Why is English compulsory at school?

[micromass]

I think there is similar thinking behind forcing a balanced curriculum as there is behind drinking ages, smoking ages, the age of consent, etc., and that is that young people don't necessarily know what's good for them. Being forced to do something may seem barbaric to some, but what if your scientific venture fails, for example, what have you to fall back on? There is a massive gap in your education going all the way back to the beginning of high school if you chose to only study maths and science. That is why the most academic freedom comes in university, when most students are mature enough to make decisions and are generally more intellectually developed.

This is the entire point. The government established drinking ages and smoking ages. And what do young people do? Do they even care about those ages? No, they see adults smoking and drinking, and they want to do the same thing. So in fact, I think the entire "no drinking and no smoking" is rather counterproductive.

The same with literature. If you are going to force literature on students (like teaching it in class), then you can expect that most students start hating literature. Certainly if the books you assign are totally not engaging or interesting.
I think the easiest way to ruin the beauty of a subject is to let it being taught in high school...

 

[Astronuc]

OK, but just reading books is enough for that. I still don't see how a literary analysis class accomplishes the goal.
If the goal is to respect cultures, then movies do a great job as well. And so does actually talking to people of a different culture.

I think the goal of literary analysis is to learn how an author writes, that is sets the scene, develops the character, develops the plot, reveals the thinking and behavior of the character, . . . .

In theory, reading fiction is about putting oneself in another's shoes and thinking about how one would react in those circumstances.

Otherwise, people read fiction for entertainment/escape. Writers write fiction to earn a living, although some are really good story tellers, and they write primarily to tell stories and influence others. That's perhaps the difference between pulp fiction and classic literature.

I think a couple of the writers for Monty Python majored in English/literature. It worked for them. It worked for Abraham Lincoln, because he communicated with his colleagues and the public with storiers.

On the other hand, I strongly disliked having to read plays, poetry and most fictional prose, because I didn't care for analyzing the symbolism, etc, and I felt I could make better use of my time reading historical non-fiction, and math and science.

 

[Tosh5457]

As you can tell, I'm a great fan of democratic education. But I do realize that such a thing can only decently work if the students (and teachers) are motivated to learn and improve themselves. So I'm certainly not going to say it is a perfect system that should apply everywhere. I guess it is simply an education that I would have liked.

I agree with you on the other parts, but I don't understand how does that have to do with democratic education? I don't think most students are capable of making good decisions about what they should be educated. One thing that would happen is that schooling would be dumbed down so fast, because most students just want to do the less they can (and I include myself in this one when I was a high school student, but at least I realized the importance of education) and don't really realize the importance of education.

 

[micromass]

I agree with you on the other parts, but I don't understand how does that have to do with democratic education? I don't think most students are capable of making good decisions about what they should be educated. One thing that would happen is that schooling would be dumbed down so fast, because most students just want to do the less they can (and I include myself in this one when I was a high school student, but at least I realized the importance of education) and don't really realize the importance of education.

Like I said: it only works if both the students and the teachers are motivated. So leaving students completely free is probably not a very good idea, unless they are really responsible. A better thing would be to force them to do something worthwhile, but to let them choose what it is they do (from a certain number of options).

The hard part is to get the student motivated to learn something. Once you accomplished that, he won't take the lazy route. In a standard school system, teachers have to teach everybody. So they can't take out time for 1 vs 1 teaching and for motivating all the students. But maybe motivating students is much easier in a nonstandard environment.

I'm not an expert on it, so I'm just saying what I think here.

 

[Travis_King]

1. The vast majority of children (even up through high school aged) don't know what they want to do as a career.

2. Money. Programs cost money for teachers, classroom space, and learning materials, among other things. There are many high schools and even middle schools which have implemented, or plan to implement, curricula for engineering, business, psychology, the arts, and more. This, I think is a great thing, and I'm sure you Literature-naysayers would agree, given the common themes being thrown out here However, they are high level (as in, in engineering you'll learn electronics, mechanisms, civil, etc. Rather than just one field), and even the engineering ones typically don't rid you of those pesky english courses unless, maybe, you are in a private tech school, because these classes teach you...

