Is literature education a real necessity to teach in public schools?

[Watershed]

Among high school students and college students, you always here the arguement that "Math, Science, Foreign Language, and History all serve some sort of practical purpose that can aid you in the job market, but all learning about literature helps you with job-market-wise is to become a literature educator or critic."

Basically, there is a strong feeling that the learning of literature in and of itself is not useful as a core-curriculum class, the arguement then being that English should primarily focus on writing and the study of the English grammatical theories (advanced English linguistics).

Now there are concerns that teaching literature does fufill, including:

-Similar to one of the arguements for history, they provide a cultural background and a universal reference point of occurence we can refer to. So in the same way we can all know about WWII and use it in analogies, we can also use Shakespeare.

-Literature does provide a way to improve reading comprehension

But, still, I do feel that perhaps the importance of literature from a compulsory academic point of view is times over-estimated. Whereas history, the other great social science, aids one in a myriad of fields, especially ones in government and journalistic work, literature still is not really necessary to learn about except to teach it or study it. Publishing and creative writing both can be pursued through other much more lucrative fields, such as English language and business.

So, my belief then is that the best way to treat this situation is this. In high schools and perhaps colleges, for English requirements, students should be offered two options.

1. An English course which primarily focuses on literature
2. An English course which primarily focuses on linguistics

The literature one will be a traditional later-grades English class, where the writing is primarily essays relating to how well you've studied a work of literature and much of the class has to do with comprehension, while the linguistics one will focus much more on learning about the craft of writing in general along with the study of the language and its facets in high level detail. This one might go in depth on the theories behind clause usage and the numerous meanings of words based on contexts, etc.


I think this would be a good idea and aid a lot of students that want to gain English skills more than cultural skills.

[Etienne]

How is maths important for someone who won't do a math related job? How is history important for someone who will do a job that has nothing to do with history, etc. etc.? Two things: Development of different brain capacities and a general basic knowledge of different areas, so that we do not produce simply working machines but people, and people who has a perspective as broad as possible, especially important in such society as we live in (I'm not saying that we DO succeed in "producing" people with a perspective or a general culture whatsoever...) But again, I could go farther in why I believe such a general culture is important, but I'd be rambling all day long having to go through other waters to introduce or develop certain points, which I will spare you and do not feel like doing anyways.

This whole "utilitarian" mentality of gold-producing-robotic effectiveness really does have all my spite, scorn and annoyance when I consider my children and children's children might be more and more subject to it, as the trend seems to be going. Otherwise it mostly raises a feeling of pity in me. My opinion is that if everyone was a bit more versed in literature, the world would be a better place.

[annakarina]

That this should even be brought up is the very reason I won't be raising my kids in North America.

[JBI]

Man can survive only with instinct, and with hands on learning in a wilderness. It is the advancement of thought which places man above beasts.

Literature has shaped and is shaping the world. Why not allow people to understand it. Language is the most powerful thing in this world, and what makes man the most dominant thing in the universe.

[iloveoscar]

The study of literature improves critical analysis abilities, which can help in any field. And, as a high school English student, I can say that there is an AP class offered at my school which focuses mainly on writing and then another class offered the following year based on literature, so students are receiving both sides of the spectrum. In addition, I have yet to see where AP calculus is going to help me at any point in life, unless I will someday need to find the area under a random curve.

[Watershed]

The study of literature improves critical analysis abilities, which can help in any field. And, as a high school English student, I can say that there is an AP class offered at my school which focuses mainly on writing and then another class offered the following year based on literature, so students are receiving both sides of the spectrum. In addition, I have yet to see where AP calculus is going to help me at any point in life, unless I will someday need to find the area under a random curve.

Yes, but AP Calculus is elective, whereas English for four years is most always mandatory. Generally, higher mathematics are extremely important for involved finance jobs, scientific, architectural, and engineering jobs. Literature does not have that broad range.

My argument is this. English is required to be taught along specific lines, while math is generally flexible. We should allow English students the same choice of flexibility to recieve linguistic or literary training, and critical analysis is also taught through history anyway, and I'm sure they will still teach it in the linguistic one, only that they'll be studying comprehension from a much more technical than social point of view.

[Igetanotion]

Turn on any television to any show with teenagers, watch MTV for five minutes, or listen to young people talking at the mall. If for nothing more then an expanded and more inteligent vocabulary, Literature should be taught.
besides, for some people, the only time they have ever read a book was in those High-school classes.

