Areas of Study

I recently hijacked this thread at The Valve.  Someone had asked for suggestions for reading lists on what high school students ought to read before entering university.  Almost certainly they were intending were intending what literature and literary-criticism scholars would consider adequate preparation for their students.  Just on a whim, I sort of hijacked the thread for a random series of rambles on what I'd want high school students to read/do before entering computer science or linguistics programmes in university. 

The response was interesting.  One or two of them already had some technical education and struck up a conversation.  Eventually, however, the discussion was brought back on track to what they would probably have considered more "on topic" book suggestions.

One fairly interesting set of responses comes from a Tony Christini.  Not responses to me, but perhaps responses to the fact that there wasn't that much response on the thread by literary-critic types:

What I am surprised at is that at a prompt for important basic college level reading material at a scholarly literary website, there have been virtually no suggestions of basic critical and/or theoretical books that might represent, indicate, or introduce the professional field(s). Is the field that dead to everyone at a basic level? Or is everyone that dead to introducing students and/or lay readers to the field?

I leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine why I might consider this interesting.

In any case, I'd like to save the reading list I presented here, and then segue into a related topic:

Well, for linguistics I’d definitely recommend that all incoming high school students read Fromkin et al’s “Introduction to Language”, which is highly accessible, general, and entertaining, and I started it in high school as well.  As much as I suspect people may not like him here, I’d still recommend The Language Instinct by Pinker.  Juan Uriagereka’s Rhyme and Reason is written for the scientifically-educated non-linguist, but it may work for geekier high school students.  The above is very syntactically-oriented: Semantics by Saeed is a good introductory book taught to junior university students, but parts of it are good for everyone.

For computer science, it’s harder to recommend something, since a lot of the basic ideas in computer science can be best imparted by first *doing* prior to learning the theory, as much as I am more a fan of the latter rather than the former.  And a lot of the best educational material is on the Internet---actually very few people use printed books in computer science departments for much of anything.  If I had to recommend books, it would be for very advanced high school students.  Some of Sebesta’s Concepts of Programming Languages would hardly be a bad idea.  Lewis and Papadimitriou’s Elements of the Theory of Computation would be for mathematically-inclined high-school students, but it does start off introducing the basics: it’s a little dry though.  Actually even *better* would be Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications by Rosen---something I read as a university freshman, for once.  Programming Prolog by Clocksin and Mellish, if administered early enough, would save students from the trap of being unable to think of anything but imperative and OO programming in Java.  Actually, I think much of the CS curriculum is taught in the wrong order.

It's really only possible to put together a reading list for undergraduate computer science.  Undergraduate core course requirements in CS are highly coordinated.  Where I am, the course curricula are set by a single committee.   CS at an undergrad level is well-defined field.

At a graduate level, not so.  I joined a US graduate program in CS a year ago, and I have the opportunity to experience first hand through the rather frustrating required course sequence that I must follow.  The courses in the CS graduate program here are divided into several interest areas.  We have to take a certain number of courses distributed over a certain number of areas. 

Naturally, only one of these areas really interests me, and I wouldn't object to taking more courses in this area.  But, surprise surprise, I can't take any more of these courses, since I've already filled my quota of them.  Of the other areas, one, maybe two can hold my attention for any significant length of time.  The remainder are mostly irrelevant to me. 

"But Mandos," you exclaim.  "Don't you want a well-rounded education? Do you think it's healthy to become so specialized?" And the answer is yes to the first question and no to the second.  But the thing is that if they are going to force me to take courses that are irrelevant to me, why not let me take courses outside the department, then?  Because some of these areas are so irrelevant to me that 19-th century French literature is just as relevant.  And I suspect the literature might be more fun than some of the areas that people think are interesting in CS.

The problem is, of course, that most of CS is actually just a dumping ground (a lucrative dumping ground, but a dumping ground nonetheless) for parts of other fields that happened to have some relationship with computers or the theory of computation.  So even if there are aspects of computation that are less interesting to me than, say, chemical phenomena, I have to live with CS, so that I can be paid to do research in the things I actually want to do.

 

Comments

[Craig]

The recommendation of Eagleton is, actually, partly surprisingly. "The Valve" views itself as an "anti-Theory" vanguard. Especially the founder, John Holbo. See, for instance, their "event" on Theory's Empire.

[ben wolfson]

"The Valve" views itself as an "anti-Theory" vanguard

No, it doesn't.

[Craig]

My mistake: I must be confused by the continuous, prolonged and often painful diatribes against "Theory"! Mea culpa!

[Mandos]

I noticed in some of the comments on other threads that there is a Long Sunday/Valve antagonism going on, so I'm not at all surprised that you commented, Craig---of course you're my most frequent reader and commenter anyway. :)

Yes, I frequent John Holbo and Belle Waring's personal blog regularly (I've even met Belle once, small world, eh?), so I know that they have a position against something called Theory. I like them particularly because I like their tastes in fiction. The seminar on Iron Council on Crooked Timber was highly entertaining. I even tried to follow parts of Holbo's arguments on Theory on his own blog. What I did understand from it, I was partially sympathetic to.