3. Critical thinking. Maybe Scotty Fitzgerald simply liked the name Daisy when he was naming Gatsby's obsession. But your 8th grade english teacher isn't going to hear that for a moment. Discussion about literature give us practice at looking at things from many angles. It allows us to view things from other peoples perspectives, so that we might apply that in our dealings with other people. I thought Bartleby was a right jerk, and probably could have left the story at that, but I wrote an 8 page paper on how he compared to Sisyphus. It is an excercise in examining every aspect of the limited data one has in front of him and drawing as many correlations and conclusions as possible while remaining coherent and consistent.

4. They also get you writing. Most children and teens don't write for fun and only do so when they are given assignments. Most classes have you write reports, and I think it has been a growing trend that teachers in other disciplines are becoming more critical of students' writing, but no one scrutinizes the quality of one's papers more strictly than English teachers. This is a good thing. Even with 12 years of learning grammar and writing styles, the quality of many people's writing is dreadful.

5. If nothing else, it's practice with the tedious. Every career has things that are tedious, classes in which you are not fully engaged emotionally yet nonetheless require you to put in effort teach you how to do good work even if you aren't interested in it.

 

[FreeMitya]

Another thing I don't understand is why literature and poetry are held to such a high regard. Those topics are usually taught in high school. But what about music or movies?? Are they not culturally refined enough to discuss in the classroom?

I'm sure Shakespeare is brilliant. But I personally feel more emotional after listening to classic rock or after watching movies such as Lord of the Rings. But somehow, those things never end up being taught in schools. Rather, we are forced to read and analyze poems that we don't really care about.

I guess I'm saying that art is a very relative thing. Students should be taught to appreciate and understand art. If the students think that metal music is art, then so be it. Nobody can say that Shakespeare is better than metal music. Because nobody can make objective statements about art.

Perhaps I can provide an explanation as to why I think certain art is chosen in academics. While I agree that it's impossible to determine objective value in art, there are certain artists and certain works that have endured. That is, they have been important enough to a large enough number of people over long periods of time.

Let's look at Shakespeare. He has been read, translated, and republished constantly in the ~400 years since he wrote. The academy has recognised the apparent universality of his writing as he has had a great deal of influence and many different people of many different cultures throughout many different historical contexts. Despite social change, he has maintained relevancy. While this doesn't necessarily prove anything, he is apparently more important to civilisation than, say, his contemporary, Ben Jonson, which is why the academy focuses more on Shakespeare. Though this system is not perfect, it's better than teachers following their personal taste, in my opinion.

Shakespeare's writing, for whatever reason, has demonstrated more importance to English literary tradition than any other writing, which is why he is usually the focus of literary studies regardless of the personal tastes of the person or people designing the curricula. To quote the aforementioned Ben Jonson: "He was not of an age, but for all time!"

I would never presume to say which contemporary art will survive, but as to why contemporary artists aren't appreciated as much in the academy, I think it's partially because they're still young, and perhaps they haven't yet proven they've transcended context and achieved enduring universality in the eyes of academics. One thing I can say for certain is that not every artist working today will be appreciated in a few hundred years, whether for better or worse.

 

[FreeMitya]

And my ability to write extended essays about literary elements of a novel will rescue me in the event of such failure how exactly...?

Not you in particular (I guess I should have used the formal pronoun), but say a student started out in the sciences, decided it wasn't for him, but wanted to stay in university. If he only studied science in high school, what is he to do? The logical assumption is that a university wouldn't want a student in their humanities department who spent no time studying them in high school.

Students are getting into Harvard and Caltech science programs and going on to become successful scientists with the way the current curriculum is set up, and they are still learning from these English classes whether they think the information and skills are useful or not, so I really don't see what the big deal is. If you ask me, it's just complaining for the sake of complaining.

