Graff felt it was hard to make literature a staple since it was for the wealthy. 

"Strictly speaking, there were no "acedemic literary studies" in America or anywhere else until the formation of language and literature departments in the last quarter of the nineteenth century" (58).  But literature was used more as an assistant to the other disciplines and the study of Greek and Latin. 

To bring literature studies into the academic spectrum,  Arnoldian humanism and scientific research were merged.  This was almost ironic and did cause issues.  Arnold's view was broad, but the scientific view wanted to narrow it down and put it into categories hence into fields.

Field-coverage model (1870s and 1880s): "conceived literature departments as aggegates arranged to cover an array of historical and generic literary fields" (61).   As with anything it has pros and cons.  It allows for there to not be so much management of professors from heads, but it causes compartmetezation and lack of communication between instructors.  Can cause a Tower of Babbel effect with different professors speaking different languages.

"The field-coverage principle effected at the administrative level what the humanist myth perperuated at the level of ideology.  In combination, the two provided a solution to the problem of how to "organize literature" that removed the need for continued collective discussion (63-4).

Going against the Arnoldian thoughts it was thought "that research sacrificed literature's potential as an instrument of socialization to the narrow inteersts of a professioal clique" (66).

Robert Scholes: "...to teach the literary text one must teach the "cultural text" as well" (64).

philistinism: a person who is guided by materialism and is usually disdainful of intellectual or artistic valuesb; one uninformed in a special area of knowledge (Webster).