My theory is that you can't teach critical thinking on its own, and that the humanities (not just literature) provide a lot of scope for independent and critical thought. In which case maybe we needn't change the curriculum - simply be more aware of what we *really* want the students to learn.

I wonder if students interpreted "beneficial" as "marketable"?

If so, the numbers are less surprising to me; I imagine that many students feel that knowing when Chaucer wrote the Tales isn't likely to land them a job.

I do wonder if "knowledge of the history of film" would have garnered a higher response?

Not students--these were alumni, some of whom had been out of school for decades.

I was prompted by this entry to read the Beidler article, and his points seemed rather convincing to me. To be fair, my focus on film studies is outside typical English department categorizations according to period.

But intuitively, this approach (teaching critical thinking and writing skills) seems more crucial to me than re-affirming a set of disciplinary norms, especially when so few English majors become professors. In fact, I'd guess (along with the author) that a more flexible major would attract many bright students to major in English. Anecdotally, I have several students who were drawn to the study of literature, but avoided majoring in it because their parents regarded it as impractical.

I don't quite understand why "relevance for future career options" is a useful heuristic for shaping the curriculum. (To put that another way, maybe, I think that this is only a worry because of our own disciplinary anxieties. I doubt you see this kind of handwringing in, say, biology or math.)

If you did a similar survey of other majors' alums--even putatively hardheaded, practical majors like computer science or business--you would, I fearlessly predict, get similar results: That the content of the major is less relevant to what one does at one's job than anyone ever anticipates. If you want an education where your classroom experiences anticipate your career, then you probably shouldn't go to a 4-year college or university. (I think this is probably close to Jill's point above.)

I don't quite understand why "relevance for future career options" is a useful heuristic for shaping the curriculum. (To put that another way, maybe, I think that this is only a worry because of our own disciplinary anxieties. I doubt you see this kind of handwringing in, say, biology or math.)

If you did a similar survey of other majors' alums--even putatively hardheaded, practical majors like computer science or business--you would, I fearlessly predict, get similar results: That the content of the major is less relevant to what one does at one's job than anyone ever anticipates. If you want an education where your classroom experiences anticipate your career, then you probably shouldn't go to a 4-year college or university. (I think this is probably close to Jill's point above.)

This is widely misunderstood, hence the objections of Chuck's students' parents.

Sorry about the double-posting idiocy--shouldn't post when I'm on baby patrol . . .