NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello there. I have a BA in both history and English (composition focus). I had planned to advance to the Master's program for history and go on from there.

But graduate history is completely different from everything before it, from gradeschool to undergraduate. Up until this point I have learned information about history, what all the facts mean, how to consider the thoughts of the times, and perhaps even how to present this information to others in oral and written form.

Graduate history concerns searching through raw letters, archival documents, censuses, and the like to come up with some form of topic that either has not been addressed yet or has been addressed incorrectly, and write one's conclusions down in redundant fashion until the page limit has been reached and the book is publishable.

Similarly, English (literature, specifically) has taught me how to take a piece of writing, break it down, look for symbolism, consider the author's personality and the times, present it in oral and written form, etc. From what I understand, the Graduate version of this borrows more on secondary source opinions (which, to me, seems pointless almost to the level of plagiarism) and also maintains the mandatory paper length.

So I cannot go further in either of these fields, because everything past this point is almost completely different from what I have learned up until now.

With these majors, I am most qualified to teach at a secondary level, but I have developed a hatred and ideological opposition to the teaching and testing of both history and literature as if they were legitimate subjects; this is based off the fact that all such learning has done for me is qualify me to make other children go through the same worthless practice. In fact, it hasn't even quite qualified me for that; I still need education courses and certification.

The belief that liberal arts majors make you more adaptable than other focuses can is a myth: I haven't the foggiest about how anything works for business, law, economics, or anything else practical. Why should I? I've been learning about past events! I can tell you more about politics during the first unification of Germany than I can tell you about current politics or needs in society. The information I have is for hobbies and parlor tricks, not for contributing to society.

So, someone, please convince me otherwise. Tell me that my history and English majors are not completely worthless, that I can actually get some form of employment with them other than a job making other children learn this filth. :(

Author?

Especcially if the book are set in the time around about "the first unification of Germany"?

First: Sorry, but I have to... "Me fail English? That's unpossible!"

Second: Well, you could start research in old books... Not that I know why, but apparently people get payed for/likes to do it.

Really, I never understood what a degree in English ever did for anyone but qualify them to teach other people English. History could possibly useful if you go into archeology or something of that sort.

Quit your whining and carping. Go to grad school and learn how to do the research and writing that is required for the advanced degree. Sheesh..

So, someone, please convince me otherwise. Tell me that my history and English majors are not completely worthless, that I can actually get some form of employment with them other than a job making other children learn this filth. :(

Sorry. There isn't much you can do besides teach and write. (Can you write well? We need more people who can write history both informingly and entertainingly.)

I have a BS in History from the US Naval Academy and my major is almost completely worthless in the job market. Fortunately, I have a few factors of support:
1. A broad core curriculum behind me, heavy in engineering and science (hence, the BS).
2. Automatic job placement after graduation (currently in training as a submarine officer).
and 3. A large network of alumni who look out for each other in the job market (woo, cronyism!).

Having said that, teaching history is actually rather important, for various reasons cliched but true. If you aren't cut out to be a teacher, though, try doing something else in graduate studies. You can change subjects with just a little extra effort (making up missed prerequisites, mostly).

That blows. Unlucky, loser, better luck next reincarnation!

Really, I never understood what a degree in English ever did for anyone but qualify them to teach other people English.

I think that's incorrect.

An English degree can help you write books.

But a Maths degree? Most of the shit I learned when I was 14 is useless, so what the fuck will a maths degree do?

And P.E is even worse!

:headbang:

Quit your whining and carping. Go to grad school and learn how to do the research and writing that is required for the advanced degree. Sheesh..
what he said

If your focus in your English degree really was on composition, then you're qualified for any number of jobs that entail writing as a focus--technical writing, journalism, web content. I would go so far as to argue that as the world becomes more digitized, the ability to write clearly and capably is of greater necessity than it was even ten years ago--we're reading more because we're on the internet more and we're watching television less.

As far as graduate degrees in English are concerned, there are options beyond education. You can focus on creative writing, rhetoric, or composition just to name three. Many people use degrees in English or History to go to law school. You could parlay the English degree into a journalism Masters or an MBA (although you'd have to take some undergrad courses before you actually started on the degree). It really is flexible, because the purpose of the degree is to help you learn how to react to language, since that's the backbone of any society.

I have a BS in History from the US Naval Academy and my major is almost completely worthless in the job market.
Philosophy must be the most useless major. How many companies hires philosophers? There are abolutely no jobs!

And P.E is even worse!,
Seconded. So many times. When would you use that?

'Okay, I'm standing in a large room filled with people. According to what I learned in Gym, I am now supposed to throw a soft ball at a fat guy', or?

Author?

Probably on the side, but that's more of a hobbyish unless you're established or just plain excellent at it.

Quit your whining and carping. Go to grad school and learn how to do the research and writing that is required for the advanced degree. Sheesh..

Why don't you go to graduate school and learn how to do the research and writing?

Because that's not the area you've been taught? That's my point; all training up until this level has focused hardly more than a lick on primary manuscript research and the like.

The fact that I'm carping is a red herring. ;)

If your focus in your English degree really was on composition, then you're qualified for any number of jobs that entail writing as a focus--technical writing, journalism, web content. I would go so far as to argue that as the world becomes more digitized, the ability to write clearly and capably is of greater necessity than it was even ten years ago--we're reading more because we're on the internet more and we're watching television less.

That's one of the things I was told, and it was one of the reasons I kept it up. Technical writing does not work because of the heavy focus on visual presentation, graphics, and knowledge of the specific product or system (which is usually, well, technical). Journalism is a possibility, but I'd be competing against journalism majors while having no experience whatsoever in the field or genre. Web content involves computer knowledge, of which I am nearly equal to my father. :D Going into Law School is possible, but it's also possible and much more adaptable to a pre-law or political science major; the niceties of grammar and structure can be picked up through practice in an real field.

My whining and carping is only partially for my specific situation; it is primarily against the deplorable waste of having these subjects taught as legitimate, marketable skills. For instance:

I have a BS in History from the US Naval Academy and my major is almost completely worthless in the job market. Fortunately, I have a few factors of support:
1. A broad core curriculum behind me, heavy in engineering and science (hence, the BS).
2. Automatic job placement after graduation (currently in training as a submarine officer).
and 3. A large network of alumni who look out for each other in the job market (woo, cronyism!).

Your engineering and science will undoubtedly come in handy. Everything you know about history, though; could you not have learned it just as easily from an encyclopedia article? A book? A History Channel marathon? What makes that professor and his/her tests so enlightening?

There is nothing dishonourable about teaching; sadly there are far too many people teaching others how to learn english and history who, themselves, know little of either topic and couldn't care less what others think. If you can find a school where you could teach what you might want to teach, all the power to you.

Otherwise, take your history degree and try to get into an interdisciplinary graduate program degree that would utilise your strengths and apply them to current problems. Or, change disciplines. Many history majors end up in Political Science, for instance, and political science can lead to many different jobs (I'm biased of course, but it's true).

Or, you can go back and do what, maybe 2 more years and get another degree in a social science, which would expand your marketability. Sociology, Economics, or Political Science all complement history rather nicely.

ah the wonders of uni... merely teaches you how to be an academic, nothing more...

(true for many of the subjects at least - obviously not all, and not all uni's, but true in a large number of cases anyway)

Why don't you go to graduate school and learn how to do the research and writing?

Because that's not the area you've been taught? That's my point; all training up until this level has focused hardly more than a lick on primary manuscript research and the like.

