Why is English compulsory at school?

[jtbell]

Come live in South Jersey, the only place where people speak English without an accent.

I've never noticed any accent in Ohio. Of course, that may have something to do with my having grown up in Ohio.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Joisey is a North Jerseyism.

Which one is Jersey Shore located in :p

 

[FreeMitya]

Reading exposes you to new ideas. It allows you to explore different perspectives, gain a better understanding of the world around you. It makes you think. Even books I didn't like had some value. Classics teach you composition and how to put your thoughts down on paper so they sound intelligent, a skill which seems to be in decline. As someone pointed out, when you go to work, being able to compose reports, memos, or papers that are not painful to read will give you an edge over your less sophisticated peers.

Not to mention that it provides an emotional outlet. Great writers know what makes humans tick, and they express their knowledge in such creative and beautiful ways that I much prefer it to reading a neuroscience or psychology paper (though they certainly have their merits). How can anybody who's experienced loss not relate to In Memoriam, for example? Perhaps that's a bit extreme, but I honestly don't know where I'd be without my favourite writers. I've struggled with what I now think is neurosis for as long as I can remember, and if it weren't for the therapeutic benefits of my favourite verse and prose, I would be much worse off than I am now. Having a character with whom I can share in despair or anger or joy is extremely important to me, but this is probably making some laugh, so I'll stop.

Anyway, I try to keep an open mind, and one certainly does not have to read fiction to be intelligent, but the prospect that a great mind might abandon it makes me sad because I feel he/she is really missing a lot. I still think great writers are some of the smartest people in history, and it would be a shame for their wisdom to be forgotten. However, I fear I'm starting to sound like a melodramatic babbler.

 

[Tosh5457]

I don't know how it is in USA, but in Portugal in the 10th grade we choose the area we want (sciences, a mix of languages/social sciences, arts or economics). Though we all have the same class of Portuguese no matter what, which like OP I think it's ridiculous. Who goes to the Science area doesn't care for poetry, I learned absolutely nothing from it. You could argue that many people may learn, but I'd say there are much better ways to use that time (in other language skills as others have mentioned) than to interpret poetry. Besides that will affect grades, and someone who wants to study in the Sciences area shouldn't be evaluated for how he reads and interprets literature.

 

[turbo]

During my freshman year in engineering school, my honors adviser (professor emeritus of English lit) convinced me to major in English. It was a hard sell because English in HS was bland and boring due to out-dated materials and ill-prepared teachers. Still, he won me over. The study of language and literature was a lot more interesting than I had hoped.

I don't know how much English should be compulsory, but if it is taught by ill-prepared teachers using poorly-structured materials, it can be a waste of time. When I was 10, my parents bought a house (Yay!) and I had my own bedroom, which had been a walk-in closet. The previous owners had subscribed to cheap pulp versions of hardcover classics, so I got to read books by Dickens, Melville, Twain, Verne, and on and on that had been stored in my new room.

That was a better education in literature than I ever received in HS.

 

[FreeMitya]

During my freshman year in engineering school, my honors adviser (professor emeritus of English lit) convinced me to major in English. It was a hard sell because English in HS was bland and boring due to out-dated materials and ill-prepared teachers. Still, he won me over. The study of language and literature was a lot more interesting than I had hoped.

I don't know how much English should be compulsory, but if it is taught by ill-prepared teachers using poorly-structured materials, it can be a waste of time. When I was 10, my parents bought a house (Yay!) and I had my own bedroom, which had been a walk-in closet. The previous owners had subscribed to cheap pulp versions of hardcover classics, so I got to read books by Dickens, Melville, Twain, Verne, and on and on that had been stored in my new room.

That was a better education in literature than I ever received in HS.

I agree that independent study of literature has almost, if not as much merit as study in school, but like I've said before, if the teacher is good then there is a good chance that he/she has knowledge from years of studying various works and their authors that could really enhance a students understanding. The worst mistake a student can make is believing he/she does not need to be taught. In my opinion, it would be a travesty for a reader to pick up a challenging author like Faulkner or Joyce, read through, and put it down without any further reading or without being taught anything about the text, unless the reader is already highly educated, keen, and does not require teaching. However, I don't think many HS students are like that.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I agree that independent study of literature has almost, if not as much merit as study in school

I agree with this seeing as there isn't any measurable merit in the first place.

