As I read the text of Rob Balder's latest PartiallyClips strip, about whether magic is perhaps secretly taught in universities, I experienced a moment of terror over whether linguistics was going to turn up in the third panel. But our discipline dodged the bullet. Check it out.
Rob Balder was in fact an English major, and makes a brutal remark about Communications in the comments below the strip: "Is it a Business degree with the math removed, or an English degree with the soul removed?"
By the way, if I may interpolate a word of syntacticianly nerditude here, that's a lovely piece of colloquial workaround in the last sentence uttered by the female speaker in the strip:
"What if the magic program is magically disguised as some other major? Maybe a useless one where nobody knows what the hell it is."
In that noun phrase a useless one where nobody knows what the hell it is, the where construction is a loose workaround to avoid making a relative clause that has the gap inside an interrogative content clause.
A relative clause like that nobody knows anything about __ would be OK, because the gap merely strands a preposition in a PP complement (I assume that in know NP about NP we have a direct object and a PP complement, not a direct object and an adjunct). But it is ungrammatical (or at least very awkward from a processing point of view) to have the gap inside a constituent that already has a gap because of some different construction. In "nobody knows what the hell it is __" we have an interrogative content clause (what the hell it is) containing a gap where the complement of the copular verb (is) would have been. So if the woman in the conversation had tried to use (say) a that-relative clause she would have come out with this:
a useless one that nobody knows [what the hell __ is __]
— and that has two gaps in the open interrogative content clause (bracketed). Ordinary speakers with no training in syntactic analysis are perfectly capable of sensing that such a phrase would be something of a disaster for processing. So what the woman does is to use where in a loose way that makes it rather like some uses of such that. In a phrase with such that, you don't need a gap: you can say a useless one such that nobody knows what the hell it is. [Actually, you don't even need an anaphoric pronoun in a such that clause. This point was the main focus of an argument that I had with James Higginbotham in 1985: see Linguistic Inquiry 16, 291-298. Hey, listen, I did warn you that this was going to be syntacticianly nerditude, not the usual Language Log chit-chat.] An introductory where can work the same way, as you see in the strip.
So the woman has avoided a nasty syntactic crisis — what she needs ideally is a relative clause that has the gap inside a constituent that also has to contain the gap associated with the interrogative what, but that's forbidden by either syntax or processing constraints. She finesses the problem with a neat deployment of where + Clause. Brilliant. Unconscious syntactic expertise is all around us, every day, in almost every conversation or piece of casual writing.