I was a Rutgers College "double major" in History and English. Critics have it. ;)
Huge Rutgers layoff just announced
- Thread starter ScarletteK80
- Start date
-
- Tags
- /umdnj
I was a Rutgers College "double major" in History and English. Critics have it. ;)
You weren't sure how to waste your money so you decided to flush it down 2 toilets!
:flush: :flush:
:)
But seriously, at least your majors didn't end in the word "studies".
Good choices! I went back and forth between liberal arts and harder sciency stuff between college and grad school, giving me, I hope, a nice blend of the two.
What we really need to make sure we avoid is Rutgers becoming Rutgers Tech. We already have plenty of trade schools.
And we really need to undo Rutgers becoming an anarcho-socialist prep school. I do agree with you though.. Rutgers College used to have a requirement of majors and minors and even a"mini" across disciplines. I was attracted to that idea... well-rounded graduates.
I think the number of departments and majors has swelled like that of Olympic medals. Do we really need them all?
Last edited:
Sarcasm?
Liberal arts degrees + student loans = today's current debt crisis for younger people
You'd be amazed how far from such a thing RU is. Lots of faux news out there from the right wing. An excellent example is the flap over the English department chair, based on an article by a kid at TCU who had no idea what he was talking about and got the info 180 degrees wrong.
And I'm all for requiring courses that provide a well-rounded education for all students. Notre Dame has a pretty good program of that.
Double major in history and English. And you wonder why he can argue rings around you? None of the rest of us do.
FYI, a good reply can't be devoid of reality. Care to try again?
Remember, I also have a history degree, so me talk good.
:)
Yeah.. I read the huge post/email at the source. They made the point about relaxing grammar was somehow related to responding to BLM. The right-wing sites did not make that connection.. that Rutgers department head did that.
WHY should BLM have any influence at all on the study of the English language and grammar? Can you make that case because that department head did not do a good job of that.
The Head of the English department did not argue for relaxing grammar. She said that the argument that grammar should be relaxed should be challenged, not supported.
She said that critical grammar, which she was supporting "...challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard ‘academic' English backgrounds at a disadvantage."
Now, that is not an easy sentence to understand, no question there (way too many negatives), but she is not arguing for relaxing grammar standards, just the opposite.
This is the T2 who is a big Chris Christie supporter, global warming denier, big pharma advocate, right? If it weren't for denying reality, you'd be silent.
I wouldn't be surprised, but just read up on ND the other day as TDIrish was arguing that all students at ND have to take calculus (they don't).
I trust you on this.. I missed it... you are correct.. the right-wing sites misled me... getting it wrong. Probably caused me to read this with a bias.
okay.. here's the full bullet-point:
Incorporating “critical grammar” into our pedagogy. This approach challenges the familiar dogma that writing instruction should limit emphasis on grammar/sentence-level issues so as to not put students from multilingual, non-standard "academic" English backgrounds at a disadvantage. Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on "written" accents.
I know what pedagogy is (okay, I looked it up just to be sure) but I have no idea what "critical grammar" is in this (or any) context.
this part still worries me..
Instead, it encourages students to develop a critical awareness of the variety of choices available to them w/ regard to micro-level issues in order to empower them and equip them to push against biases based on "written" accents.
I assume "written accents" is a reference to non-standard grammar and word choices. So while the part you quoted does seem to indicate "challenging" a dogma justifying non-standard grammar.. that ending seems to say they exact opposite.
Am I getting that wrong too?
Hmmm.. or maybe the "written accents" have nothing to do with grammar.. and if they use proper grammar it could negate biases against their use of language. Hmmm.. that sounds right. (as you can clearly see, I am not a purveyor of proper grammar, punctuation and god-knows-what-else).
Last edited:
Let's review your latest Biden'esque ramble:
1. Christie supporter - yes, the R governor that got reelected with 60% of the vote in NJ who had an awful second term. Please show examples of denying reality.
2. Global warming denier - you were afraid to take the bet, not my fault. You are too old to hold onto this anger
3. Big pharma advocate - you mean the industry that is going to save the world from corona and also has likely extended and improved the life of one of your loved ones and perhaps yourself? That one?
Care for another do over? Wow, this is getting too easy.
LOL! You've wandered into post-modern English department-speak. Warning: There be dragons there!
When used by a "critical theorist", critical can have about 20 different meanings, and 17 of them are unrelated to anything you'd find in Webster's. Most often, "critical" means being opposed to a traditional approach to something (read western, Anglo-Saxon, etc.). But if you ask a purveyor of such language what it means, they will say, "It means challenging the orthodoxy on this subject." But they don't really mean "the orthodoxy"; they mean "your orthodoxy."
Now, "critical grammar" is a new one to me as well, so I looked it up. It came from a PhD dissertation at UMASS in 2011, so fairly recent. Critical grammar is a theoretical perspective that argues that you really have to look carefully at writing from the level of the sentence and even the word as opposed to a more wholistic approach. Frequently in English departments (and other disciplines), we try not to get too hung up on grammar errors to the point where we ignore the larger ideas that the writer is trying to present. Critical grammar argues that by ignoring the small choices that writers make, you can miss out on larger meanings.