The fact that I'm carping is a red herring. ;)

Look, you have learned all the "facts" about history and literature. You can probably recite dates, events, etc from memory. You can regurgitate what was taught, and that's how teaching takes place in most primary, secondary and post secondary schools through the BS or BA level. I don’t think that is the best way to teach history and literature, but that’s how it’s done. L

In graduate school, you learn how to take those facts, analyze them, and draw conclusions. Once you have done that, you take the information you have and write papers to show others (mostly the prof) how you interpret the information you researched.

Your background has given you the foundation to do the research and writing that is necessary for the graduate degree.

Now, quit your whining and carping and go do what is necessary to get the graduate degree, or go get a job in a fast food joint.

Look, you have learned all the "facts" about history and literature. You can probably recite dates, events, etc from memory. You can regurgitate what was taught, and that's how teaching takes place in most primary, secondary and post secondary schools through the BS or BA level. I don’t think that is the best way to teach history and literature, but that’s how it’s done. L

In graduate school, you learn how to take those facts, analyze them, and draw conclusions. Once you have done that, you take the information you have and write papers to show others (mostly the prof) how you interpret the information you researched.

Ah, but that's not my contention; you can't get very far by regurgitating. I had an excellent high school; I learned there and in college to "take those facts, analyze them, and draw conclusions." I can take this information and write papers (albeit terse, to-the-point ones) that interpret the information. This is storytelling, though, and it is remarkably close to literary analysis.

Graduate studies involve making new facts. Here are some letters, here is a diary, and here are some census records. Read through them and come up with an argument. This is how we know (read as: speculate) that the facts teachers spit at you are accurate.

It's a game like most other things I'm involved in, but I'm just not as good at this game as I am at others. Naturally, my instinct is to question its validity. :D

I'm also questioning how applicable pre-graduate studies history is to post-graduate studies history. Knowing stories may help when you are trying to form facts from pieces of evidence, but wouldn't a number other focuses make one just as qualified for such research? If someone is researching specific documents to discover more about motives in the French Revolution, and that person wants a generic background of the event before researching, then can the person not simply read an encarta.com or wikipedia article to get the current beliefs about that history? Is a full-blown, semester class on it really necessary?

So yeah, I know that whining is not endearing, so I am trying to turn this into a general criticism of the system. I COULD go back and teach; it is my best option as of now. But, if that's all the focus has taught me, wouldn't further contribution to the insanity be senseless?

When you were younger, did you ever wonder if the teachers were just being cruel in their assignments and tests because they all had to go through it and now they want to make others suffer?

An Engeneer asks "How does it work?"
A scientist asks " Why does it work?"
An accountant asks "How much does it cost?"
A liberal arts major asks "Do you want fries with that?"

Graduate studies involve making new facts. Here are some letters, here is a diary, and here are some census records. Read through them and come up with an argument. This is how we know (read as: speculate) that the facts teachers spit at you are accurate.




This shows how little you understand history in general... or maybe just a higher education...

Graduate studies as you call it, does NOT involve making new facts. It means getting off your arse, researching past the obvious, getting some nitty gritty work down and drawing your own conclusions from you own work.

History is not about what happened when.... its about WHY is happened.

Now quit your whining and carping and go do what is necessary to get the graduate degree

ah the wonders of uni... merely teaches you how to be an academic, nothing more...

(true for many of the subjects at least - obviously not all, and not all uni's, but true in a large number of cases anyway)
I just agreed with Pure Metal.
What... the... Fuck?

With these majors, I am most qualified to teach at a secondary level, but I have developed a hatred and ideological opposition to the teaching and testing of both history and literature as if they were legitimate subjects; this is based off the fact that all such learning has done for me is qualify me to make other children go through the same worthless practice. In fact, it hasn't even quite qualified me for that; I still need education courses and certification.

"Those who fail to learn History are Doomed to Repeat it.
Those who fail to learn History Properly are just Doomed."
- Andromeda -

You can become a tutor, helping those who are having trouble with English or History. You can see if you can join up with a Museam or some such, even a Libarary.

you can Teach ESL or go abroad and teach English.

there might be some Historical Societies that might beable to use your skills and talents.

heck if you know any forgein languages, you can translate books and other entertainment media for US Distribution.

if all else fails, you can use this helpful phrase, "Do you want fries with that?";)

I'm reminded of a quote my father once told me. I cant remember who said it but it was "Those who can do nothing teach."

I just agreed with Pure Metal.
What... the... Fuck?
:eek:

*washes mouth out with soap* :D

I'm also questioning how applicable pre-graduate studies history is to post-graduate studies history. Knowing stories may help when you are trying to form facts from pieces of evidence, but wouldn't a number other focuses make one just as qualified for such research? If someone is researching specific documents to discover more about motives in the French Revolution, and that person wants a generic background of the event before researching, then can the person not simply read an encarta.com or wikipedia article to get the current beliefs about that history? Is a full-blown, semester class on it really necessary?
Very applicable. Your BA gave you the base knowledge, your MA gives you the theory, and your PhD allows you to create the damn theory in the first place. It all builds on each other. I referenced many of my undergrad classes and used knowledge I gained in my undergrad years when working through the theories classes in grad school.

Also in grad school you learn why encarta or wikipedia are not good sources for reseach.

When you were younger, did you ever wonder if the teachers were just being cruel in their assignments and tests because they all had to go through it and now they want to make others suffer?
Sometimes, then I became a teacher and found out that no, we're (usually) not doing it for that reason. Usually it's because the assignments work.

Graduate school is not just another semester you know, that's why there are very few grad students and even fewer graduated grad students. ;)

This shows how little you understand history in general... or maybe just a higher education...

Graduate studies as you call it, does NOT involve making new facts. It means getting off your arse, researching past the obvious, getting some nitty gritty work down and drawing your own conclusions from you own work.

Why such hostility? Your paragraph about what graduate studies entail describes how a person studies why we believe what we regard to be facts, in most cases trying to overturn these ideas that were once believed to be facts. So, no, one does not *literally* make new facts, but one works to disprove old facts in favor of new ones. Hence my hyperbole of "making" new facts.

History is not about what happened when.... its about WHY is happened.

A lot more of undergraduate history was speculating on why it happened. In graduate programs, the increased research of raw materials significantly shifts the emphasis on *what* happened, in the sense that perhaps people who guessed what happened before might have gotten it wrong. There is certainly graduate speculation on *why* things happened, but this is irretrievably connected with the newfound *what*.

Hey, I'm not over here crying and pouting. I'm just trying to figure this out; there is no need to infer a lack of industriousness or any such on my part. I don't call a guy lazy for refusing to clump mud together all day.

"Those who fail to learn History are Doomed to Repeat it.

And those who look to history are doomed to miss the present. Did inter-war appeasement policians fail to learn from World War I belligerance? Did Vietnam interventionists fail to learn from failed American isolationism? We can look at the past and piece together the paths events took, but these are not the same paths we face today.

When you were younger, did you ever wonder if the teachers were just being cruel in their assignments and tests because they all had to go through it and now they want to make others suffer?

Yes, to a degree and that is why when I became a teacher I did not teach the way they did. Moreover, when I return to teaching part time in a few years, that is exactly why I won't teach that way.

Make the subject relevant, make it alive but most of all make the students think and not just regurgitate what you have taught them. Challenge them.

Companies won't hire you for your ability to recite the emperors of Bavaria or wherever, but if you can take a question, dive into a mountain of documents, records, etc. and come out with an intelligible answer, that's worth gold right now.

Why such hostility? Your paragraph about what graduate studies entail describes how a person studies why we believe what we regard to be facts, in most cases trying to overturn these ideas that were once believed to be facts. So, no, one does not *literally* make new facts, but one works to disprove old facts in favor of new ones. Hence my hyperbole of "making" new facts.

