I’m talking beyond that. It’s one thing to be a bigot/intolerant of something (I’m quite disappointed if that’s all you see in my comment); another thing to be so openly accepting of everything without evaluating it to out of political correctness.

Yes, these courses definitely dash expectations. Only, we find out the hard way, once we have signed up for it and are in the middle of it – or worse, if it’s a core course. “Practical application” is a very gray concept in humanities, but yes, the ones I’m talking about are often irrelevant to the study in the broader scheme. Take this from someone who has taken relatively irrelevant electives like Film Appreciation (just Fassbinder, at that), and some socio-linguistic studies. So no, when I say ‘irrelevant’, I’m not talking about the electives that people take out of personal interest.

Anyway, let me just leave it here. I’d say we could agree to disagree, but strangely I do happen to agree with what you say, on your page. I just happen to be on a different one. Thanks for humoring me, though :)

-g

I’m sure Van Gogh dad must have thought he was not ‘paying it forward’ when he painted those masterpieces so you can never judge someone else’s education by your expectations.

Don’t worry about taking up space. That’s what comments are for.

The rational bread-earner notwithstanding – I’ve spent 9 years in the “useless” field of liberal arts and humanities. As you know, there are various studies there, right from mythology to theater to history which could be construed as useless from the industry / economy generating point of view, much as they most certainly aren’t. I’m not talking about those. What I’m talking about is generating newer courses with fancy names to attract students and compete with other universities.

Yes, there will be takers, always. You create any BS, there will be at least one sucker taker for it. This is no different from the toy industry coming up with “added features” on Barbie or iPhone one-upping others with features to increase sales. Only, in this case there’s more at stake. It’s the pliable minds of youth at the most impressionable age. And it often ends in them resorting to vague thesis topics only to wriggle out of the pain of research (I say this as someone who has seen it happen, rather than extrapolate out of nowhere).

Education is as much a responsibility, as it is a privilege. If you invest that much time – your own and others’ – learning something, you’re obliged to give something to society in return. Not necessarily to its economy, it could be as entertainment, wisdom, solace, an opinion…anything. Pay it forward in some way.

I could go on. (Look like I already have been). I apologize for taking up your space, but I need to clear the dissing impression that I left – won’t be able live with that :)

-g

This is precisely what encourages Masters and PhD students to get away with some under-researched fluff as dissertation. Infuriates me. Do you know what one of my classmates wrote for a dissertation? And yes *defended* it? “The practicality of sending a message in a bottle”! I kid you not. Yes, if you dig up enough Blackbeards and Black Pearls, there is a lot you can talk about, technically. But basic question – *why*?

-g

Having taken literary theory classes at Georgia State and having discussed everything from oral sex to incest, I can appease these guys by letting them know that instead of titillating the students, these classes break down the sexual act and make it seem downright boring. Besides, what average college student needs a graduate level course to learn this stuff? You can’t learn to swim unless you’re in the pool, if you get my drift.