Why is English compulsory at school?

[VertexOperator]

I really don't see the point in analyzing a text or writing a creative.
You can argue that learning English allows one to acquire essential skills such as communication, reading comprehension etc... but such skills can be acquired much more effectively in ways other than watching a movie then writing about how the low angle shot emphasizes the authority of character X who seems to symbolize the rigid hegemonic force of materialism; keeping the company to a conservative rule-bound world, limiting creativity and individuality.
I enjoy maths and science a lot so why do I have to learn these useless English figures of speech or poetry or whatever? The education system needs an update...

 

[phinds]

The education system needs an update...

Or possibly you need to broaden your horizons lest you end up being a really boring person regardless of whatever technical expertise you may acquire.

 

[turbo]

If you live and work in an English-speaking nation, English is very important. If you have to write a technical paper, and your grasp of English is poor, your paper may be poor regardless of your grasp of the technicalities.

IMO, the poets of the English Romantic period were compelling writers, and I enjoyed reading their works. As Phinds said, it might be good to broaden your horizons.

 

[VertexOperator]

Or possibly you need to broaden your horizons lest you end up being a really boring person regardless of whatever technical expertise you may acquire.

But I don't think the way English is structured is going to help me become a more interesting person. I like reading books and watching movies and I do watch movies, if fact I watched Django Unchained yesterday and I loved it, but what is the point of writing an essay on the movie to support a thesis, for example, "racism can denigrate ones's attempts to attain a state of happiness and satisfaction in life and may lead individuals who are being discriminated against to submit to violence in order to attain a state of peace". Then what we would do in English is find techniques in the text that support the thesis.
This can help but I think one can improve their English much more effectively by reading, communicating etc...

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You can argue that learning English allows one to acquire essential skills such as communication, reading comprehension etc...

That's exactly what I do argue. You have answered your own question in the title line.

but such skills can be acquired much more effectively in ways other than watching a movie then writing about how the low angle shot emphasizes the authority of character X who seems to symbolize the rigid hegemonic force of materialism; keeping the company to a conservative rule-bound world, limiting creativity and individuality.

Now you are not arguing about whether it should be taught, you are arguing how it should be taught. Rather you are arguing how it should not be taught. How should it be taught?

 

[VertexOperator]

That's exactly what I do argue. You have answered your own question in the title line.Now you are not arguing about whether it should be taught, you are arguing how it should be taught. Rather you are arguing how it should not be taught. How should it be taught?

It should be taught in a way so that it is useful for different types of people.
i.e. People who want to become lawyers, journalists, poets and writers should learn a different kind of English to people who want to become doctors, engineers and scientists.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It should be taught in a way that is suitable for different types of people.

But you have already told us that it should be taught differently. What I am asking is how it should be taught. How should it be taught to you?

 

[VertexOperator]

But you have already told us that it should be taught differently. What I am asking is how it should be taught. How should it be taught to you?

For example, doctors, engineers and scientists need to be effective communicators and have good reading comprehension so there should be a version of English that focuses on improving these skills. In the current English curriculum one can get very high marks by reading the analysis of the text on the internet (reading comprehension isn't improved this way) and I don't see how writing essays and creatives can improve communication skills.
Lawyers, writes etc... need to learn a different kind of English, so there should be a version for them.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

You are not communicating.

 

[Mute]

For example, doctors, engineers and scientists need to be effective communicators and have good reading comprehension so there should be a version of English that focuses on improving these skills. In the current English curriculum one can get very high marks by reading the analysis of the text on the internet and I don't see how writing essays and creatives can improve communication skills.
Lawyers, writes etc... need to learn a different kind of English, so there should be a version for them.

At the university level, sometimes there are such classes.

At the high school level, there's neither the resources nor a point to having such different classes. Students don't know what they're going to end up as when they're in high school.

Frankly, this kind of worldview is also pretty short-sighted. It's also kind of arrogant to think that you aren't learning anything useful to you by studying literature. You never know when something that you've learned can help you with some completely unrelated work, if only because it's trained you to be able to see things from different perspectives.