Facts do not change, people’s interpretation of the facts may be different or discovery of new related facts may change the interpretation. Fact; Japan attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. That cannot change. Why they attacked Pearl Harbor may be interpreted differently by historians.

As Dr. Bates, University of Illinois said many years ago, "History is a personal interpretation of the facts." He also warned us we needed to have the facts to back up our interpretation.

I'm reminded of a quote my father once told me. I cant remember who said it but it was "Those who can do nothing teach."I believe the quote is "Those who can, Do. Those who can't, Teach."

Very applicable. Your BA gave you the base knowledge, your MA gives you the theory, and your PhD allows you to create the damn theory in the first place. It all builds on each other. I referenced many of my undergrad classes and used knowledge I gained in my undergrad years when working through the theories classes in grad school.

What if you had read on these subjects instead of taking semester or year-long classes and testing on them?

Also in grad school you learn why encarta or wikipedia are not good sources for reseach.

But these are for the same reasons why most secondary sources are not good for research, right? I mean, wikipedia can be added on to by anyone, I grant that, but encarta is an article like any article, textbook, or whatever that's not primary.

Sometimes, then I became a teacher and found out that no, we're (usually) not doing it for that reason. Usually it's because the assignments work.

Yeah. But if I don't agree that the assignments have any value, even if they do work, then it feels strikingly similar to spite or convenience.

Graduate school is not just another semester you know, that's why there are very few grad students and even fewer graduated grad students. ;)

Agreed. It's its own field, for its own set of people. It's just unfortunate that the steps up to it have little value on their own, and I doubt they are the best foundation for what is to come.

Yes, to a degree and that is why when I became a teacher I did not teach the way they did. Moreover, when I return to teaching part time in a few years, that is exactly why I won't teach that way.

Make the subject relevant, make it alive but most of all make the students think and not just regurgitate what you have taught them. Challenge them.

I have utmost respect for teachers such as yourself; I just feel the entire system is misguided. My teachers *did* make the subject relevant, they *did* try their utmost to make it apply to real life, but it just doesn't fit. The subject doesn't become relevant; it simply becomes more interesting. You can compare aspects of the American Revolution to modern day freedom fights all you want, but the situation is rarely if ever the same. It's a false familiarity, like with World War II video games. Entertainment.

Companies won't hire you for your ability to recite the emperors of Bavaria or wherever, but if you can take a question, dive into a mountain of documents, records, etc. and come out with an intelligible answer, that's worth gold right now.

Yeah, so I've yielded that graduate history may have value. But you don't learn how to dive into a mountain of documents and records in secondary school; no one is arguing that you should learn that. Sometimes you are given several documents to study, usually as compiled into a secondary source, but these are still more already-established facts to study. You have to come up with an intelligible answer, sure, but that's a conclusion reached with what you are given, and it is usually a pre-determined conclusion.

And those who look to history are doomed to miss the present. Did inter-war appeasement policians fail to learn from World War I belligerance? Did Vietnam interventionists fail to learn from failed American isolationism? We can look at the past and piece together the paths events took, but these are not the same paths we face today.they don't miss the present, they're just late getting to it. :p

and it's not my quote, I just posted that in response to his comment about history not being a viable course. Since Palentology, Archeology and several other courses delve into history, it is a viable course study.

and anyone stupid to be stuck in the past hasn't learned it properly.

I believe the quote is "Those who can, Do. Those who can't, Teach."
I've always hated that quote, especially looking at all that I had to learn in order to teach. I can Do, I just find it MUCH more satisfying to Teach, usually.

What if you had read on these subjects instead of taking semester or year-long classes and testing on them?
For undergrad or graduate? Either way I would be in sorry shape as I could read all I wanted to on Piaget but not understand the application to education as a field without my professor hitting me over the head with another book that took Piaget's work and applied it to education.

That's what unergrad IS, the professor guides you along to help you see the connections, in grad school you start learning how to make them yourself. But unless you're the most brilliant man on the planet, you need guidance at first.

But these are for the same reasons why most secondary sources are not good for research, right? I mean, wikipedia can be added on to by anyone, I grant that, but encarta is an article like any article, textbook, or whatever that's not primary.
But there is a hiarchy of rankings of sources, and learning how to evaluate a source and judge how authentic and its worth is a major part of doing research.

And the reason why grad students cannot write a grocery list without it being 10 pages long, single spaced, and includes a 3 page bib. :D

Yeah. But if I don't agree that the assignments have any value, even if they do work, then it feels strikingly similar to spite or convenience.
Without knowing what your assignments are/were I can't tell you for sure. But I can tell you of my own experiance in that when I was a student, I hated group work. I hated it with a passion that was unholy and decided that I would NEVER make my student do group work... Until I got to college and found out that group work works well, and then graduate school told me the theory behind group work, and why it just isn't group work, but a host of secondary goals that are extreamly important to education and the student.

Oh, damn, I'll do group work then.

Or drill and kill. I hate that even more than group work. I would never make my students do drill and kill. There are better ways, more interesting ways than doing drill and kill. But then I got shoved into a class of 38 hyperactive junior high school kids and told to teach them English (which they don't want to learn). I have 3 50 minute periods a week, if I'm lucky, with the class and I have 500 kids in my school to teach. And since they take, on average, a minute and a half to answer a question, I can't get to them all like I want to. Well, for things like vocab, drill and kill works and leaves me with time to engage them in conversation.

Not out of spite or no value, because the damn things work in going for the goal.

Agreed. It's its own field, for its own set of people. It's just unfortunate that the steps up to it have little value on their own, and I doubt they are the best foundation for what is to come.
Go through it and say that. I thought the same till I started actually teaching and found out that all those stupid classes were lifesavers when confronted by what my kids pull everyday.

massive snip

What I here you saying throughout this thread is: "I don't want to do the research necessary to get a graduate degree" and "I don't want to teach." I also hear "I was screwed because I was told I could get a job if I got a BA in History and English, but I didn't research that so it is all the schools fault." Now, I could be wrong, but that is what I'm hearing.

So you want to know what other employment options are open to you at this time.

First of all, there is the military. You have an undergraduate degree so you could become an officer. Pay is OK, benefits are excellent; 30 days a year vacation, free medical care, and 20 year retirement.

If that isn't to your liking, you can check out civil service. I'm sure they have an opening for someone with your education somewhere.

If you are still undecided about your future, the Peace Corps could probably use you and it would give you some time to decide what you want to do with your life.

If government service is not to your liking, I know both fast food and convenience stores have openings for assistant managers and you don't even need a college degree.

What I here you saying throughout this thread is: "I don't want to do the research necessary to get a graduate degree" and "I don't want to teach." I also hear "I was screwed because I was told I could get a job if I got a BA in History and English, but I didn't research that so it is all the schools fault." Now, I could be wrong, but that is what I'm hearing.


Thank you. That is exactly what i was getting from Passivocalia also.

Why such hostility? Your paragraph about what graduate studies entail describes how a person studies why we believe what we regard to be facts, in most cases trying to overturn these ideas that were once believed to be facts. So, no, one does not *literally* make new facts, but one works to disprove old facts in favor of new ones. Hence my hyperbole of "making" new facts.

I'm not being hostile- i'm being honest. It appears to me that you have a distinct lack of understanding about what history is about (at any level), how it is studied, and how it should be studied.

Use wiki or encarta for all anyone cares- a 13yr old can too. It shows no depth, no interest, general lazyness and a certain disrespect for the profession on general by not drawing your own conclusions from historical facts, and constantly relying on others to do the work for you.

Regurgitate facts- it'll get you to a certain level. But a chimp can be taught the same- try and use that thing in your noggin ;) Come up with something new! :)

I've always hated that quote, especially looking at all that I had to learn in order to teach. I can Do, I just find it MUCH more satisfying to Teach, usually.

