Re: not playing so nice

That's not true everywhere, Cecilia. Literary Theory isn't a required
course where I am, and while we do get it along with recent criticism in
the context of literature courses, the literature is always the focus.
There's no comparison between a literature course that teaches a little
theory, and studying the theorists directly in a course of their own --
and neither of those give you any real philosophy. Anyway, it's quite
possible to go through a Ph.D. and get only tangentially infected with
theory.

I wasn't talking about anyone's "ability to understand," of course, just
about interests -- based upon class attendance I've seen in the last
three colleges I attended. In most of my literature classes, women
outnumbered men about 2 to 1. In most of my philosophy classes, men
have outnumbered women by about the same ratio. In the school overall,
women outnumber men about 60/40.

It's be interesting to see national demographics, though...I'm curious.

Jim

Cecilia Baader wrote:

>--- "James J. Rovira" <jrovira@drew.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Hard to say, Scottie. Theory may not be their thing. Most colleges
>>I've attended had more female students than male, and most philosophy
>>classes I've attended had more male students than female.
>>
>>
>
>Jim, Jim, Jim. Think about this. Anyone who gets a degree in English is
>required to understand Theory. In fact, throughout my graduate career, it
>seems as if someone's been beating me over the head with it.
>
>Hmm. Perhaps that's the reason for this pounding behind my ears.
>
>I understand it. I also read philosophy. However, I have better things
>to do with my summer than wade through booklength posts and then sneer at
>my fellow fish. The sun is shining, see, and September is creeping up on
>me.
>
>Best,
>Cecilia.
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Aug 12 12:52:56 2003