It also helps you be a better communicator with people who are not scientists. You can't get through life only communicating with people like yourself.

As a fictional example, there's a book series I've been reading about a cop in 90's China who studied English literature and Chinese Poetry in university, and the perspectives he's gleaned from poetry and his training in English often come in handy in the stories. It's a fictional example, yes, but again, those perspectives he's gained from extensive reading of poetry enable him to see his case at hand from a wide variety of different perspectives; one or more of those different perspectives is often important to solving his case.

Being able to think different is a vital skill for a scientist.

 

[VertexOperator]

At the university level, sometimes there are such classes.

At the high school level, there's neither the resources nor a point to having such different classes. Students don't know what they're going to end up as when they're in high school.

Frankly, this kind of worldview is also pretty short-sighted. It's also kind of arrogant to think that you aren't learning anything useful to you by studying literature. You never know when something that you've learned can help you with some completely unrelated work, if only because it's trained you to be able to see things from different perspectives.

It also helps you be a better communicator with people who are not scientists. You can't get through life only communicating with people like yourself.

As a fictional example, there's a book series I've been reading about a cop in 90's China who studied English literature and Chinese Poetry in university, and the perspectives he's gleaned from poetry and his training in English often come in handy in the stories. It's a fictional example, yes, but again, those perspectives he's gained from extensive reading of poetry enable him to see his case at hand from a wide variety of different perspectives; one or more of those different perspectives is often important to solving his case.

Being able to think different is a vital skill for a scientist.

Ok, makes sense.
It is my final high school year, next year I will not have to study literature :)

 

[StevieTNZ]

High School is not the appropriate place to teach individual courses for various communications.

That is for university. For example, I am enrolled in this course: http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/learning/programme-course-paper/paper.cfm?paper_code=119.177 which is tailored to the IT industry.

 

[VertexOperator]

As a fictional example, there's a book series I've been reading about a cop in 90's China who studied English literature and Chinese Poetry in university, and the perspectives he's gleaned from poetry and his training in English often come in handy in the stories. It's a fictional example, yes, but again, those perspectives he's gained from extensive reading of poetry enable him to see his case at hand from a wide variety of different perspectives; one or more of those different perspectives is often important to solving his case.

This reminds me of the story of Steve Jobs. He said studying typography was a huge factor in his success. He described fonts as being "artistically subtle, in a way that science cannot capture". You can say the same about literature, can't you? :)

 

[Drakkith]

Ok, makes sense.
It is my final high school year, next year I will not have to study literature :)

I think you are falling into the classic pitfall of "why the F do I need to study this?"
This happens to practically everyone. There are people who absolutely love to write, read, and analyze movies, stories, and poetry. And a great many of those people probably say "why the heck do I need to learn math or science? I'm not going to use them". I think this is as much of a mistake as what you are saying.

It is very difficult to look beyond what you like and understand and try to comprehend that which you think is boring or perceive to be unnecessary. However, typically you couldn't be further from the truth in my opinion. The ability to understand WHY and HOW people work, think, and act (all of which are part of analyzing english) will drastically increase your understanding of the world. One of the hardest things for many people to do is to develop empathy towards those they do not know. To be able to recognize others as real people and accept that their problems are just as important to them as yours are to you. And even understand those people who you absolutely cannot tolerate, the ones you may hate, deride, and chastise, whether they deserve it or not. This is one of the most important things a person can do in my opinion, and I believe it leads to a wisdom that is absolutely incomparable to anything else in the world.

While it may not seem like learning the way to frame a scene would lead to this, it is all one part of a much larger concept. Ask yourself, "why does framing the scene this way make this character look more intimidating?" and "why is this important? What does it do to the film? What does it represent in the larger sense?" If you do not try to go deeper, to dig beyond the surface, you will never appreciate the understanding it can bring you.