My mother was a teacher so yea, that's not one of my fav quotes either.

It does appear that you have not entirely arranged your options to your advantage. I'm kind of wondering what you believed the next level would be, and if you believed it would be much like your previous studies quite where you imagined the material you study comes from?

You could always look at teaching...

I know it might sound defeatest, but depending on your position it might be a good move to take the necessary courses (depending on the time and cost). Alternatively if you are good at 'self-starting' you could look at working as a private tutor (for high-school kids) or offering your services (editing/reference checking etc) to pre-grads in the same areas you have completed studies in. Basically something to earn you some money while you re-evaluate what you can do with your studies.

You really need to figure out what you might want to do and augment what you've got to meet the criteria. For instance some statistics papers and some sociology papers and you might be able to work in social research or market research, some marketing papers and some public relations and you could look at advertising, some journalism papers and some contemporary politics or economics, or some such and you could look at journalism.

You quite possibly have backed yourself into a corner if you are determined to not carry forward your degrees to the next level and yet you have not attained degrees that will lend themselves easily to the employement market. I dont know how hard it is to take up Masters in unrelated fields in particular education systems, it's possible some educational institution might allow you to pick up a post grad degree in something other than history or English, either based on your current achievements or contingent on your completing particular papers within (but not the whole) the undergraduate degree.

Have you looked into options such as supplimentary papers or post grad degrees that allow grads from other degrees to pick up the degree at post grad level either without prior study in the field or having completed only a few core papers from the under graduate degree?

Hello there. I have a BA in both history and English (composition focus). I had planned to advance to the Master's program for history and go on from there.

But graduate history is completely different from everything before it, from gradeschool to undergraduate. Up until this point I have learned information about history, what all the facts mean, how to consider the thoughts of the times, and perhaps even how to present this information to others in oral and written form.

Graduate history concerns searching through raw letters, archival documents, censuses, and the like to come up with some form of topic that either has not been addressed yet or has been addressed incorrectly, and write one's conclusions down in redundant fashion until the page limit has been reached and the book is publishable.

Similarly, English (literature, specifically) has taught me how to take a piece of writing, break it down, look for symbolism, consider the author's personality and the times, present it in oral and written form, etc. From what I understand, the Graduate version of this borrows more on secondary source opinions (which, to me, seems pointless almost to the level of plagiarism) and also maintains the mandatory paper length.

So I cannot go further in either of these fields, because everything past this point is almost completely different from what I have learned up until now.

With these majors, I am most qualified to teach at a secondary level, but I have developed a hatred and ideological opposition to the teaching and testing of both history and literature as if they were legitimate subjects; this is based off the fact that all such learning has done for me is qualify me to make other children go through the same worthless practice. In fact, it hasn't even quite qualified me for that; I still need education courses and certification.

The belief that liberal arts majors make you more adaptable than other focuses can is a myth: I haven't the foggiest about how anything works for business, law, economics, or anything else practical. Why should I? I've been learning about past events! I can tell you more about politics during the first unification of Germany than I can tell you about current politics or needs in society. The information I have is for hobbies and parlor tricks, not for contributing to society.

So, someone, please convince me otherwise. Tell me that my history and English majors are not completely worthless, that I can actually get some form of employment with them other than a job making other children learn this filth. :(



what did you expect your degree would do? allow you to time travel and save Lincoln from Booth??? What youve been pursuing all this time is the tools and abilities necessary to equip the next generation with a working knowledge of rhetoric and their past, to appreciate them and learn from them, and progress. To call your degrees useless is insane! its that attitude toward the humanities that started to dark ages, "he who does not learn from his past is doomed to repeat it". Furthermore, what youre suggesting isnt nearly far enough, not only is history and english useless, but lets all go back to hunter gathering and staring at the stars until we pass out from exhaustion. Man you just dont get it, you just dont, and this is coming from a colllege freshman planning to major in history and teach it someday...then again maybe im just not nearly as burned out as you.

School has failed me!
Its never your fault, is it?

i'm getting a BA in history so i can become a pilot...don't know if you're interested in service, though.

Meh, you picked the degrees and they were not degrees in fields that were incredibly employable anyway. Hopefully you can overcome your problems in some way even if it does take an unfavorable compromise.

But graduate history is completely different from everything before it, from gradeschool to undergraduate.
Is that really so surprising? Graduate school, in addition to increasing your knowledge of your field and allowing you to specialize in particular areas, is also job training. Graduate school prepares you to become a producer, not just a consumer, of knowledge.

Up until this point I have learned information about history, what all the facts mean, how to consider the thoughts of the times, and perhaps even how to present this information to others in oral and written form.
All knowledge and skills useful to have before entering graduate school.

Graduate history concerns searching through raw letters, archival documents, censuses, and the like to come up with some form of topic that either has not been addressed yet or has been addressed incorrectly,
Right. Like I said, you have to produce knowledge.
and write one's conclusions down in redundant fashion until the page limit has been reached and the book is publishable.
That's not fair. Good luck getting any significant degree of redundancy past your committee... and there iis no "page limit." Some books are very short and pithy; others are extraordinarily long. The best ones are simply those that give their subject as much attention as it merits, and no more.

Similarly, English (literature, specifically) has taught me how to take a piece of writing, break it down, look for symbolism, consider the author's personality and the times, present it in oral and written form, etc. From what I understand, the Graduate version of this borrows more on secondary source opinions (which, to me, seems pointless almost to the level of plagiarism) and also maintains the mandatory paper length.
Again: no mandatory paper length. I wonder where you're getting that.

Also, you have a very narrow view of graduate programs in literature: they vary widely. Some require great attention to secondary sources and/or theoretical perspectives, others much less -- sometimes even to the point of open hostility to such approaches. You need to shop around for a graduate department that suits your needs.

Nevertheless, the emphasis remains on learning to produce knowledge, learning how to say something interesting about your material.

So I cannot go further in either of these fields, because everything past this point is almost completely different from what I have learned up until now.
"Cannot"? What is this "cannot"? Your position is no different than any other student going to graduate school. The general knowledge and basic analytical skills that you learn as an undergrad are the prerequisite to graduate education. If graduate school did nothing more than extend undergraduate education, it would be failing its purpose. Likewise, if undergraduate education tried to teach you graduate-level skills, it would almost certainly be at the cost of failing you in the fundamentals.

Stop whining. Go to graduate school.

Graduate studies involve making new facts. Here are some letters, here is a diary, and here are some census records. Read through them and come up with an argument. This is how we know (read as: speculate) that the facts teachers spit at you are accurate.

It's a game like most other things I'm involved in, but I'm just not as good at this game as I am at others. Naturally, my instinct is to question its validity.

If you study history at the graduate level, you will have to do some archival research... true.

However, historians also do other things, including the analysis of data already produced by other historians, and also including interpretive endeavors incorporating elements of literary criticism and political theory. I very successfully completed a graduate history course in which my final paper suggested a relationship between the French literature of the early nineteenth century and their collective experience of the Haitian revolution.

Also, no one is as good at archival research as they are at other forms of analysis... at least at first. There is a steep learning curve when it comes to doing good archival work. Ultimately, you may find that you have a talent for it... and perhaps even enjoy it.

I'm also questioning how applicable pre-graduate studies history is to post-graduate studies history. Knowing stories may help when you are trying to form facts from pieces of evidence, but wouldn't a number other focuses make one just as qualified for such research?
Certainly. If/when you arrive in graduate school, you will find that many of your peers enter the program from other undergraduate backgrounds. I am getting a Ph.D. in political science... yet my undergraduate education was in philosophy and mathematics. Indeed, in some ways I am better prepared for the work of the political scientist.