[hellsapoppin]

I worked for many years in the tax field including a long stint as an IRS agent. One of my assignments was as a teacher of taxation and audit techniques. Amazingly, my best students were always liberal arts majors rather than accounting or business students.

These scholars were often more intellectually gifted, more flexible, better able to absorb information and to integrate it with lessons previously learned. They retained the info better and could use it more readily at work than could the business students. And it is the priceless lessons learned while reading great literature than enabled these students.

If it works that way in the tax field, it can work on a similar basis in all fields. This is why we must always encourage our youth to read good books as these will enable them to excel in all occupational fields.

[HotKarl]

Well, I'm sorry to say that all too many people perceive literature as a useless art that only offers careers to people who want to go through life with "their heads in the clouds." I'm sorry that literature isn't viewed as "practical."

Plenty of people have pointed out Lit's value to critical thinking. Let me make another point.

Literature is absolutely necessary. Have you ever heard someone say that good readers make good writers? Of course you have. Because it's true. Plenty of people can make grammatically correct sentences, but that doesn't mean they are rhetorically effective. Have you seen the misuse of passive voice in politics? The incoherent memos at your work place? The poor instructions that came with your computer printer? i guarantee you one thing--they were all written by people who don't care doodley-squat about literature.

The more people read, the more effectively they communicate. Educated ancient Greeks knew hundreds of rhetorical devices that allowed them to communicate clearly to their readers. How did they pick them up? Where did they learn them from? Greek drama and poetry. (Un)Coincidentally, these are the same people who democracy, advanced math, and science. When we read, we unconsciously pick up sentence patterns and syntax. Literature, just like grammar class, teaches us how to write, and it's a better teacher than any grammar book.

Don't take communication for granted. Next time your cursing at the desk you're trying to put together, remember that they probably skimped on liberal art educated technical writers. When you listen to an convoluted political speech, remember that the speech probably came from people who think that literature is for "overeducated academics." Literature is essential.

Giving kids an option to skip lit will only make them dumber. Is that what school is supposed to be about?

[SleepyWitch]

1. An English course which primarily focuses on literature
2. An English course which primarily focuses on linguistics

The literature one will be a traditional later-grades English class, where the writing is primarily essays relating to how well you've studied a work of literature and much of the class has to do with comprehension, while the linguistics one will focus much more on learning about the craft of writing in general along with the study of the language and its facets in high level detail. This one might go in depth on the theories behind clause usage and the numerous meanings of words based on contexts, etc.

I like this idea a lot, Watershed, but I think, ideally, every high school student should be exposed to both of them.


How is maths important for someone who won't do a math related job? How is history important for someone who will do a job that has nothing to do with history, etc. etc.?Two things: Development of different brain capacities and a general basic knowledge of different areas, so that we do not produce simply working machines but people, and people who has a perspective as broad as possible, especially important in such society as we live in (I'm not saying that we DO succeed in "producing" people with a perspective or a general culture whatsoever...) But again, I could go farther in why I believe such a general culture is important, but I'd be rambling all day long having to go through other waters to introduce or develop certain points, which I will spare you and do not feel like doing anyways.
:thumbs_up very well put, Etienne.

[Tersely]

My class was divided between composition and literature. Not only was I more cultured and aware, but I could put it down on a piece of paper coherently. I wouldn't change the way they did my literature class. If I wanted extra in literature I take an elective. If I wanted more composition practice...hello Creative Writing 101.

When we all read together in highschool, it bonded all my classmates no matter what their popularity status was. I could turn to a group of people you know your mother wouldnt want you associating with and we could, in that brief moment of time, connect. If I was lucky, I made friends and we could even get to know eachother outside of class.

Isn't that a valuable life skill some of us need in life?
Manners, Networking, Associating?
Keep it in the schools.

[PeterL]

Man can survive only with instinct.


Good point, let's get rid of all unnecessary education.

[SleepyWitch]

When we all read together in highschool, it bonded all my classmates no matter what their popularity status was. I could turn to a group of people you know your mother wouldnt want you associating with and we could, in that brief moment of time, connect. If I was lucky, I made friends and we could even get to know eachother outside of class.


that's cool, Tersely. how did your teacher achieve this? what do you mean by "read together"? I don't think we ever really read together in high school :(

[Tersely]

She cut the class in two and had our desks facing eachother. We'd play this game called "Pass the Poe" (which was a stuffed doll of Edgar Allen Poe) and whoever caught it had to read a page. Then they'd toss it to the next person to read a page. Something that simple was actually really fun to do. Afterwards we'd have a huge group discussion. She was one of the best teachers I ever had, and the reason I'm studying literature now.