 

[FreeMitya]

I agree with this seeing as there isn't any measurable merit in the first place.

Based on what?

 

[WannabeNewton]

Based on what?

Based on the notion that studying literature and going on to write a PhD thesis in the subject is about as useful as majoring in enigmatology when it comes to utility. There's a difference between being a powerful author and trying to pick apart every mundane detail in that author's opus in order to make substance out of an otherwise empty vessel

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Based on the notion that studying literature and going on to write a PhD thesis in the subject is about as useful as majoring in enigmatology when it comes to utility. There's a difference between being a powerful author and trying to pick apart every mundane detail in that author's opus in order to make substance out of an otherwise empty vessel

Riiiiiight. Because the analysis of literature has never helped people explore new ideas and ways of thinking, nor discuss important issues that are difficult to talk about honestly do you see no advantage to things like feminist literally critique and how it can inform and help discussion on the role gender plays in society (used as an example from recently meeting someone who does just that).

 

[FreeMitya]

Based on the notion that studying literature and going on to write a PhD thesis in the subject is about as useful as majoring in enigmatology when it comes to utility. There's a difference between being a powerful author and trying to pick apart every mundane detail in that author's opus in order to make substance out of an otherwise empty vessel

So your advice to someone only interested in literary studies or the humanities in general is that he/she just shouldn't bother? I think that's narrow-minded, and if everyone had such a mentality, we would have far fewer critical thinkers. Whether you enjoy the practice of picking apart a text or not, it can't be denied that at the very least it forces people to think about what they're perceiving which, if utilitarian values are all we care about, does help them in the real world, and can be applied when listening to political rhetoric, for example.

What if someone's experience as a student of literature turned him/her towards becoming a writer, and he/she wrote a work that, through the power and feeling of his/her writing, inspired hope in someone that had none. It is a romantic ideal, but would that not be "useful"? It would be a sad world if all we cared about were material gain like the next fast computer or a toilet that compliments us.

Still, there is more to the human experience than just utility. I happen to not believe in an afterlife, so when I and others die, I want to know that I and others lived rich lives, whether we were romantics or rationalists. If literary studies or science help individuals achieve that, I'm all for it.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Riiiiiight. Because the analysis of literature has never helped people explore new ideas and ways of thinking, nor discuss important issues that are difficult to talk about honestly do you see no advantage to things like feminist literally critique and how it can inform and help discussion on the role gender plays in society (used as an example from recently meeting someone who does just that).

Like I said, keep it a hobby; people give literary analysis so much credit. 'Let's pick apart this author's book and come up with totally subjective remarks about it that can be bent into sounding way more profound than it was meant to be. Now let's debate over our subjective interpretations of another man/woman's writing!' I find it ridiculous people make this into a PhD venture.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Like I said, keep it a hobby; people give literary analysis so much credit. 'Let's pick apart this author's book and come up with totally subjective remarks about it that can be bent into sounding way more profound than it was meant to be. Now let's debate over our subjective interpretations of another man/woman's writing!' I find it ridiculous people make this into a PhD venture.

That doesn't address my points, just reiterates your dismissal. You're also being entirely too narrow with literature, it doesn't really matter what an author intended but what can be drawn from the story. For example it doesn't matter if author X didn't intend for their book to be homophobic but if it includes cultural behaviours that are homophobic or encourage a heteronormative worldview then there is merit in analysing those themes for broader discussin. Media is after all a reflection of the culture that produces it and I don't see how you can dismiss the exploration of culture through media. To trivialise literary criticism as you are doing is a massive oversimplification.

 

[WannabeNewton]

So your advice to someone only interested in literary studies or the humanities in general is that he/she just shouldn't bother?

I don't tell others what to pursue. They can do whatever their heart desires, just don't force me to do these things in school and college.

