The article gets it completely wrong. One studies writing as an English major the way one studies programming as a computer science major. That is, the best way to do it is to inspire via other subjects that will enliven the entire career.

I'm a highly skilled software engineer who was an English and Classics major at at top liberal arts college. The author of the article seems to be an authority, but he is not. Most professors of literature that I respect would look down on his attempt to generalize about the whole field based on a narrow non-fiction / writing practioner-esque approach.

The reason you study English is to study literature which is the most important concentration of knowledge, distilled, evolved and selected as to what is important in the past several centuries. There is figuratively nothing actually more important (if there were, someone would've written a f-ing story). Science, by comparison, is young.

The study of literature is a celebration of what is important in life. And how to live life. And how to find what is important to you in terms of each second that you live on this planet, Steve Jobs / death at your back philosophically-speaking (those are all English majory ideas -- Marvell in that case).

But back to my original point. One studies computer science to understand the philosophy of how computers might be designed and used (see the Abelson SICP lectures or whatever), not to learn how to implement some Java standard interface. Though that is a little part of the practice that one has to do. Same thing with writing.

I took zero writing courses, but wrote over a hundred essays on other writers and it was one of the best preparations for any field -- law, science, software engineering (in my case).

Also the proper way to study literature -- ignoring all the postmodernist and cultural theory baggage -- is to study words closely and this has a long, rigorous history that again rivals any other analytical tradition. Has English studies lost its way? Sure, it always does because it's such a ridiculously large undertaking. Are more targeted philologies and close readings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_reading ) important? Sure.

But just because the typical English major isn't as employable without other skills, doesn't mean the field itself is a bad one. But I think people get upset about it because it is such a tricky field to make a career in and can burn you if you think it is.

But one doesn't set out to become an astronaut by taking astronaut classes. You have to have another broader drive. Among those who value intelligence, however, the study of literature (f- writing -- great writing has no place in the university except as a place to study it, if you ask me -- it's not primarily designed to teach writing in the world because academia does not exist primarily in the world -- it's designed to teach understanding of past writing which is precisely 'what we know', as Eliot would say, etc.).

Anyway, as much as it pains me to give any credence to the idiots there:

http://www.socfell.fas.harvard.edu/senior%20and%20junior%20f...

They know enough to know that English is equal to many other pursuits of knowledge. Will it evolve to a more targeted literary analysis? Maybe. But there is nothing more important than the study of great literature. If this upon me proved I never writ nor no man ever loved, basically.