If someone is researching specific documents to discover more about motives in the French Revolution, and that person wants a generic background of the event before researching, then can the person not simply read an encarta.com or wikipedia article to get the current beliefs about that history?

A "generic background" simply does not qualify one to do serious research on anything.

Is a full-blown, semester class on it really necessary?

For a serious researcher? Probably several of them, plus an intensive review of the existing literature.

I'm reminded of a quote my father once told me. I cant remember who said it but it was "Those who can do nothing teach."

Ah yes, usually stated something like this:

"Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."


Of course, I prefer to say, "Those who can, do. Those who believe others can also, teach."

What if you had read on these subjects instead of taking semester or year-long classes and testing on them?

1. Reading history, or doing what literature scholars call a "close reading" of literature, is a skill. Going to classes, in which you read difficult texts and discuss them with others -- among them someone who has experience with such reading -- teaches you how to do it.

If you wind up in a Ph.D. program, you will find that the first two years or so are taken up by course-work, after which you are expected to do some intensive reading of the existing literature on your own... People who have gone through this will attest to the fact that the course-work prepares you for the independent reading (after which you will face a series of examinations to establish the fact that you have mastered the field).

2. Learning history and literature, as with most other liberal fields, involves learning how to talk about them with others, how to defend your opinions and how to evaluate the opinions of others. Participation in course-work is immensely helpful in developing these skills.

Agreed. It's its own field, for its own set of people. It's just unfortunate that the steps up to it have little value on their own, and I doubt they are the best foundation for what is to come.

To be honest, you're not in much of a position to judge. Only after going to graduate school would you be in the position to evaluate whether your undergraduate education was helpful or not... and I think you will find that most graduate students tell you that theirs was--or if not, then the problem was particular to their program(s), rather than the character of undergraduate education in general.

For undergrad or graduate? Either way I would be in sorry shape as I could read all I wanted to on Piaget but not understand the application to education as a field without my professor hitting me over the head with another book that took Piaget's work and applied it to education.

That's what unergrad IS, the professor guides you along to help you see the connections, in grad school you start learning how to make them yourself. But unless you're the most brilliant man on the planet, you need guidance at first.

That may work for Piaget and education applications. However, if you take a course of Colonial America, or World War II, or Modern China, or any other such topic that you encounter in undergraduate land, then you could learn just as much from different, more efficient source.

What I here you saying throughout this thread is: "I don't want to do the research necessary to get a graduate degree" and "I don't want to teach." I also hear "I was screwed because I was told I could get a job if I got a BA in History and English, but I didn't research that so it is all the schools fault." Now, I could be wrong, but that is what I'm hearing.

Then I am being only partially clear.
1) Having discerned that my skills have directed me more toward instruction than research, I have abandoned the research path.
2) With this in mind, it is disturbing to me that I have done so well up until this point. But it is obvious; everything until this point has been testing over comprehension of stories. Nonfiction stories, perhaps. Intensive comprehension, perhaps. But still, it has only nominal connection with the discovery of newfound facts because such comprehension works from an already-determined premise.
The "I was screwed" is only a sublet of "something is screwy awound here". ;)

I'm not being hostile- i'm being honest. It appears to me that you have a distinct lack of understanding about what history is about (at any level), how it is studied, and how it should be studied.

It appears to me that you are simply accusing me of a distinct lack of understanding without any basis behind said accusation. Regardless, even if I *were* to have a distinct lack of understanding of history, then that would put the schooling system that I have exelled in at even more fault than I have given it. Which, in turn, would mean I had understanding after all. Ah, paradox.

Use wiki or encarta for all anyone cares- a 13yr old can too. It shows no depth, no interest, general lazyness and a certain disrespect for the profession on general by not drawing your own conclusions from historical facts, and constantly relying on others to do the work for you.

Well, maybe I've found out that I do have a certain disrespect for the profession in general. I enjoy video games, I enjoy sleeping, I enjoy reading a good book or writing a poem, but I certainly don't respect those activities. And, yeah, a thirteen-year-old can use an encyclopedia, but he/she can just as easily sit on his/her arse and listen to a professor explain intricacies.

And, I will tell you once more, if history is merely "drawing your own conclusions", then revisionism is completely worthless except as an indication of how we interpret things in each time period. That same thirteen-year-old you spoke of can draw conclusions from historical facts. For revisionism or research to mean anything, new facts must be found and old myths debunked. So please stop hitting on the "regurgitation" issue; it seriously makes me think that you haven't read a word I've typed.

It does appear that you have not entirely arranged your options to your advantage. I'm kind of wondering what you believed the next level would be, and if you believed it would be much like your previous studies quite where you imagined the material you study comes from?

Well, it's my own fault, and I can deal with it. I just shouldn't have aimed for hobbies.

The thing that bothers me is this is not the next level; it is a different plane. Someone taught to study law records for court precedence would naturally slide into this slot. Perhaps detective work, piecing together of clues, would have prepared someone favorably. But story comprehension? Story comprehension transforming into document-hunting? This is not the next step; it has just been set up that way.

Man you just dont get it, you just dont, and this is coming from a colllege freshman planning to major in history and teach it someday...then again maybe im just not nearly as burned out as you.

Major in history to teach history to those who major in history to teach history to those who major in history to cure cancer for.... oh, wait. That's not right.

Yeah. I think I do get it.

"Cannot"? What is this "cannot"? Your position is no different than any other student going to graduate school.

::sigh:: Perhaps if I had made my topic in third person instead of first person, so many would not dismiss it as "whining".

The general knowledge and basic analytical skills that you learn as an undergrad are the prerequisite to graduate education. If graduate school did nothing more than extend undergraduate education, it would be failing its purpose. Likewise, if undergraduate education tried to teach you graduate-level skills, it would almost certainly be at the cost of failing you in the fundamentals.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and this is what infuriates me! I could make more literary references before I graduated high school than I could in college. In college, I may have learned more specific events from taking focused courses, but I lost a good measure of understanding for more well-known events that I had gained in high school. I learned basic analytical skills in high school.

You say that graduate school would fail if it did nothing more than extend undergraduate education. I agree, and this is why I believe undergraduate education fails.

...I *did* foresee a changing of levels for undergraduate college, but I was mistaken. Same type of learning; different subjects of history. Maybe that's what I'm getting at... yes, it is. ::lightbulb:: I feel that undergraduate history and English have wasted the years and dollars I spent taking them because they did not teach me anything I had not already learned in high school.

That's it! Whew, what a breakthrough. I even feel more forgiving of the history and English subjects in general. Perhaps I just had an excellent high school and a mediocre college.

I still have no respect for history, just as I don't for any leisurely activity. However, I do still enjoy it! :D

That may work for Piaget and education applications. However, if you take a course of Colonial America, or World War II, or Modern China, or any other such topic that you encounter in undergraduate land, then you could learn just as much from different, more efficient source.
Considering that I DID take a number of history courses for a minor in Japanese Studies (since I felt, heading to Japan, it's be a good idea), I found that my professor guided me far better than I could have. If nothing else, due to not being able to read Japanese (or Chinese, you need both) to be able to understand said orginal sources.

BTW, my training was as an English teacher, so I probably have the same range of classes (if not quite as many credits) in the English department as you do. I never had a class that I could fully state that I learned nothing from my professor that I didn't already know or could have learned better on my own (well, there was two, but one was English 101 and the other was being taught by someone who felt she should have been performing Shakespeare, not teaching him).

I also felt that the topics were covered in far greater detail than they ever were in high school. Which makes sence, because a high school education in a general education, meant to give you a bit of everything, university is supposed to give you a well rounded education, yes, but focused more on your chosen field. Grad school gets more and more focused.

