/lit/ - Literature

>>11620674

>lower level literature class

I mean /lit/ thinks everyone is a pseud but I would say based off of your reading no. Your prof. has varied but relatively interesting taste if you're genuinely interested in literature, though I could see how reading through those could become lackadaisical and mechanical.

That said I've seen a lot of lower level curriculum at private and public colleges alike, elite and middling and community colleges -- didn't matter -- and the literature is always... forced and disappointing. I hate myself for even saying it but diversity quotas and white guilt have ruined reading and writing programs across the humanities. Odds are on your average list you'll see a garden variety of obscure minority authors that are supposed to "challenge your presuppositions" (meanwhile all the ideas contained therein are virtually mainstream). They're challenging old taboos and mores for the sake of it at this point despite that fact that their orthodoxy maintains hegemony in universities. If they actually gave a shit about challenging you in these lower level courses they'd make you read some Evola, some military generals, some Chomsky and some theologians etc. ad nauseam. What they have you reading now is shit that 99% of young college students already agree with.

And when I say I hate saying that I mean it. I hate being that white guy with a penchant for shitting on modern lit programs in university. But that's about the state of things at this point.

If anyone else who works close with universities has a different perspective on it I'd love to hear it. I don't think I'm being hyperbolic here.