Remember, it's not the rules that are important, it's WHY the rules are there in the first place. That's the real question sometimes. And you can apply this to practically every area of life, even work. Once you understand why things are the way they are, a great many things in life become much easier to understand. Rules are put in place for a reason, even if you don't like them or agree with them. But if you understand why they were put there in the first place it is usually much easier to deal with them. (Or change them in some cases)

 

[Astronuc]

I really don't see the point in analyzing a text or writing a creative.
You can argue that learning English allows one to acquire essential skills such as communication, reading comprehension etc... but such skills can be acquired much more effectively in ways other than watching a movie then writing about how the low angle shot emphasizes the authority of character X who seems to symbolize the rigid hegemonic force of materialism; keeping the company to a conservative rule-bound world, limiting creativity and individuality.
I enjoy maths and science a lot so why do I have to learn these useless English figures of speech or poetry or whatever? The education system needs an update...

I believe one is criticizing the necessity of the study of literature, rather than the broader subject of English, which would also include grammar, composition, rhetoric, communication, etc. I can sympathasize with the doubt on literary criticism or analysis. I really didn't care for fictional works, except perhaps science fiction, and I preferred to read for enjoyment rather than having to read for the purpose of analysis.

I would prefer to read historical documents, e.g., writings of historians or political leaders, than some piece of fiction, although I selectively read fiction. My greatest frustration was being forced (mandated by the school district/faculty) to read someone else's idea of 'classic' literature, e.g., Shakespeare, which I did not enjoy, nor did I care for.

At university, my entry essay wasn't great, so I was assigned to a literature class, probably to ensure employment for English grad students, rather than a writing/communications class. The literature class was for me a waste of time, whereas a writing/communications class would have been more approriate.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I would prefer to read historical documents, e.g., writings of historians or political leaders, than some piece of fiction, although I selectively read fiction. My greatest frustration was being forced (mandated by the school district/faculty) to read someone else's idea of 'classic' literature, e.g., Shakespeare, which I did not enjoy, nor did I care for.

That's what History is for. :-)

At university, my entry essay wasn't great, so I was assigned to a literature class, probably to ensure employment for English grad students, rather than a writing/communications class. The literature class was for me a waste of time, whereas a writing/communications class would have been more approriate.

We are lucky that we do not require interviews/writing essays for admission into a NZ university. (in general; there may be certain degrees that require additional items in order to enrol, e.g. an art portfolio.)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I took the compulsory composition 101 course at Rutgers U. We spent the entire time reading essays on a wide range of topics (no novels, or other kinds of literature) and writing our own essays on what we had read. Unfortunately, I had not yet developed my current style of writing or I would have enjoyed the course so much more than I did. It was really about critical thinking and how to write essays and in that sense was quite focused. And yet, since everyone had to take the course, the essays were about history, politics, religion, literature, and the sciences etc. In other words, you were likely to find your own major in there somewhere. The final consisted of writing a research report that conformed with what we had learned about essay writing along with proper citation of bibliographic materials. We were allowed to choose any topic whatsoever and since this was at the time that Bobby Fischer had just won the World's Chess Championship and I like to play chess, I chose for a topic, his aggressive style of play.

 

[VertexOperator]

I believe one is criticizing the necessity of the study of literature, rather than the broader subject of English, which would also include grammar, composition, rhetoric, communication, etc. I can sympathasize with the doubt on literary criticism or analysis. I really didn't care for fictional works, except perhaps science fiction, and I preferred to read for enjoyment rather than having to read for the purpose of analysis.

I would prefer to read historical documents, e.g., writings of historians or political leaders, than some piece of fiction, although I selectively read fiction. My greatest frustration was being forced (mandated by the school district/faculty) to read someone else's idea of 'classic' literature, e.g., Shakespeare, which I did not enjoy, nor did I care for.

At university, my entry essay wasn't great, so I was assigned to a literature class, probably to ensure employment for English grad students, rather than a writing/communications class. The literature class was for me a waste of time, whereas a writing/communications class would have been more approriate.

I like this :D
My friend got 99.6 in high school because his English mark was low which dragged him down :(
I will make sure I do well in English so that it doesn't affect my university admission mark by a lot.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I really don't see the point in analyzing a text or writing a creative.