What if someone's experience as a student of literature turned him/her towards becoming a writer, and he/she wrote a work that, through the power and feeling of his/her writing, inspired hope in someone that had none.

If he/she wants to spend his/her life writing essays about interpretations of other people's works then he/she can do just that; like I said people can pursue whatever it is they love, it doesn't matter to me. But don't tell me this is a job that carries the state of society on its shoulders. You're literally dedicating your studies to looking at writings of others and coming up with extremely subjective remarks regarding what certain things in the specific book mean. I see little to no purpose in making this a career. What you stated would be nice if it could happen; the if's are few and far apart.

 

[jbunniii]

You're literally dedicating your studies to looking at writings of others and coming up with extremely subjective remarks regarding what certain things in the specific book mean. I see little to no purpose in making this a career.

I think if you become good at doing this sort of thing persuasively, you could do well as a lawyer. But there are probably more direct ways to sharpen that skill set.

 

[WannabeNewton]

That doesn't address my points, just reiterates your dismissal. You're also being entirely too narrow with literature, it doesn't really matter what an author intended but what can be drawn from the story. For example it doesn't matter if author X didn't intend for their book to be homophobic but if it includes cultural behaviours that are homophobic or encourage a heteronormative worldview then there is merit in analysing those themes for broader discussin. Media is after all a reflection of the culture that produces it and I don't see how you can dismiss the exploration of culture through media. To trivialise literary criticism as you are doing is a massive oversimplification.

I'm not saying any of this is useless; go nuts when your friends come over for some evening tea and discuss / debate like there is no tomorrow. Can you give me any merit in pursuing entire PhD studies in this? What worth does it have? If you want a selective, scholarly audience that debates these things in their own arena then fine all the power to them. If you want to effect a grand paradigm shift in the cultural norms then how effective is that same methodology? How would you have such ideas disseminate?

 

[WannabeNewton]

I think if you become good at doing this sort of thing persuasively, you could do well as a lawyer. But there are probably more direct ways to sharpen that skill set.

That is certainly true. It is also true that people may just want to do it for the sake of loving the subject which is great of course. I just want to hear people's reasons for why they would make this into an entire PhD ordeal and then a subsequent career; it has always intrigued me (other than the reason you just gave of course).

 

[FreeMitya]

They can do whatever their heart desires, just don't force me to do these things in school and college.

Then don't force aspiring humanists to learn maths beyond the bare, everyday essentials. If I remember correctly, in my school, everyday-life maths was only available in grade eleven. Do you see the problem with this kind of thinking? It's limiting.

'Let's pick apart this author's book and come up with totally subjective remarks about it that can be bent into sounding way more profound than it was meant to be. Now let's debate over our subjective interpretations of another man/woman's writing!' I find it ridiculous people make this into a PhD venture.

I have a few problems with this. One, I think it promotes shallow thought. How are we supposed to know what's profound or not without thinking deeply about it? Do we have some sort of direct access to the author's mind? Two, you're making debate sound ridiculous. Debate teaches us to form and utter our own thoughts coherently and to process foreign thoughts. I don't see how debate about anything can be considered entirely useless.

As for your final point, the farther one takes a practice, the better one gets at it. Just as in science, you get better as you progress in your study. Given that I believe that the skills acquired in humanistic studies are useful, they would only get better, as the environment provided by graduate school is generally more demanding.

If he/she wants to spend his/her life writing essays about interpretations of other people's works then he/she can do just that; like I said people can pursue whatever it is they love, it doesn't matter to me. But don't tell me this is a job that carries the state of society on its shoulders. You're literally dedicating your studies to looking at writings of others and coming up with extremely subjective remarks regarding what certain things in the specific book mean. I see little to no purpose in making this a career. What you stated would be nice if it could happen; the if's are few and far apart.

First off, I was thinking more of the student becoming a fiction writer than an essayist. Secondly, I call upon the old aphorism "Know thyself". If biology and anthropology are simply too stale a for a person, I see a great deal of use in the knowledge of humanity provided by writers and learning how to enhance the understanding of that wisdom through critical analysis, and good teaching helps to improve those skills. The whole point of creating characters is to represent human character, but I think that goes without saying. Moreover, I think it also goes without saying that knowledge of yourself and those around you is eternally important. Not everybody is smart enough to understand human character the way, say, Shakespeare did, without assistance.