Philosophy must be the most useless major. How many companies hires philosophers? There are abolutely no jobs!

Unless of course you specialize in ethics, the study of which is generally a part of a Philosophy degree. Business ethics in particular is quite a handy thing to know about.

I feel that undergraduate history and English have wasted the years and dollars I spent taking them because they did not teach me anything I had not already learned in high school.

That's it! Whew, what a breakthrough. I even feel more forgiving of the history and English subjects in general. Perhaps I just had an excellent high school and a mediocre college.

That may be. Unfortunately, we may never know...

We might test, however, the more general hypothesis, viz. that an undergraduate education in liberal arts (particularly English and history) is wasteful because it does not teach anything not already taught in high school.

Perhaps we should test it by seeing how high school graduates (with no college education) would fair in graduate school?

You should also consider the possibility that you have learned quite a bit of value from your education in history and English, but that you need some time and distance to see it in perspective.

Right now you are thinking, "I thought this piece of paper would get me a job!" Unfortunately, hardly any college degree does that... and virtually no one (including those hard science types we all secretly envy) winds up working "in their field" with an undergraduate degree.

My undergraduate degree was in philosophy and mathematics. Before eventually winding up in graduate school (for political science), I was all over the job market. After trying in vain to find something even remotely related to philosophy or mathematics, I found myself in customer service for a mobile phone company.

To my surprise, I really stood out as an exemplary representative... I was really good at my job, and the bonuses and promotions quickly rolled in.

What really surprised me is that I could relate much of my advantage to my college majors. The math major provided obvious advantages when it came to working with bills, and even with certain aspects of technical troubleshooting.

But that was minor compared to what the philosophy degree did for me. You see, in customer service you deal with a lot of angry and/or frustrated people, most of whom are convinced beyond any shadow of a doubt that they have suffered some grave injustice.

Most of them, as it turns out, are dead wrong. They just don't know how to read a bill, or they were confused about their contract, and so on. Thus, a large portion of my time was spent trying to convince people that they were wrong.

You can see how philosophy was helpful, right?

When other reps couldn't talk someone down, they wound up making adjustments to bills to placate the customer... who would just wind up calling back next month, still confused and demanding more money. I, on the other hand, helped them to understand the situation and to see their error, so that they would not have to call every month... I saved the company money, I saved the customers aggravation, and best of all I could do it in record time. I actually won awards for my fast call-times.

The point being, without the skills I learned as a philosopher, I would not have been able to make those arguments as clearly and concisely as I did. I would not have been able to see things from my "opponent's" -- the customer's -- perspective, in order to say things that would relieve her/his aggression, de-escalate the situation, and find a mutually beneficial solution.


Now, I don't know what skills you will discover that relate to your history and English degrees. It is possible you won't find any. But I do know that you may be rushing to judgment too quickly.

College degrees rarely "get" you a job. But once you're "in," they tend to advance promotion in surprising ways.

Graduate history concerns searching through raw letters, archival documents, censuses, and the like to come up with some form of topic that either has not been addressed yet or has been addressed incorrectly, and write one's conclusions down in redundant fashion until the page limit has been reached and the book is publishable.

Similarly, English (literature, specifically) has taught me how to take a piece of writing, break it down, look for symbolism, consider the author's personality and the times, present it in oral and written form, etc. From what I understand, the Graduate version of this borrows more on secondary source opinions (which, to me, seems pointless almost to the level of plagiarism) and also maintains the mandatory paper length.

This is what you need to do to get a doctorate in any field: to publish a completely original viewpoint using the materials that are available.

If you don't want to do that, don't pursue a doctoral degree.

Really, I never understood what a degree in English ever did for anyone but qualify them to teach other people English. History could possibly useful if you go into archeology or something of that sort.

Actually, if you would like to have a job in public relations/advertising, a degree in English is also very useful.

I'm reminded of a quote my father once told me. I cant remember who said it but it was "Those who can do nothing teach."

I suppose that's why I left a job in media/advertising. :-p

How about, "Those who know nothing insult teachers?"

Then I am being only partially clear.
1) Having discerned that my skills have directed me more toward instruction than research, I have abandoned the research path.
2) With this in mind, it is disturbing to me that I have done so well up until this point. But it is obvious; everything until this point has been testing over comprehension of stories. Nonfiction stories, perhaps. Intensive comprehension, perhaps. But still, it has only nominal connection with the discovery of newfound facts because such comprehension works from an already-determined premise.
The "I was screwed" is only a sublet of "something is screwy awound here". ;)


Well, after following this thread to this point I shall conclude:

First, you are a quitter, whiner, and crybaby to say nothing of being lazy because you refuse to do the work necessary to improve your station in life.

Secondly, I would not want you teaching my grandchildren because you have a defeatist attitude and would convey that attitude to anyone you attempted to teach.

Third, please don't ask me if I want that with fries when I run into you at the fast food restaurant. I don't do fries.

Fourth, thank you for an interesting thread, frustrating but interesting.

Fifth, good day and good luck. Remember you can always join the military; it has decent pay and excellent benefits. However, if you decide to do that please enlist as the military already has enough qualified candidates to become officers and with your attitude you are not one of them. The military does not need a defeatist attitude in the officer corps.

TPerhaps we should test it by seeing how high school graduates (with no college education) would fair in graduate school?

:D

Thanks to everyone for the interesting discussion. I think it is the undergraduate time that is bothering me the most; I believe I would be in just as good a position as I am now had I simply come straight from high school.

Perhaps if the research level had started then, instead of more comprehension. Maybe other colleges do start heavy primary research at that level, and mine was just slacking (it wasn't a community college, but it still wasn't that particularly prominent).

::sigh:: And it always has to come to personal attacks, doesn't it?

Well, after following this thread to this point I shall conclude:

First, you are a quitter, whiner, and crybaby to say nothing of being lazy because you refuse to do the work necessary to improve your station in life.

In response to quitter: Yes. But why continue what one is not meant to do? I'm behind on projects now not because I've been lazy but because I have been unable to piece together these abstract bits of research. It is not my skill; my skills lie elsewhere. Therefore, to continue would be inefficient and foolish, as others here have suggested. As you yourself have suggested.

In response to whiner: Come on. All complaints can be defined as "whining". Without whining, we just accept society for what it is and presume nothing needs changing.

In response to crybaby: Oh, don't give me that. What are you trying to defend? Just because I hold other parties responsible as well, you presume that I accept no responsibility myself?

In response to lazy (though you claim to say nothing of it :) ): I scored all A's in high school, with the exception of some upper-level math courses. I did about as well through undergraduate college; this time the exceptions were with some science courses. I did not breeze through these; I worked, just as I am doing now. So step from behind the strawman.

Or perhaps, as a teacher, you just don't want to be told that you're not improving every life that walks through your sacred hallways.

Secondly, I would not want you teaching my grandchildren because you have a defeatist attitude and would convey that attitude to anyone you attempted to teach.

Part of the reason I made this thread was to hopefully be led out of the defeatist attitude. What would be so terrible about teaching history as worth little more than entertaining stories? In my opinion, it would be truthful. Intelligent Design has no place in the classrooms; perhaps Practical History falls into the same category of myths.

Application is not the be-all-end-all, however. Entertainment is a need in society, so there is a place for it. We don't do away with art, and we don't do away with theatre, and we don't do away with band, so there is no reason to do away with history.

And, if I happen to become a teacher despite your belief that I am completely incapatible with the position, then it is even more evidence for you that the system is flawed.

Third, please don't ask me if I want that with fries when I run into you at the fast food restaurant. I don't do fries.

No, I don't cook well. My father has suggested starting in Wal-mart and working up to manager; he says they get paid more than teachers anyway. But I'm not leaning in that direction.