I whole heatedly agree with you. Many people, not only here but all over the country, confuse literature classes with grammar and writing classes. The latter two are crucial but these skills are NOT what a high school literature class teaches you. To this day I have not once had to use the useless 6 years of literature classes I was forced to take. I feel your pain but unfortunately there is nothing you can do. Rejoice in the fact that once you are in college you will, hopefully, no longer be forced to take any more of those feckless classes. I learned about writing and grammar by reading books on my own and the New York Times; I did not learn one fruitful thing from the literature classes, on the other hand, except how to write essays about things that matter so little in the real world it just blows my mind (if sometime in the future the philosophical ramblings in Frank Kafka's Metamorphosis come in handy or if the extended character analysis of Antigone just happens to change my life for the better, I will surely recant these statements). Literature classes seem to be guarded by certain educators who advocate facets of the subject that ostensibly seem beneficial but in reality will serve no practical purpose.

 

[russ_watters]

I really don't see the point in analyzing a text or writing a creative.
You can argue that learning English allows one to acquire essential skills such as communication, reading comprehension etc...

Question asked and answered.

...but such skills can be acquired much more effectively in ways other than watching a movie then writing about how the low angle shot emphasizes the authority of character X who seems to symbolize the rigid hegemonic force of materialism; keeping the company to a conservative rule-bound world, limiting creativity and individuality.

Not sure what kind of paper that was, but in general, writing about anything can make one a better writer. The subject is not really all that important, the fact that you are writing is what is important.

I enjoy maths and science a lot so why do I have to learn these useless English figures of speech or poetry or whatever? The education system needs an update...

When you get into the professional world, you will either:

1. Be glad you have excellent communication skills.
2. Wish you had paid more attention to the education you were given.

Once you get a job in your field, everyone will be the same when it comes to credentials in the field. At that time, communication skills become one of the most important things that separates people.

I do watch movies, if fact I watched Django Unchained yesterday and I loved it, but what is the point of writing an essay on the movie to support a thesis...

Intellectual development. There is no reason why movies can't be just fun but if that's all you want, but if you want intellectual growth, you need to go deeper.

But I don't think the way English is structured is going to help me become a more interesting person.

If "I loved it" is all you can say about a movie, that doesn't make you an interesting person, it makes you a shallow, boring person.

People who want to become lawyers, journalists, poets and writers should learn a different kind of English to people who want to become doctors, engineers and scientists.

You aren't in college yet, are you? If you are, are you far along in your major? When you get far along in your major, you will take specialized writing/communications courses, but they don't have any value until you've learned the subject matter. Until then, general communications skills provide a good base.

 

[InvalidID]

If "I loved it" is all you can say about a movie, that doesn't make you an interesting person, it makes you a shallow, boring person.

I find interestingness and shallowness similar to intelligence; they're too complicated to conclude that a person is interesting or no, they aren't interesting. Scoring well an IQ test proves that you are good at writing IQ tests - it doesn't gauge how intelligent you are. Scoring well in English class proves that you are good at analyzing text - it doesn't gauge how interesting you are.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If "I loved it" is all you can say about a movie, that doesn't make you an interesting person, it makes you a shallow, boring person.

I don't always love movies, but I loved The World According to Miley Cirus.
http://media.heavy.com/media/2012/09/most-interesting-man-single-piece-flow.jpg

 

[jhae2.718]

Because it are importantly for you to be is able to word good.

 

[VertexOperator]

because it are importantly for you to be is able to word good.

lololol :D

 

[Jow]

Why is English compulsory at school? Why is math compulsory at school? Why is science compulsory at school? Why is school compulsory? Just because you don't like the subject doesn't mean it is useless. English is probably in fact one of the most useful subjects, because no matter what area you decide to go into, if you can't write properly it doesn't matter how good you are in that field. This is especially true for tertiary education. If you can't write a decent paper what good are you?

 

[WannabeNewton]

English is probably in fact one of the most useful subjects, because no matter what area you decide to go into, if you can't write properly it doesn't matter how good you are in that field. This is especially true for tertiary education. If you can't write a decent paper what good are you?