[Quark]

Watershed you're really depressing me here. First, you tell me the short story is dead, and now literature, as a whole, has no educational value. Although, it sounds more like you have a problem with liberal education than with just English in particular. Is vocational training the only real purpose of education? Would you also discredit philosophy or music on the same grounds as English?

[Kafka's Crow]

I am glad I live in a country where English is regarded as one of the very few 'real' disciplines as opposed to other 'Mickey Mouse' subjects. English is the only 'traditional' subject left among the top 10 most subscribed courses in UK universities.

[stlukesguild]

Unfortunately, to many the sole purpose of education is the practical, utilitarian preparation or the student for the workplace. This has been the mindset of education for years: education for employment. And of course we must focus upon those forms of employment that are most "important" to maintaining our economic and military hegemony: mathematics and science. Everything else is but "filler": art, music, literature especially. In most cases these subjects are justified merely as planning periods for the classroom teachers who teach the important stuff or by arguing that the study of one or another of these disciplines aids in the more important ones: ie. those who study music have a greater understanding of mathematics. Never do we need to justify math or science thus (those who study science do better at music).

[Orpheus]

Man can survive only with instinct, and with hands on learning in a wilderness. It is the advancement of thought which places man above beasts.

Literature has shaped and is shaping the world. Why not allow people to understand it. Language is the most powerful thing in this world, and what makes man the most dominant thing in the universe.

The Universe is a big place, my friend, one of which we know very little. However, I do agree that words have a lot of power.

[Shalot]

How is maths important for someone who won't do a math related job? How is history important for someone who will do a job that has nothing to do with history, etc. etc.? Two things: Development of different brain capacities and a general basic knowledge of different areas, so that we do not produce simply working machines but people, and people who has a perspective as broad as possible, especially important in such society as we live in (I'm not saying that we DO succeed in "producing" people with a perspective or a general culture whatsoever...) But again, I could go farther in why I believe such a general culture is important, but I'd be rambling all day long having to go through other waters to introduce or develop certain points, which I will spare you and do not feel like doing anyways.



This is a funny paragraph and a great example of why studying literature is useful. If you read well written sentences, you will learn to write them as well. But, you can convey basic messages with lousy writing and sometimes that's all that is required in the work world. And if the majority of the population is poorly educated or unable to comprehend say, a finance or agreement for example, then you can screw a lot of people and make money off of their ignorance. Maybe this is why education is a joke in America, unless you pay for it. And even then, how can you be sure you're getting what you paid for.

[Watershed]

I never said literture didn't have educational value. In the original post I clearly stated that it did, and all I said was that we should offer a choice to students. If a student is going into a pure technical field, let them study just writing versus the more cultural discipline of literature. If someone desires a liberal arts education, let them have literary education.

We should always teach how to convey your ideas through writing, and a class on linguistics in English would all be about that. That's the whole point. It would teach you the proper way to form sentences and utilize vocabulary and write most effectively and comprehension would be a huge point. It would merely ignore the cultural dimension involving literature. If someone wants a traditional English class instead, let them have it.

[Watershed]

And wait guys, how does studying literature improve communication? Whenever I took writing lessons from the books I read in school, I got an F. I was reading Oliver Twist in my English class, and I was in a Charles Dickens mood, so I wrote my history midterm like that, and it made no sense. The reading of literature improved my ability to write fiction, but it has either had no effect on my expository writing, or whenever I tried to write an essay like a narrative, I did extremely poorly.

Effective expository writing of a techical nature is entirely different that of literary writing, and it is learned entirely through the study of technical writing and not the study of literature. If you study good technical writing, you learn how to be a good technical writer. Literary writing is written so differently with so different intentions, it will only help other literary writers improve. That's not to say that the cultural and comprehension benefits still aren't there, because they are there, and they are huge plusses of studying literature, but I definitely take objection with this idea that studying literature will make people better writers in a technical sense.