Since both sides of this coin seem now to endorse Eagleton as a book for beginners, if I discover I have time I might pick it up for the month-long break that I have.

[Craig]

Despite being (alternatingly) a "social" or "political" theorist (I try to hold myself at some distance from the terms used to describe what I do), I'm not entirely sure what "Theory" is. Mind you, I haven't read a novel in years, the ones I have read are mostly fluffy (Jim Crace, Arturo Perez-Reverte, Tolkien), and I dropped the only literature course I took as an undergraduate. As you can legitimately see: I'm not sure what is going on in English/Literature departments and what they read.

I do know that there is some sort of boogeyman lurking about called "Postmodernism" and "Theory", but I'm not sure what they mean. They seem to relate, somehow, to the radical idea that people other than dead white guys may have written books worth reading. They seem to relate, somehow, to something they call "political correctness" and "multiculturalism". But, like "Theory" and "Postmodernism", I'm not sure what "political correctness" and "multiculturalism" mean. There seems to be some distinction, in the mind of people who are against "Theory", that they are "the real left" as opposed to the "'left'" (note: double and single quotations) of "Theory" and "Postmodernism". Or, on the other hand, the "anti-Theorists" are happy to call themselves "humanists", "conversatives" or whatever. Not sure what any of those mean.

What I do know is that these fights regularly spill over into the educated layperson's press (and, of course, the ideological/demagogic press). I see diatribes -- that could have appeared in "The Valve" first -- in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Chronicle. I see them in Salon, the New Republic, Reason, and the Economist. And, I see that about half the links at "Arts and Letters Daily" are to these debates.

I also know that to the casual observer (and the ardent "anti-Theorist") that this occasionally spills over into my work. I get bundled in with "Theory' because, like them (apparently), I have read Marx, Freud, Foucault, Deleuze and Baudrillard. I get bundled in with "Theory" because, like them (apparently), I cite them in my work and have been known to write about them (exegetically and argumentatively).

This, of course, results in me being forced to refer to myself as a "post-Marxist" or "post-Structualist" or whatever -- even if, like the supposed "post-Struturalists" themselves have no idea what this means. (Foucault, Deleuze, and myself all agree that "post-structuralism" is an American concept and has nothing to do with them; they'd also agree that "Theory" has nothing to do with them.)

I find the whole debate confusing. On the one hand, there is the political matter: yes, I agree, people other than white dead guys have written interesting things and these things should be read (or watched or listened to); yes, I refer to the same texts as they do. On the other hand, I'm not sure how (and this is what I understand by "Theory") that the suggestion that there might be more to a text (or piece of music or art) than what is written, painted or played. It isn't clear to me how these have become fighting points.

I also know one other thing: the "Foucault" I see referred to in these debates is not like the Foucault I read; the "Deleuze" I see referred to in these debates is not like the Deleuze I read. And so on. It seems, possibly, that the major problem is that people in literature do not know how to read and, consequently, they do not know how to write. This goes, obviously, for both sides of the divide. On the one hand, the "Theorists" cannot read the "Theoretical" texts they are reading and, thus, when they write "Theory" they are unable to communicate outside of their own group. On the other hand, the "anti-Theorists" likewise cannot read "Theory" and what is put out by "Theorists" to the extent that when they write "anti-Theory" it looks even sillier than "Theory".

Why this is the case, I cannot begin to imagine. Like I said, I don't know anything about literature departments. But, I do remember back to when I dropped that literature class as an undergrad: the guy instructing the class repeatedly attributed Being and Time to a "German Nazi called Soren Kierkegaard". When corrected (by me) he insisted I was wrong. After all, he was the expert and I was but an undergrad. It seems symptomatic, at the very least. Another problem is likely that the teaching of "Theory" is haphazard and sloppy. At our undergraduate institution, "literary theory" was an optional half-course in undergrad (third year) and grad (M.A. level). Yet, lots of people (quick search in the library catalogue) produce "Theory" for their theses. Connection, maybe?

Now, one should not extrapolate from my comments that "social" and "political" theory is much better. It is marginally better. But that is something else entirely.

[Mandos]

"But, I do remember back to when I dropped that literature class as an undergrad: the guy instructing the class repeatedly attributed Being and Time to a "German Nazi called Soren Kierkegaard". When corrected (by me) he insisted I was wrong."

Heck even I know that's funny :)

[Craig]

It was, as you might suspect, quite sad. Now, the English department in question is a real shitty one and the guy teaching the class wasn't faculty (only a quasi-faculty instructor -- "adjunct" to Americans, with a slight bit more job security), but I don't doubt that the loose grasp on essential facts -- especially in "Theory" -- is prevalant across the board.