He specifically gave examples about classes that involve analysis of literature. How does this relate to research paper writing skills? Why do people keep making this fallacious link between literary analysis of English texts and proper writing abilities? There is a difference between having a good command of grammar and having a good command of hyperbole, simile, metaphor, allusion, personification, and visceral / descriptive language. One does not need any of the elements in the latter list to be able to properly use, for example, grammatical morphemes in a paper. I don't need to be able to take up a copy of Ulysses and venture into the grandiose technique of stream of consciousness so beautifully employed by Joyce or scrutinize the intricacies of the "nadsat" in A Clockwork Orange in order to make sure the subjunctive is not misused or that I don't follow my commas with independent clauses instead of dependent clauses. No one is arguing that writing and vocabulary are not pivotal so why do people keep making this argument? The things being discussed are literary analysis classes.

 

[VertexOperator]

Why is English compulsory at school? Why is math compulsory at school? Why is science compulsory at school? Why is school compulsory? Just because you don't like the subject doesn't mean it is useless. English is probably in fact one of the most useful subjects, because no matter what area you decide to go into, if you can't write properly it doesn't matter how good you are in that field. This is especially true for tertiary education. If you can't write a decent paper what good are you?

The title may suggest that I am not happy with English being compulsory but that is not true. The only thing I am not satisfied with is the way it is being taught.
I can think of much more effective ways in which English can be taught so that it is more useful in the workplace.
I do appreciate the essential skills one can acquire by studying English such as clear, effective and concise communication, reading comprehension (essential especially for research) and writing skills but I believe that literary analysis, although can help improve those skills, does not achieve it in the most effective and efficient way.

 

[Jow]

Literary analysis is extremely effective in improving communication. How else would you propose to improve reading comprehension other than by analysing what you read? I don't know what you do in your classes but when I do literary analysis I write essays and/or paragraphs. How does this not help me improve my ability to get my point across concisely? Any activity in which you are made to get across your opinion on any subject (whether it be literature or something else) helps build communication skills. You cannot get better at anything without practice. Literary analysis is just another way to practice language skills.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I learned much more about how to communicate and write effectively from my history and politics classes than I did from literary analysis classes. Why? Because the former deals with tangible things that actually matter and actually incite strong opinions in people whereas the latter deals with elements of literature the likes of which are argued mainly by experts in the field. I can take my political opinions and put it into writing in order to effectively get a message across because such aspects of the world pertain to me directly and induce strong emotions whereas an essay on why Fitzgerald made the beacon light green in The Great Gatsby imbues as much emotion in a person as an episode of Seinfeld. If one wishes to forge a medium for proper communication and expression then one should use a nexus of ideas that inspire and provide relation, not center on specific literary aspects of a single book.

 

[Mute]

The title may suggest that I am not happy with English being compulsory but that is not true. The only thing I am not satisfied with is the way it is being taught.
I can think of much more effective ways in which English can be taught so that it is more useful in the workplace.
I do appreciate the essential skills one can acquire by studying English such as clear, effective and concise communication, reading comprehension (essential especially for research) and writing skills but I believe that literary analysis, although can help improve those skills, does not achieve it in the most effective and efficient way.

What do you think about the way math is taught?

There are lots of people who think the way math is being taught is stupid*, and they think we should only teach stuff directly relevant to the math people would need in their daily lives. Why should we force students to learn algebra when they can get by with BEDMAS?

*While one can certainly make the case that the way math is currently being taught in the US is stupid, gutting it so that we only teach 'essentials' for daily live is probably more stupid.

 

[BobG]

There is a difference between having a good command of grammar and having a good command of hyperbole, simile, metaphor, allusion, personification, and visceral / descriptive language. One does not need any of the elements in the latter list to be able to properly use, for example, grammatical morphemes in a paper.

Look at this way. English is kind of like an apple, except with a stem on both sides.

I'm not sure if that's a simile, hyperbole, or metaphor, but, whatever it is, it would probably be a lot more understandable if I'd actually learned anything in English class.