I also find it interesting that you are insulting me by saying my future is in McDonalds. I remind you that I worked hard, and I scored well up until this point. If you're saying mockingly that my best option is this fast-food tier, then you are criticizing the precious system much more than I am.

Fourth, thank you for an interesting thread, frustrating but interesting.

Y'welcome. ;)

Fifth, good day and good luck. Remember you can always join the military; it has decent pay and excellent benefits. However, if you decide to do that please enlist as the military already has enough qualified candidates to become officers and with your attitude you are not one of them. The military does not need a defeatist attitude in the officer corps.

Eh, unlikely. You see, with my "defeatist attitude", I don't believe the war in Iraq should have ever been fought.

So, yeah, don't give me your talk about "whining" and "crybaby", just because you don't agree. And if you don't want to see people like me in the classrooms, perhaps you should think about changing things yourself instead of carping on my attitude.

Thanks to everyone for the interesting discussion. I think it is the undergraduate time that is bothering me the most; I believe I would be in just as good a position as I am now had I simply come straight from high school.
What about my plan to test your hypothesis? Think we can pay a few recent high school grads to try some graduate-level courses? See how they fair?
Perhaps if the research level had started then, instead of more comprehension.
Yeah, and maybe we should skip all those years of teaching physics, and just have our students jump into the particle accelerators.

Oh, wait... because they wouldn't know what the hell to look for.

People still seem to operate under the myth that research in the liberal arts and social sciences is somehow "easy", such that any idiot with a newspaper subscription and an internet connection can do it. The fact of the matter, of course, is that in many ways our work is harder to grasp... Take my work in social science. Our variables are difficult, sometimes impossible to properly operationalize; they exist in complex relationships, making causal chains a murky matter indeed; and they are frequently impossible to simulate experimentally.

How does one learn to create research -- to do science -- with that mess? Well, that is what we learn in graduate school... but we would be pretty much lost without those undergraduate years of dissecting what people "already know" about society (or at least comparing existing theories).

It would have been next to impossible to leap from high school to graduate school. And including an education in this level of research at the undergraduate level would have been, in effect, to leap from high school into graduate school.

I really don't see what is so hard to understand about that.

In response to quitter: Yes. But why continue what one is not meant to do?
This attitude is what makes you a "baby." No one was "meant" to do anything, and the precise skills one employs in school are rarely, if ever, the skills that one uses in gainful employment. The rest of the world is mature enough to understand that getting ahead means taking on new challenges and learning to deal with them. So... DEAL WITH IT.

If you began any undergraduate degree with the notion that it would prepare you, in any exact way, for employment after college (or for graduate school), then you were severely deluded from the beginning. College is, and always has been, a base on which to build.

I'm behind on projects now not because I've been lazy but because I have been unable to piece together these abstract bits of research. It is not my skill; my skills lie elsewhere.

So you're complaining because the new challenge is not easy for you? That is what makes you come across as a whining baby. Those of us who have been through this -- learning to piece together abstract bits of research -- can tell you that no one has a "talent" for it. It is simply too far removed from what anyone is accustomed to doing for it to be "easy." But it's something you learn. Of course, you have to be willing to learn, and it sounds like you are not.

Therefore, to continue would be inefficient and foolish, as others here have suggested.

If anyone has suggested that, he/she is a jerk.

Look, what you need to focus on are goals. What do you want to do with your life? Only once you decide where you want to go can you decide what is "efficient" to attaining that goal.

You should look back at graduate school again. So you don't want to spend your life doing research. Fine. Make it through grad school -- which will, yes, require you to do some research -- and you can go teach at a small liberal arts college (probably very similar to the one you attended) where your primary responsibility will be teaching, not publishing.

Personally, I like writing and publishing about philosophy, film, literature, and whatever else I can get my hands on. So I'm shooting for more of a research institution (although I also love to teach, so my students need not fear that I will neglect them). But my girlfriend is getting her Ph.D. in English, and she really doesn't like writing. So, she's aiming for a school that focuses on teaching, where she may have to attend a few conferences a year, but there will be little pressure to publish.

Graduate school is like a hurdle. It's not easy for anyone, but you get through it so you can do what you want.

You just want the world handed to you, though.

In response to whiner: Come on. All complaints can be defined as "whining". Without whining, we just accept society for what it is and presume nothing needs changing.

That's not true. The difference between whining and other varieties of complaint is that whining takes the form, "Poor me, I thought things would be easier than this." You're not alone, of course. Many recent college graduates still subscribe to the myth that college is some sort of job-training program, and that with a college degree employers will be breaking down your door to get at you.

Sorry, that's not how it works. It hasn't worked like that for thirty years, and it's not about to start anytime soon.

You also subscribe to the myth that people actually get jobs "in their field." Sorry, it doesn't happen. Physics majors go on to produce television shows, English majors go into middle management -- or vice versa. The point is, college gives you intangible skills that employers value... which is what gives the degree whatever value it has. If employers could just test you for the particular skillsets they need, they wouldn't even bother to ask about your degree.

In response to lazy...

You are lazy. I don't care about your grades, or how hard you had to study for them. You have a lazy attitude, an attitude that has decided that you have particular skills, and if those skills don't get you ahead in the world... well, then the world sucks. You certainly don't want to expand yourself.

Face facts: we all have to learn new skills in order to get ahead.

What would be so terrible about teaching history as worth little more than entertaining stories? In my opinion, it would be truthful. Intelligent Design has no place in the classrooms; perhaps Practical History falls into the same category of myths.

If you believe that, then I guess maybe your instructors have failed you.

If you want to read a good book, by a historian, that may answer your question, check out Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History, by Michel-Rolph Trouillot.

What about my plan to test your hypothesis? Think we can pay a few recent high school grads to try some graduate-level courses? See how they fair?

You were being sarcastic? I wasn't. I learned comprehension and interpretation in high school, and the themes were repeated in college. I was just as prepared for graduate studies upon graduating high school as I am now. That's the personal revelation I came upon a few posts ago; and I think it's the reason so much spite is in me.

I may not know as much about graduate school or beyond, but I have experienced both high school and undergraduate college in full, and this is enough for me to tell that I learned nothing new in the latter. Now, maybe I just went to a good high school and poor college... I don't know. But that's how things have been in my experience, period.

This attitude is what makes you a "baby." No one was "meant" to do anything, and the precise skills one employs in school are rarely, if ever, the skills that one uses in gainful employment. The rest of the world is mature enough to understand that getting ahead means taking on new challenges and learning to deal with them. So... DEAL WITH IT.

Someone is a baby if they are more inclined to instruct than to research? So teachers are babies? You say that no one was "meant" to do anything, but I'm not talking Calvinism here. I'm talking natural inclinations. Are you saying that you could have just as easily ended up doing any other occupation or study other than the one you are in? That people are not naturally better at some things than they are at others, or that they do not naturally find pleasure in different things than the things other people find pleasure in? Dealing with a brick wall does not always mean slamming into it.

You should look back at graduate school again. So you don't want to spend your life doing research. Fine. Make it through grad school -- which will, yes, require you to do some research -- and you can go teach at a small liberal arts college (probably very similar to the one you attended) where your primary responsibility will be teaching, not publishing.

No. I'm going to look into certification. If I'm going to aim for teaching anyway, I'm going to focus on a worthwhile period of it. Besides, if I am good at storytelling/comprehension but poor at research, wouldn't it be a disservice to teach at the college level?

Graduate school is like a hurdle. It's not easy for anyone, but you get through it so you can do what you want.

The options open up to publishing and/or more teaching. Teaching is already available, provided I obtain instruction on how to do so.