 

[FreeMitya]

That is certainly true. It is also true that people may just want to do it for the sake of loving the subject which is great of course. I just want to hear people's reasons for why they would make this into an entire PhD ordeal and then a subsequent career; it has always intrigued me (other than the reason you just gave of course).

You answered your own question; they love it. Isn't that why people pursue physics as well? I know that's why I do. If I contribute in some way, great, but I primarily want to do something I enjoy. Why would anybody else feel differently?

Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were an angel of the Lord to come and drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present and past times, left inside. Our [Max] Planck is one of them, and that is why we love him.

-Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions.

 

[Tosh5457]

You're literally dedicating your studies to looking at writings of others and coming up with extremely subjective remarks regarding what certain things in the specific book mean. I see little to no purpose in making this a career. What you stated would be nice if it could happen; the if's are few and far apart.

Thankfully we live in free countries where we can do what we want. Let them do it if they love it. If they can make a living out of it, fine, if they don't, why would you care anyway?
Do you think you only do Science because it's useful? Don't you think there's anything more to it? It's pure bigotry to say that it has no purpose for people to follow something they like.

 

[micromass]

Then don't force aspiring humanists to learn maths beyond the bare, everyday essentials. If I remember correctly, in my school, everyday-life maths was only available in grade eleven. Do you see the problem with this kind of thinking? It's limiting.

You know what? I completely agree!

Please don't force me to take literary analysis classes that I think are boring and useless (again, this is my opinion only). I don't see the point in literary analysis. I would much rather take a good book and actually read it.

And likewise, if people don't enjoy mathematics (or don't think it's useful), then please don't force them to take mathematics. They should be able to do with their time what they want to.

Of course, very early in the education, there should definitely be math classes, language classes and literature classes. Just to teach the essentials. But once you get in high school, I feel that students should be completely free not to take literary analysis or math classes. It's essentially the choice of the students.

 

[FreeMitya]

You know what? I completely agree!

Please don't force me to take literary analysis classes that I think are boring and useless (again, this is my opinion only). I don't see the point in literary analysis. I would much rather take a good book and actually read it.

And likewise, if people don't enjoy mathematics (or don't think it's useful), then please don't force them to take mathematics. They should be able to do with their time what they want to.

Of course, very early in the education, there should definitely be math classes, language classes and literature classes. Just to teach the essentials. But once you get in high school, I feel that students should be completely free not to take literary analysis or math classes. It's essentially the choice of the students.

I'm actually glad I was forced to take maths. Around the beginning of high school I was still an aspiring professional musician. Had I not been forced to take maths, I wouldn't have discovered how cool it ended up being. Middle school maths wasn't very interesting to say the least. That's why I'm a little conservative regarding some aspects of education.

 

[jbunniii]

Of course, very early in the education, there should definitely be math classes, language classes and literature classes. Just to teach the essentials. But once you get in high school, I feel that students should be completely free not to take literary analysis or math classes. It's essentially the choice of the students.

The world would arguably be much better served if we replaced the current graduation requirements with a single course in personal finance, which students are not allowed to pass until they demonstrate the ability to calculate such things as "how long will it take to pay off a loan with such and such terms, and how much total will I pay?" and to understand basic contracts such as lease agreements. (Incredibly, this doesn't seem to be a graduation requirement in most school districts.)

If you can pass this, you can leave school any time you want. If you reach age 18 and haven't passed, you can leave, but you will not be allowed to sign any contracts or be extended credit until you do.

That will reduce the student population to maybe 20% of its present size (basically the kids who want to go to university), and they can study whatever they like, provided they meet whatever criteria universities wish to impose on incoming students. Education spending could be cut to a fraction of its current level, or we could maintain it and thereby raise per-student spending by a factor of 5, so the students who remain can have a really first-class education.

