still true

I was going through some old word files, deleting as I went when I found a rant that I wrote tow years ago. Just because its out of date doesn't mean that it isn't true. It is as follows:

I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy and subjectivity of the English teachers across North America. Students are encouraged to be free thinkers and to write what they feel is true, while at the same time, nearly every honors level student in High School knows that good grades are generated by telling the teacher exactly what it wants to hear, which means regurgitating the prof?s lectures back to them. If a student writes a scalding critique of one of the teacher?s favorite books as an assignment, then that student will receive poor marks, nearly regardless of how well written that critique was. A prof will mask his or her subjectivity with arguments that the student made unfounded claims, or that the student had missed essential parts of the literature. Nobody gives a damn about what a person has to say on a subject until they can add five letters to their name: Dr. and Ph. D. A title which is given almost too liberally to literature majors.
A Science major must contribute genuinely new information, or scientifically valid theory to the world of science before they can be given their doctorate. A literature major rehashes what somebody more eloquent than themselves once wrote and claims that merely having an elevated understanding of how to bolster syntax or B.S. gives them the right to that esteemed title. Yet I don?t quite blame the system itself entirely. I also blame interpretive literature. Authors of the works that English majors analyze almost never, ever come out and tell people what they mean by their works. Instead they beat around the bush and pass the responsibility of deciphering their incomprehensible drivel to poor English students who often don?t give a damn that Coleridge?s opium addiction is particularly symbolic of the Romantic movement. The guy was a drug addict, the fact that he chose to write while stoned shouldn't make him any more significant than the guy on the corner who mumbles to himself.
To make English 101 a prerequisite for degrees in the sciences, business, engineering, and many other majors is absurd. Students are forced to pay to take classes that they would much rather not take, and has no bearing on their future carriers. To pay dozens of English Profs to lecture to students who memorize the material long enough to pass the exams, is a waste of student dollars and time. I, as an English student will not take anything from this class that was not taught to me in High School.
I propose a major restructuring of how language arts are taught. Instead of English 101, students should be required to take courses which will be beneficial to them in the pursuit of their particular fields. Science students should take courses on how to write stand up research reports and grant proposals, and read about scientific philosophy and ethics. Business majors should read books like the five rings, and interesting books about how to succeed in business, or the biography of Andrew Carnegie. I?m not even sure if Engineers should even have to take an English course.
The idea of the University which deliberately tries to put out a well rounded person is one which was never truly practiced and is an ideal which seems to be preserved only by the English department. Every other department sets students on a course of grater and grater specialization. This is a pragmatic course of action. It is not practical for a sedimentologist to also have an understanding of seventeenth century French poetry unless it is his hobby. Second year English courses are not even a requirement for Science students, so why force first year students into a course which makes some of them bitter enough to write one page rants in their free time?