Conversely, those teaching at the college level do not need education courses; they just need to be incredibly knowledgeable in their field. Hmm... that might be one of the problems.

That's not true. The difference between whining and other varieties of complaint is that whining takes the form, "Poor me, I thought things would be easier than this."

Not easier, but different. As I've said over and over, undergraduate education only repeated the same values I had learned in high school instead of expanding gradually into a new environment. If you want to call this whining instead of a legitimate cause for concern, then go ahead.

You also subscribe to the myth that people actually get jobs "in their field." Sorry, it doesn't happen. Physics majors go on to produce television shows, English majors go into middle management -- or vice versa.

You're really not doing much to advance the argument that such education is worthwhile. If physics majors become television producers, then what is the value of RTVF majoring? If English majors go into middle management, then what is the value of business majoring?

You are lazy. I don't care about your grades, or how hard you had to study for them. You have a lazy attitude, an attitude that has decided that you have particular skills, and if those skills don't get you ahead in the world... well, then the world sucks. You certainly don't want to expand yourself.

"Lazy" attitudes keep mistakes from being made. By your definition of lazy, there is no place for nurses. There is no place for teachers. If I'd been "lazier", as you put it, instead of going ahead to graduate school just because I could, then I'd be on my way in a more favorable direction. You can call it "lazy", but I call it discerning, and I aim to correct some of my past mistakes by giving it a try... instead of slamming into a wall for no reason other than it's more difficult.

If you believe that, then I guess maybe your instructors have failed you.

An art major would have told me the same thing, as would a theatre arts major. Entertainment has value, even if it won't predict the future, and even if it won't save lives. You don't have to create a practical application when it does not exist.

Or perhaps your instructors have disillusioned you. Perhaps you can continue disillusioning your students. :)

What about my plan to test your hypothesis? Think we can pay a few recent high school grads to try some graduate-level courses? See how they fair?

You were being sarcastic? I wasn't. I learned comprehension and interpretation in high school, and the themes were repeated in college. I was just as prepared for graduate studies upon graduating high school as I am now. That's the personal revelation I came upon a few posts ago; and I think it's the reason so much spite is in me.

I may not know as much about graduate school or beyond, but I have experienced both high school and undergraduate college in full, and this is enough for me to tell that I learned nothing new in the latter. Now, maybe I just went to a good high school and poor college... I don't know. But that's how things have been in my experience, period.

This attitude is what makes you a "baby." No one was "meant" to do anything, and the precise skills one employs in school are rarely, if ever, the skills that one uses in gainful employment. The rest of the world is mature enough to understand that getting ahead means taking on new challenges and learning to deal with them. So... DEAL WITH IT.

Someone is a baby if they are more inclined to instruct than to research? So teachers are babies? You say that no one was "meant" to do anything, but I'm not talking Calvinism here. I'm talking natural inclinations. Are you saying that you could have just as easily ended up doing any other occupation or study other than the one you are in? That people are not naturally better at some things than they are at others, or that they do not naturally find pleasure in different things than the things other people find pleasure in? Dealing with a brick wall does not always mean slamming into it.

You should look back at graduate school again. So you don't want to spend your life doing research. Fine. Make it through grad school -- which will, yes, require you to do some research -- and you can go teach at a small liberal arts college (probably very similar to the one you attended) where your primary responsibility will be teaching, not publishing.

No. I'm going to look into certification. If I'm going to aim for teaching anyway, I'm going to focus on a worthwhile period of it. Besides, if I am good at storytelling/comprehension but poor at research, wouldn't it be a disservice to teach at the college level?

Graduate school is like a hurdle. It's not easy for anyone, but you get through it so you can do what you want.

The options open up to publishing and/or more teaching. Teaching is already available, provided I obtain instruction on how to do so.

Conversely, those teaching at the college level do not need education courses; they just need to be incredibly knowledgeable in their field. Hmm... that might be one of the problems.

That's not true. The difference between whining and other varieties of complaint is that whining takes the form, "Poor me, I thought things would be easier than this."

Not easier, but different. As I've said over and over, undergraduate education only repeated the same values I had learned in high school instead of expanding gradually into a new environment. If you want to call this whining instead of a legitimate cause for concern, then go ahead.

You also subscribe to the myth that people actually get jobs "in their field." Sorry, it doesn't happen. Physics majors go on to produce television shows, English majors go into middle management -- or vice versa.

You're really not doing much to advance the argument that such education is worthwhile. If physics majors become television producers, then what is the value of RTVF majoring? If English majors go into middle management, then what is the value of business majoring?

You are lazy. I don't care about your grades, or how hard you had to study for them. You have a lazy attitude, an attitude that has decided that you have particular skills, and if those skills don't get you ahead in the world... well, then the world sucks. You certainly don't want to expand yourself.

"Lazy" attitudes keep mistakes from being made. By your definition of lazy, there is no place for nurses. There is no place for teachers. If I'd been "lazier", as you put it, instead of going ahead to graduate school just because I could, then I'd be on my way in a more favorable direction. You can call it "lazy", but I call it discerning, and I aim to correct some of my past mistakes by giving it a try... instead of slamming into a wall for no reason other than it's more difficult.

If you believe that, then I guess maybe your instructors have failed you.

An art major would have told me the same thing, as would a theatre arts major. Entertainment has value, even if it won't predict the future, and even if it won't save lives. You don't have to create a practical application when it does not exist.

But, go ahead and tell your students that history or literature will solve the world's problems, improve the economy, fight diseases, or whatever else you fancy.

No. I'm going to look into certification. If I'm going to aim for teaching anyway, I'm going to focus on a worthwhile period of it. Besides, if I am good at storytelling/comprehension but poor at research, wouldn't it be a disservice to teach at the college level?
I hate to be the one braking this to you, but you are aware that in service teachers actually conduct a wide range of research while teaching right?

Also, I am not sure which country/state you're in, but many US states requirer an in service teacher to compleate a number of graduate school credits and eventually earn a MA/MS/MEd (which you need any way if you plan to live off your salary).

OMG!!! I've been uneducated for more than a week now just because of the teachers strike and the teachers are planning to continue the job action until they got a deal from the government!!! Arrrrggggg!!! What wrong with BC!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

Anybody felt sorry for me???

Sorry for being off topic.

OMG!!! I've been uneducated for more than a week now just because of the teachers strike and the teachers are planning to continue the job action until they got a deal from the government!!! Arrrrggggg!!! What wrong with BC!!!:mad: :mad: :mad:

Anybody felt sorry for me???

Sorry for being off topic.
Uh... would you like me to teach you a lesson or something like that?

Uh... would you like me to teach you a lesson or something like that?I got all my school work incase the teacher's job action drags on "forever". All I got for this semester is English, Math, and Info Tech (like what the hell, 3 classes for half a year), all of which are Grade 12 courses. So do you mind if you can help me if I ever get stuck on my homework? That would be great.;) Nice to have a teacher on NS.:p

BTW, do you know how to use linux?

So do you mind if you can help me if I ever get stuck on my homework? That would be great.;) Nice to have a teacher on NS.:p
Sure, no problem.

BTW, do you know how to use linux?
Enough to get into trouble with it, but if you're looking for someone to teach you how to recomplie the kernel... keep looking. ;)

I hate to be the one braking this to you, but you are aware that in service teachers actually conduct a wide range of research while teaching right?

Also, I am not sure which country/state you're in, but many US states requirer an in service teacher to compleate a number of graduate school credits and eventually earn a MA/MS/MEd (which you need any way if you plan to live off your salary).

Is it mainly secondary research?

But I guess that makes sense. I have to get through this semester anyway, since it's beyond the refund date. I just hope it doesn't drag down my GPA too far, in case what I decide to do later involves more schooling. Thanks. :)