Now the "accents" and stuff like that is pretty much just a nod to the fact that there are lots of different folks out there with lots of different approaches to writing and ways of speaking, and we ought not impose one set of standards on everyone. It would certainly include non-standard English, but would also include just different ways of communicating that still might technically fit within standard English. I could, for example, say, "Dude, you have to be chillin' on this." And that would be pretty much standard English technically speaking, but would have an accent.
So, at the end of the day here, the English department chair was saying (I think) that taking a really hard look at an essay from the word and sentence level is a good thing to do and should not be ignored. She wants writers to be saying what they want to say, and thus, it is necessary to think hard about what one is doing. At the same time, she wants writers to have the freedom to express themselves and the cultures/backgrounds that they come from and want to communicate to. Or, put simply, "grammar is indeed important, but it's also complicated."
I hope this helps. It's my best shot without spending an inordinate amount of time on it!
Cheers!
^^^^^ Case study of liberal academia attempting to justify lowering standards.
#lowestcommondenominator
Twenty-seven words is a ramble? You really never got near the English department, did you?Let's review your latest Biden'esque ramble:
1. Christie supporter - yes, the R governor that got reelected with 60% of the vote in NJ who had an awful second term. Please show examples of denying reality.
2. Global warming denier - you were afraid to take the bet, not my fault. You are too old to hold onto this anger
3. Big pharma advocate - you mean the industry that is going to save the world from corona and also has likely extended and improved the life of one of your loved ones and perhaps yourself? That one?
Care for another do over? Wow, this is getting too easy.
1. "Christie is great. He's going to be President." As my kiwi friends like to say, "Yeah, no."
2. Global warming. I offered a bet based on global warming theory. You turned it down, repeatedly. I don't blame you. You would have lost easily as the theory is correct. You offered a bet not supported by global warming theory. I turned it down as it wouldn't have supported or challenged AGW whatever the outcome. You wanted to say that two of the next five years would be the hottest in recent history. Not what AGW says. I offered that the next five years would be hotter than the previous five years or the ones before that in recent history. A somewhat short time frame, but generally consistent with AGW. You ran like a scared rabbit. I'll offer you that bet right now again, and you'll run again.
3. Big pharma? These guys (and this is just the very tip of the very big iceberg):
- $3 billion GSK settlement. On 2 July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline pleaded guilty to criminal charges and agreed to a $3 billion settlement of the largest health-care fraud case in the U.S. and the largest payment by a drug company.[8] The settlement is related to the company's illegal promotion of prescription drugs, its failure to report safety data,[9] bribing doctors, and promoting medicines for uses for which they were not licensed. The drugs involved were Paxil, Wellbutrin, Advair, Lamictal, and Zofran for off-label, non-covered uses. Those and the drugs Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent, and Valtrex were involved in the kickback scheme.[10][11][12] The government investigation of GSK was launched largely on the basis of information provided by four whistleblowers who filed two qui tam (whistleblower) lawsuits against the company under the False Claims Act. GSK settled the whistleblowers’ lawsuits for a total of $1.017 billion out of the $3 billion settlement, the largest civil False Claims Act settlement to date.[13]
- Pfizer $2.3 billion settlement: Pfizer settled multiple civil and criminal allegations for $2.3 billion in the largest case of pharmaceutical and health care fraud in US history. The drugs involved were Bextra (an anti-inflammatory drug), Geodon (an anti-psychotic drug), Lipitor (a cholesterol drug), Norvasc (anti-hypertensive drug), Viagra (erectile dysfunction), Zithromax (antibiotic), Zyrtec (antihistamine), Zyvox (an antibiotic), Lyrica (an anti-epileptic drug), Relpax (anti-migraine drug), Celebrex (anti-inflammatory drug), and Depo-provera (birth control).[14]
- Merck $650 million settlement: Merck settled a nominal pricing fraud case in which the company was accused of taking kickbacks and violating Medicaid best price regulations for various drugs.[15][16]
- United States et al., ex rel. Jim Conrad and Constance Conrad v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al. involved a drug manufacturer selling a drug, Levothroid, that had never been approved by the FDA. These allegations settled for $42.5 million due to multiple whistleblowers stepping forward to provide detailed information on the alleged fraud. The collective reward to the relators in this case was over $14.6 million.[17][18]
Big thanks! That post was hysterical. Funny to watch liberal academia sliding further and further from reality.
Critical grammar = priceless
But not in a paper unless you’re quoting someone.
If the whole thing was written that way I would hope the professor grading it ran out of red ink.
The standard is just that, the standard.
The player doesn’t decide when it’s a first down. The referee (the instructor) and the rules of the game (the “standard”) do.
