I was intrigued by this article in The Nation that John McAdams is pointing to, which laments the shrinking of English Departments, and the increasing call for experts in literature other than "the classics".  While I believe McAdams concentration is on the switch from more classic English Literature to multi-cultural studies, I want to concentrate on this little bit instead:

What's going on? Three things, to judge from their absence from Graff's history, that have never happened before. First, the number of students studying English literature appears to be in a steep, prolonged and apparently irreversible decline. In the past ten years, my department has gone from about 120 majors a year to about ninety a year. Fewer students mean fewer professors; during the same time, we've gone from about fifty-five full-time faculty positions to about forty-five. Student priorities are shifting to more "practical" majors like economics; university priorities are shifting to the sciences, which bring in a lot more money. In our new consumer-oriented model of higher education, schools compete for students, but so do departments within schools. The bleaker it looks for English departments, the more desperate they become to attract attention.

In other words, the profession's intellectual agenda is being set by teenagers. This is also unprecedented. However bitter the ideological battles Graff described, they were driven by the profession's internal dynamics, not by what our students wanted, or what they thought they wanted, or what we thought they thought they wanted. If grade schools behaved like this, every subject would be recess, and lunch would consist of chocolate cake.

I actually take this as a personal swipe at my college degree, and an unfair one at that.  As many of you know, I have a Bachelor of Science in Computer Engineering from the Milwaukee School of Engineering.  One of the selling points of that school is that the degree programs are highly driven to studies in your major.  While there are credits which are devoted to non-major studies, they are not as many as at more traditional universities such as UW.  So while I did choose to take a philosophy class, I took no added literature courses (though there were limited selections available).  My English studies ended with "Technical Writing".

Now I suppose someone who teaches in a major English department may look at that and scoff.  They may see my lack of extra formal education in greats works by Sinclair, Hemingway and Fitzgerald as an indication that my college eduction is less worthy of others, it certainly does not mean that "teenagers are setting the agenda".  It actually means that experts are setting the agenda.

The reality is that having solid knowledge of great English literary works won't help someone write quality software, nor will it keep a bridge from falling down.  It is also important to realize that Technical Writing courses are not unimportant.  In fact, I think that utilitarian courses like Technical Writing are currently undervalued in "practical majors", and that more focus should be given to these studies.  Of course, one of the lessons I learned while working at MSOE is that there was a lot of pressure to keep the number of required credits under control.  So that would most likely mean that an increased number of writing credits would mean requiring fewer credits in things like literature.  I say if that's what it takes, then so be it.

The reason is quite simple.  The art of communicating important ideas to people who are not experts in your field is an under appreciated one... and one that can have deadly consequences.  One of the more valuable courses I took was one in Engineering Ethics.  Among other things, we examined certain historical events, and studied the events that lead up to them.  Examples of this would be the 1986 Challenger disaster, as well as the famous Pinto safety problems.  One thing that is common in many of these events is that Engineering teams were aware of the possible problems, and communicated them up, but because of the methods of communication and the style of writing, their warnings were not heeded by those who made the final decisions.  In essence, Engineers tend to write for Engineers, and they don't know how to write for other audiences effectively.

My general finding when I've talked to people with English degrees however, and in some discussions I've had with English professors after I graduated, is that they still look down upon these more technical and practical writing courses, and would rather have people read more Hemingway.  This article was a perfect example.  Wanting to take more writing courses is seen as letting teenagers drive the curriculum, because it's thought that they "don't want to read".  Instead they need to realize that Program Heads in other departments understand the incredible importance of having graduates who understand "how to write".  Most Engineers won't turn into Hemingways, but they might be helping to design your next car, and need to explain to non-Engineers how to make it safe.  Which is more important to you?