[barry-cotter]

The point of the English degree in this case is not to teach anything useful, it’s to inculcate one into a class. If you come from money and don’t need to develop any particular skills before being given a pile to manage any canon works as a shibboleth to allow people to distinguish whether someone else is of the “right sort”, whether the Confucian classics, the Western canon or Old Skool Rap.

Obviously social sciences or public policy work as well but the idea that they’re superior to the other methods is very weakly supported, at best.

[zozbot234]

> The point of the English degree in this case is not to teach anything useful, it’s to inculcate one into a class.

That's exactly what I meant by a pre-modern viewpoint. Where "class" or social background are more important than the actual work you're supposed to be doing, and the skills (even general-purpose skills - a social sciences degree teaches plenty of those) you're going to use to that effect. Let's just say that this is not how people or societies become successful - it anything, it's a marker of decadence.

[barry-cotter]

Studying English or the Confucian classics will also teach you general purpose skills; essay writing, communication, how to form and structure an argument. It’ll give you a great many ideas, stories and concepts to draw upon. If you have any evidence that the general purpose skills from a social science or public policy degree are superior to those one learns from a humanities education feel free to share.

Regarding success and decadence I don’t see much in the way of evidence that humanist education is a cause of decadence rather than a marker of peace and wealth.