The good professor is correct . What was intended in the article is confusing and once again proves there is certainly faux news out there. I read the entire article once again avoiding my urges to find faults. If it helps all our students that is a good thing.If in reality it plays out differently then shame on the Rutgers hierarchy.
After reading the email more than once it was very helpful to have @SkilletHead2 explain the author’s ideas better than she did.
So after all this it has been funny to watch some of the real “road” scholars on tMB of Rivals get their shots in at Rutgers expense. As usual you can imagine who is not helping our cause over there.
Nothing is more useless than “liberal arts”. Whenever I see a profile like make it to my desk, it’s almost an immediate pass.
Steve Jobs used to say he wouldn't hire anyone who didn't have a liberal arts degree. He was looking for inventive people with broad bases of knowledge with the ability to think critically and conceive new ideas.
I don't recall reading about him prioritizing non-academic or professional degrees like business and the like. The liberal arts are always going to be at the core of an outstanding university. I would think this would be evident to graduate of Rutgers, whose finest programs reside in the liberal arts.
I don't recall reading about him prioritizing non-academic or professional degrees like business and the like. The liberal arts are always going to be at the core of an outstanding university. I would think this would be evident to graduate of Rutgers, whose finest programs reside in the liberal arts.
I'd like to see that quote, considering Apple is an engineering company. I read his book and don't recall that.
As we already discussed, depends on the class.
The best writing tends to break "the standard" in one form or another. Purposefully and effectively.
Helped and very well said, imho. English is a very dynamic language. It is fun. I'd hate for that to change.
Then again.. I recall some time ago a thread about changes to some standardized test.. or perhaps it was some evaluation test for common core.. in any case, the english passages selected to be used for the problems seemed quite dense, quite bizarre... in an effort, I assume, to include writing from other than dead white men. I recall being very confused as to why such stylized text was being used to test comprehension. It was almost as if it were a test for comprehension of "accented english". I do not know that should be the goal of teaching english. I could see it taught to appreciate different cultures' use of english.. but imho, we should be focusing on core english grammar. I really wish I could link to such an example now.. but could not find it.
Last edited:
But you shouldn't be teaching that.. because most of the time that sort of thing fails miserably. Tech the core stuff and let the "market" decide what works for those who care to experiment and invent.
Like most people who have been interviewed to hell and back, I'm sure someone, somewhere, working from a liberal arts angle, asked him a pointed question and he told them what they wanted to hear. Wouldn't shock me at all.. he was in marketing.
BTW.. you may want to look at musicians who code. Lots of similarities. Sometimes people can go from liberal arts to the sciences. I was 50-50 for art school.. but ended up in math/compsci.. until I reached the 400 level math courses and realized I needed to be weeded out.. just did not have the patience.
Eh.
The whole thing? Maybe “Beowulf” but that’s about the only thing I can think of for something like this.
I am not saying it doesn't happen. But to suggest Apple is filled with a bunch of engineers who were liberal arts majors is ridiculous. It's simply not true.
Wouldn't surprise me if that was Jobs' preference. He was a liberal arts guy at a small LAC in Portland, OR. I think he majored in English Lit at Reed College but never finished, and had extracurricular interests in electronics and early tech/computing. Wozniak was the brains behind Apple's computers as a startup venture while Jobs was the promoter.
it could explain why they are rarely the first to market with new tech. Generally, they follow and then dominate the competition with their brand.
It might be that the management and sales/operations parts of the company are balanced with many liberal arts degree holders (maybe some coupled with MBAs too?) whereas more of the engineers are in the tech roles (and then stay on that side or gravitate to other roles/management). I assume the employee base at Apple is far from filled with all engineers.
On bringing liberal arts sensibilities to "geek" technology
"I think our major contribution [to computing] was in bringing a liberal arts point of view to the use of computers. If you really look at the ease of use of the Macintosh, the driving motivation behind that was to bring not only ease of use to people — so that many, many more people could use computers for nontraditional things at that time — but it was to bring beautiful fonts and typography to people, it was to bring graphics to people ... so that they could see beautiful photographs, or pictures, or artwork, et cetera ... to help them communicate. ... Our goal was to bring a liberal arts perspective and a liberal arts audience to what had traditionally been a very geeky technology and a very geeky audience."
On computer science as a liberal art
"In my perspective ... science and computer science is a liberal art, it's something everyone should know how to use, at least, and harness in their life. It's not something that should be relegated to 5 percent of the population over in the corner. It's something that everybody should be exposed to and everyone should have mastery of to some extent, and that's how we viewed computation and these computation devices."
Certainly some in marketing perhaps even sales. But that is a technology company. They aren't hiring history majors. Trust to develop new products or code. They seem to be a wannabe media company so maybe there, but that wasn't so while Jobs was around.
No need to link for me, I know what you are talking about as I spent a lot of time back in the day writing reading tests and doing research on them.
I don't go anywhere near the fields of reading or literature anymore. Too crazy and too heated for me.
Similar threads