Seriously, my favorite part of English class was diagramming sentences. I could lift or push the rest of it.

 

[Jow]

I learned much more about how to communicate and write effectively from my history and politics classes than I did from literary analysis classes. Why? Because the former deals with tangible things that actually matter and actually incite strong opinions in people whereas the latter deals with elements of literature the likes of which are argued mainly by experts in the field. I can take my political opinions and put it into writing in order to effectively get a message across because such aspects of the world pertain to me directly and induce strong emotions whereas an essay on why Fitzgerald made the beacon light green in The Great Gatsby imbues as much emotion in a person as an episode of Seinfeld. If one wishes to forge a medium for proper communication and expression then one should use a nexus of ideas that inspire and provide relation, not center on specific literary aspects of a single book.

Granted, people learn communication skills better when what they are using to practice said skills is something they find interesting. In your case you found history more interesting and realistic, therefore you felt more compelled to write about it. However, this is not the case for everyone. Some people would much prefer literary analysis (myself for an example). I think literary analysis is the best medium for learning communication skills because it works and it keeps everything in the context of english, rather than going into other disciplines like history, or politics.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Granted, people learn communication skills better when what they are using to practice said skills is something they find interesting. In your case you found history more interesting and realistic, therefore you felt more compelled to write about it. However, this is not the case for everyone. Some people would much prefer literary analysis (myself for an example). I think literary analysis is the best medium for learning communication skills because it works and it keeps everything in the context of english, rather than going into other disciplines like history, or politics.

Well sure, you should use whatever works best for you; this is certainly not an issue. No one should be restraining you from doing what you like and using that with which you are most comfortable. I think the OP's original question however was why should we make these literary analysis classes mandatory for everyone.

 

[HeLiXe]

The only thing I hated about English was my professor trying to make it fun.

 

[BobG]

The only thing I hated about English was my professor trying to make it fun.

Diagramming sentences from Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates is fun. Try diagramming one of Sarah Palin's sentences.

 

[HeLiXe]

Diagramming sentences from Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates is fun. Try diagramming one of Sarah Palin's sentences.

*imagines a stick figure moose*

Why do you always make the bright side so bright?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Try diagramming one of Sarah Palin's sentences.

Lol and them submit it to Jon Stewart. It would be comedy gold.

 

[Astronuc]

The only thing I hated about English was my professor trying to make it fun.

I would enjoy a root canal without anathesia more than an English literature class.

 

[russ_watters]

He specifically gave examples about classes that involve analysis of literature. How does this relate to research paper writing skills? Why do people keep making this fallacious link between literary analysis of English texts and proper writing abilities? There is a difference between having a good command of grammar and having a good command of hyperbole, simile, metaphor, allusion, personification, and visceral / descriptive language.

What, you've never used them in a technical context? Not even when trying to present something to a non-technical audience? I recently compared my job to a game of Tetris! It went over very well.

 

[WannabeNewton]

What, you've never used them in a technical context? Not even when trying to present something to a non-technical audience? I recently compared my job to a game of Tetris! It went over very well.

But maybe that was because of the awesomeness of Tetris . In that context however, I certainly do agree with you that when explaining things in a non - technical manner to an audience an ability to describe things in a more decorative, visual manner would be vital.

 

[VertexOperator]

What, you've never used them in a technical context? Not even when trying to present something to a non-technical audience? I recently compared my job to a game of Tetris! It went over very well.

Can't you use logic to do that? I mean you don't really need to have done English to be able to do that.

 

[HeLiXe]

I would enjoy a root canal without anathesia more than an English literature class.

Bien dit!

Bien dit = well said...this disclosure is to keep in adherence with PF guidelines.

 

[russ_watters]

Most of this "will I use this/will I use that" stuff is irrelevant anyway. That's not why you are learning certain things. You are learning such a broad range because:

1. You are young and odds are you don't know what you want to do yet. So it is good to get a taste. If all you learn is that you hate literature and don't look for meaning in movies, it's still a valuable lesson.
2. Schools aren't designed for you, they are designed for all kids.