At the very least, constructing and enforcing a balanced curriculum relieves immature students of the responsibility that would come with choosing courses. It gives them a template for their education.

 

[WannabeNewton]

If you ask me, it's just complaining for the sake of complaining.

Well of course it is mate . It's not like any of us can change it at this point if we wanted to or not, for better or for worse. People are just sharing their opinions / frustrations is all. Of course being forced to take literature classes isn't the end of the world but it is nice to see why it is mandatory in the first place for reasons outside of "because students are too young to know what they want to do". Anyways, just to give you a more positive stance on the matter: I can certainly say there have been many circumstances where I have enjoyed classroom discussions pertaining to certain novels. I can tell you right now that I found the ones coupled with Shakespeare's works excruciatingly painful and at times felt the poor man was rolling in his grave knowing what English teachers were doing to stretch the meanings and truths in his works to ridiculous extents. The ones I enjoyed greatly were exactly those related to the books I listed in reply to Astro above. On the other hand, I love any and all political discourses.

 

[FreeMitya]

Well of course it is mate . It's not like any of us can change it at this point if we wanted to or not, for better or for worse. People are just sharing their opinions / frustrations is all. Of course being forced to take literature classes isn't the end of the world but it is nice to see why it is mandatory in the first place for reasons outside of "because students are too young to know what they want to do". Anyways, just to give you a more positive stance on the matter: I can certainly say there have been many circumstances where I have enjoyed classroom discussions pertaining to certain novels. I can tell you right now that I found the ones coupled with Shakespeare's works excruciatingly painful and at times felt the poor man was rolling in his grave knowing what English teachers were doing to stretch the meanings and truths in his works to ridiculous extents. The ones I enjoyed greatly were exactly those related to the books I listed in reply to Astro above. On the other hand, I love any and all political discourses.

I hope I didn't come off as too hostile; text can be hard to infer.

Yes, it takes a good teacher to teach a good work. While some things are not worth discussion, some things certainly are, and a good teacher who has studied the work and the author long enough can judge what is important, and deep thought is a skill that should be passed on to the student. Unfortunately, as I've said before, good teachers are hard to come by these days, especially in literary studies.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I hope I didn't come off as too hostile; text can be hard to infer.

Not at all.

Yes, it takes a good teacher to teach a good work. While some things are not worth discussion, some things certainly are, and a good teacher who has studied the work and the author long enough can judge what is important, and deep thought is a skill that should be passed on to the student. Unfortunately, as I've said before, good teachers are hard to come by these days, especially in literary studies.

Not to mention me going to a science and math focused high school didn't help in that regard. All the good teachers were mainly in the physics, bio, and math departments. The chem department along with the English department had horrible teachers (interestingly enough the history / politics department had great teachers but they were few in number).

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

English goes well for me when I have a decent teacher who is more liberal with how he/she teaches. Last year I really enjoyed my English 10 class because our teacher let us discuss whatever book we were reading as a class. This allowed us, as students, to give our thoughts on the book, or any interesting observations that we found, without any intrusion or pointless comments from teachers.

Conversely, this year, my British Literature teacher feels the need to give her own idea as to what went on in any given part of the book after a student makes a comment:

Student: "I think it's interesting how Hamlet's situation has become better as the play progresses, yet Ophelia has become more and more depressed."

Moronic Teacher: "Oh yes yes yes [one minute of ridiculous bantering]. In FACT, I would even go so far as to say that Ophelia is the most opressed character in the entire play!"

Class: *Is silent because the discussion is meant to be for students to convey their interpretations of the literature, not for the teacher to show off the fact that, yes, she has in fact read the play 20+ times in the duration of her career.*

That would almost be like a student in a math class excitedly telling his teacher that he has almost found the solution after quite some thought, and then the math teacher blurts out what the answer is, and how to get there, thus entirely ruining any further progress that the student could make, because now the solution has been revealed.

/rant