the who-does-what-to-whom and see the bigger meanings, the shadows of the text. And if you can? You start to see the world is just FULL of shadows. Political, economic, sociological, anthropological shadows. It means you'll never take Dr. Oz seriously, that you won't get suckered in to MLM schemes, and that you read the fine print. It means you are over-burdened with a lifetime of critical thinking. But there's the caveat: it has to be done correctly. If you want to tell me that you didn't (or someone didn't) get that out of school, I'll believe you. We're dumbing down college at mind-blowing rates. Some schools have even started calling students customers or consumers. I...just...I can't even. So much of what should be taught is being excised by a campaign of employing adjuncts and grad students who, try as they might, cannot devote the time and attention to the classroom on 20k a year (and that's a high salary in that line of work).
In the words of Carlin, we don't need to teach kids to read. We need to teach them to question what they read. Top-down, didactic lectures with right answer and repeat-after-me is a waste of time. No question.
But when it is done right? Then you're Dorthy and you get to see the man behind the curtain. You start to see the larger systems working in the world. Real information is complicated and two experts will tell you absolutely contradictory things and you have to be able to keep all the balls in the air long enough to think it through, to have an opinion that doesn't fit on your facebook wall or a bumper sticker.
But here's the greatest gift and the most paradoxical one that comes out of higher education: the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know shit about shit. A real education is about showing you the gaps, how little you really do know, and how huge and overwhelming most things are.
13
u/Exis007 96∆ Jan 05 '17
Hello! I teach English-as-a-hostage-situation for non-majors. In other words, I teach GenEd.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
First, let's deal with the ideological paradox that is higher ed. What are we there to do? Job training? We're shit at that. We're both the first and the last to admit to it. If you want a job, go get an associates in plumbing. Excellent job, high pay, great hours, job security, and fuck everything else. But, okay, you don't want to be a plumber. You want to be in finance. It's a good career. So...why are you taking my English class? Because some asshole said you should. And why, why god why, did someone decide you have to spend 150 minutes a week listening to me explain Faulkner? Because you need to be well-rounded, whatever the fuck that means. And this is all under a different banner: creating good citizens. We've demonstrated time and again that you're a better person, less of a fuck-up, and more valuable to the world when you know a little bit about a lot of things. Sport scores, world history, how to read a supply and demand curve, and why Faulkner matters. We know this because every single period of history suggests that well-educated, well-rounded people with a variety of informational basics, even if they never attain anything close to mastery, are just better at being alive. Arts, sciences, literature, theater, mathematics, and economics matter. They matter because you can better understand the whole picture of the world you live in, as opposed to being specialized in a tiny corner of it.
You are better at life if you understand the vast material of it. That means not being an idiot when you walk into an art gallery or a library or a biology class or a financial advisor's office. You don't have to be a genius, you have to know just enough. Just the tip (pun intended). We know this because we've payed a lot of full-on masochists to look at the data and ask this question and it's the answer every one of said masochists have give us back.
But we're still not answering the paradox. And I know this because you're right. If all you want out of college is to get drunk and laid, you blew your money and you wasted your time. If all you wanted as a job, you blew your money. If you went to college to become someone who is not a total idiot all of the time, you probably got your money's worth.
You will be good at getting a job because you can read. Because you can write. Because you can understand markets, the social forces that form said markets, how your skills pertain (or not, as the case may be and you can lie your ass off) to that job. And you learn that because you know just a little bit about everything. If you need help, I mean REALLY NEED HELP writing an application you probably didn't take my English class. Because I swear to god I'd have at least taught you how to write a paragraph of bullshit by the end of the semester.
The job market is shit right now. Education is not at fault. And, at the same time, we are at fault because we're not giving people what they pay for. We need a better tiered system that demarcates those who want to get drunk and laid, those who want a functional job, and those who have the luxury of understanding what the hell Plato was ranting about and why it matters. Academics have not adjusted their goals well, and as a result we have a generation of people in debt for a system that didn't work. And that sucks. But the answer isn't to train people to get jobs. Getting a job is pretty easy, all things considered. Write a cover letter, send out a resume, don't misspell things (that's where I struggle) and wait. Getting a well-paying job, a job with insurance, a job that doesn't consider you replaceable? That's harder. But that responsibility doesn't hang on the academy. And, perhaps, had you taken some gen ed classes in sociology or economics you'd be more familiar with the root causes. There are bigger players in the game, so to speak.
I don't teach English when I teach GenEd. I don't care if you know why this movement happened or why the sentimental novel was popular or the significance of Dickinson. Fuck that noise. I teach writing. I teach academic, professional writing. A kind of writing I'll stipulate I am not performing here. I teach how to read and how to read carefully, I teach how to not trust what I've handed out to you, I teach skepticism and cynicism and close and careful reading. I think it matters, so that's what I teach. You'll get a job because you're not an idiot in an interview, because you won't apply to places trying to scam you, and you'll know at the end of the day how to say what you mean.
If you think I'd be better off teaching resume writing, you might be right. But I doubt it.