August 31st, 2017

Response to Collins

Collins poses an interesting problem in his book that I don’t think I’ve ever realized until now. He argues that the more the government is involved in the education system, the more damage is done to the education system, causing deficiencies. It was like what Dr. Wielgos discussed on the first day of class, about how education is suffering at the hands of the government because they keep pulling back funds that help schools afford the technology possible to teach its students in the 21st century. Furthermore, Collins discusses the travesty of how English studies has always been (and continues to be) seen as less important than other areas of study. I thought this also connected to the experience Dr. Wielgos shared with us in class, about how he had no background in business or finance, but was hired at such a place because he had a strong background in English studies. The company wanted someone who could read and write well because everyone else who already worked there wasn’t as strong in that sort of skillset, but more so on the business side. Had the study of English been more important in the education system, it is my belief that most people in the workforce would have been able to do the business side of their job in addition to writing side.

Another issue that Collins poses is this battle between literature and philology. There seems to be a “refusal of universities to distinguish between a literary and philological study of roman and Greek classics,” or in other words, universities prefer to interpret texts as words on a page, for what they are, rather than their interpretation or power to effect, which is what Collins believes is of utmost importance. Collins argues that literature should not be seen as “common property,” but something everyone should work at being familiar with in addition to their area of study. For example, poetry is not a pastime. It aids in the understanding of diction and method.

Collins believes that the approach to literature is simply in its relation to philology, history, ethics, politics, aesthetics, etc., and argues that you can’t understand a piece of literature without analyzing the influences and background of the writer. I thought his analogy on this was brilliant: “Could anything be more preposterous than for a man to undertake to comment on Paradise Lost, on Paradise Regained, on Coinus, on Samson Agonistes, who was unacquainted with the Literatures which were to Milton's genius what the soil is to a plant . . .”

I didn’t really know about this growing problem in the education system. The study of English is more than a “real solid study of books” or “material for the study of words.” Communication and problem solving are only two incredibly important skills required in the workforce, and they can be learned through the study of English. It is important that we as a society stop labeling literature and English studies as only exercises in grammar, syntax, etymology, a catalogue of names, works and dates, but rather something that can significantly help students become more equipped when they enter the workforce.