 

[BobG]

I would enjoy a root canal without anathesia more than an English literature class.

Dentists assure patients that a root canal without anasthesia is fairly painless. It's the pre-root canal pain caused by an infected tooth, cutting to drain the pus from any infections, and the possibility that the patient is biting into an infected tooth that causes the pain.

Drilling into a relatively healthy tooth is a lot more painful.

Haven't you ever watched Marathon Man?

In fact, it's from the dentist in that movie that I heard root canals are relatively painless.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

The actual concept behind a literary analysis class is admirable, in that the process of analyzing what you read and deciphering it for yourself is a skill that everyone should possess.

However, this skill is only useful when what you are analyzing actually contains some substance, and isn't simply an ambiguous novel that can be interpreted in so many different ways to where nothing useful can be said about it; this is the case for every English class I have experienced (aside from a class devoted entirely to grammar), and to every other English/Literary Analysis class I have heard about.

 

[FreeMitya]

Because the education system is designed to provide balance. I'm sure there are a lot of aspiring literary critics, writers, etc. who think that, for them, maths and science are a waste of time beyond, of course, the very essentials of each subject.

I think it would be sad if, going into high school, for example, a student who wanted to focus only on science and maths missed out on something he/she might love only because he/she felt he/she didn't need.

 

[Astronuc]

I learned much more about how to communicate and write effectively from my history and politics classes than I did from literary analysis classes. Why? Because the former deals with tangible things that actually matter and actually incite strong opinions in people whereas the latter deals with elements of literature the likes of which are argued mainly by experts in the field. I can take my political opinions and put it into writing in order to effectively get a message across because such aspects of the world pertain to me directly and induce strong emotions whereas an essay on why Fitzgerald made the beacon light green in The Great Gatsby imbues as much emotion in a person as an episode of Seinfeld. If one wishes to forge a medium for proper communication and expression then one should use a nexus of ideas that inspire and provide relation, not center on specific literary aspects of a single book.

Exactly! There is an enormous treasury of writing of folks like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Ellery Channing, Theodore Parker all of the 18th and early 19th century, and Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Abraham Lincoln, William Seward and many others from the 19th cent, not to mention other legal, political or social literature from Europe and Asia. For me, fiction pales in comparison to the essays of real people.

I'm currently reading a book on Lincoln's writings. In the back is a section of 'study aids'. In the first part, the author refers to one of Lincoln's earliest letters and says, "The average college graduate should be able to write as good an address as this one." It then goes on to ask questions about the essay and encourages the student to think about various aspects of the address. I would much prefer analyzing Lincoln's essays/letters/addresses than some piece of fiction.

Seriously, my favorite part of English class was diagramming sentences.

I remember that from 8th and 9th grade. Otherwise, English tended to drag down my GPA.

 

[Astronuc]

Dentists assure patients that a root canal without anasthesia is fairly painless. It's the pre-root canal pain caused by an infected tooth, cutting to drain the pus from any infections, and the possibility that the patient is biting into an infected tooth that causes the pain.

Drilling into a relatively healthy tooth is a lot more painful.

Haven't you ever watched Marathon Man?

In fact, it's from the dentist in that movie that I heard root canals are relatively painless.

Where the tissue is necrosed, yes, one does not feel the auger. However, when the auger reaches live tissue, one can feel some intense pain, which is fine. Perhaps I should have indicated root canal or other surgery without anasthesia.

In my only root canal operation, the orthodontist did offer a local anasthetic. I thought it better to go without so I could tell him when he reached live tissue in my gum so that we could be sure he had removed the dead tissue. The sharp pain was more tolerable than the dull pain from the abscess.

 

[russ_watters]

Another important reason to learn about similes and metaphors (skip to the last minute...or don't, if you need to be educated on the concept of irony):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg

Warning, there may be profanity in the act, but I'm not sure as I'm not fluent in Irish.

 

[WannabeNewton]

LOL that man is bloody brilliant! You know what should be mandatory? A class on acquiring an Irish accent because I am in love with their accents. I'm tired of my NYC accent.