 

[Jow]

I don't know if we should introduce a personal finance course. Sure, it will make better citizens, but the western economy exist almost exclusively on people who are irresponsible with their money.

 

[drizzle]

High school is where one acquire all essential basic knowledge. Knowing 'fundamentals' is not restricted to one major or another, a student should know the basics of any discipline. This is much more beneficial than just focusing on certain subjects with weak backgrounds on others. However, in college, students can start to 'major' in any field of their choice. Besides, I cannot see how it's not useful, I can barely think of any discipline that does not include statistics/handling data, for example.

In any case, I'm not with leaving the option for students to decide what's fundamental or not--of course I mean science/math/language--except for some subjects which can be chosen based on students' interests.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I don't know if we should introduce a personal finance course. Sure, it will make better citizens, but the western economy exist almost exclusively on people who are irresponsible with their money.

This is golden. You sir just had a Jon Stewart moment.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Like I said, keep it a hobby; people give literary analysis so much credit. 'Let's pick apart this author's book and come up with totally subjective remarks about it that can be bent into sounding way more profound than it was meant to be. Now let's debate over our subjective interpretations of another man/woman's writing!' I find it ridiculous people make this into a PhD venture.

Again you're glibly dismissing and little else. Important fields like queer studies which have contributed to modern LGBT movements were partly born from literary criticism. The reason such subjects are worthy of PhDs is because a PhD is a novel piece of academic work. This is clearly academic so why shouldn't it be a PhD subject?

You know what? I completely agree!

Please don't force me to take literary analysis classes that I think are boring and useless (again, this is my opinion only). I don't see the point in literary analysis. I would much rather take a good book and actually read it.

And likewise, if people don't enjoy mathematics (or don't think it's useful), then please don't force them to take mathematics. They should be able to do with their time what they want to.

Of course, very early in the education, there should definitely be math classes, language classes and literature classes. Just to teach the essentials. But once you get in high school, I feel that students should be completely free not to take literary analysis or math classes. It's essentially the choice of the students.

How early? Would you agree that for mandatory schooling (schooling up to 16/18 depending on your country) it's important that students learn a bit of everything?

The world would arguably be much better served if we replaced the current graduation requirements with a single course in personal finance, which students are not allowed to pass until they demonstrate the ability to calculate such things as "how long will it take to pay off a loan with such and such terms, and how much total will I pay?" and to understand basic contracts such as lease agreements. (Incredibly, this doesn't seem to be a graduation requirement in most school districts.)

If you can pass this, you can leave school any time you want. If you reach age 18 and haven't passed, you can leave, but you will not be allowed to sign any contracts or be extended credit until you do.

That will reduce the student population to maybe 20% of its present size (basically the kids who want to go to university), and they can study whatever they like, provided they meet whatever criteria universities wish to impose on incoming students. Education spending could be cut to a fraction of its current level, or we could maintain it and thereby raise per-student spending by a factor of 5, so the students who remain can have a really first-class education.

Cute idea but I doubt it would work as the ability to make reasoned choices on financial matters requires an understanding of the subject matter as well as the finances involved. Try making a decision on whether or not it's best to spend money on medicine or herbal tea for instance. Also you wouldn't really decrease spending per students because now you have a generation of school leavers who don't really know anything and so to prepare them for either their careers or the qualifications they want to gain you're a going to have to spend a lot of money again. On top of that this negates the advantages of having a population with a broad base of education.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Except for a semester of English composition, university should be 4 extended years of vokey.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Like I said, keep it a hobby; people give literary analysis so much credit. 'Let's pick apart this author's book and come up with totally subjective remarks about it that can be bent into sounding way more profound than it was meant to be. Now let's debate over our subjective interpretations of another man/woman's writing!' I find it ridiculous people make this into a PhD venture.

If the poem's score for perfection is plotted along the horizontal of a graph, and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness.

 

[AlephZero]

Most PhD work in science is just as useless as PhD work on literature. How many PhD theses are actually read by anybody, after the approvals committee has signed them?

But that is not a good argument for abolishing science PhDs, or liberal arts PhDs either.