[Kafka's Crow]

So if one wants to write effective 'technical' pieces, he should read a Periodic Table or a list of formulae? Most of the bosses at my workplace have MBAs and other such degrees, the standard of written communications is absolutely appalling. There is no substitute for effective communication-skills, period. Most top CEOs are chosen for their presentation and communication-skills, their ability to convince, motivate, negotiate and communicate. Middle managers are the 'technical' people who write memos full of greengrocers' apostrophes and become laughing-stock of their subordinates. This happens all the time. Maybe the dental situation and this apostrophe are unique to my fellow countrymen alone (I bloody hope so!). Communication, communication, communication. Literature does help improve communication. You can't blame Oliver Twist for someone else's short-comings. A sense of linguistic prowess is at the root of all good utterances. Whether you accept it or not, there, still, are good jobs for English graduates and they do make positive contribution whether in the offices of newspapers, in broadcasting houses or in classrooms and boardrooms. This is just to answer the utilitarian objections. I would not even touch upon the intrinsic value of cultural studies in the continuation and advancement of civilisation.

[Watershed]

So if one wants to write effective 'technical' pieces, he should read a Periodic Table or a list of formulae? Most of the bosses at my workplace have MBAs and other such degrees, the standard of written communications is absolutely appalling. There is no substitute for effective communication-skills, period. Most top CEOs are chosen for their presentation and communication-skills, their ability to convince, motivate, negotiate and communicate. Middle managers are the 'technical' people who write memos full of greengrocers' apostrophes and become laughing-stock of their subordinates. This happens all the time. Maybe the dental situation and this apostrophe are unique to my fellow countrymen alone (I bloody hope so!). Communication, communication, communication. Literature does help improve communication. You can't blame Oliver Twist for someone else's short-comings. A sense of linguistic prowess is at the root of all good utterances. Whether you accept it or not, there, still, are good jobs for English graduates and they do make positive contribution whether in the offices of newspapers, in broadcasting houses or in classrooms and boardrooms. This is just to answer the utilitarian objections. I would not even touch upon the intrinsic value of cultural studies in the continuation and advancement of civilisation.


I agree with you, and that's why we should teach them English linguistics, so they understand the best way to communicate with the English langauge rather than just making them memorize facts about olden books. They should be learning how to write effectively in a technically way by studying well-written memos and all that.

An English major is great. I'm talking about a literature major. A lot of these technical people should study the language of English, so if they had a choice in their high school to focus on that instead of the cultural study of literature, then maybe they would be better writers.

[Remarkable]

I cannot believe that this debate has been brought up!This is exactly why I never want to live in the States in the first place!

High School is all about preparing your background and giving you general knowledge.If one goes at university,than one might select their own subject as they wish.Literature is the basis for all the future references:a person that has not read cannot make a good discussion,cannot critisise simply because of lack of culture.I might say now why do we learn about electricity when I'm not going to be an engeneer?It is outrageous to want to put literature aside!And watershed,if you had an F,that might be because of your poor litetary skills.There is no shame on that,I know people that are wonderful at science but can't even write an interesting pharagraph.Language is not the only thing;and then,still,reading improves it much better,makes you a master.As of history,you have much more sense when you have read a lot,you can express it better,you can justify it in a way that it could be very convincing.

[Etienne]

And wait guys, how does studying literature improve communication? Whenever I took writing lessons from the books I read in school, I got an F. I was reading Oliver Twist in my English class, and I was in a Charles Dickens mood, so I wrote my history midterm like that, and it made no sense. The reading of literature improved my ability to write fiction, but it has either had no effect on my expository writing, or whenever I tried to write an essay like a narrative, I did extremely poorly.

I'm not sure if you expected anyone to take this argument seriously "I've read a book and I got an F in an history paper after, thus reading is useless"? That makes absolutely no sense as an argument.

[nathank]

If nothing else reading a wide range of literature will expose you to a much broader array of life experiences than the average person could ever have in a lifetime. Reading books like "Raisin in the sun," "Grapes of wrath," "Invisible man," even "War and peace"," really makes you reflect on your views of the world and the people in it. Of course, for this to actually happen in a school setting you would probably need of VERY open minded teacher who is willing to be challenged be his or her students (something I've almost never seen).

[stlukesguild]

I cannot believe that this debate has been brought up!This is exactly why I never want to live in the States in the first place!

The idea of education for employment... and stressing only the most "practical" fields of study is most certainly not limited to the U.S. Math and Science followed by Reading and Writing sit atop the educational hierarchies around the world. Art, music, literature, theater, poetry, dance, philosophy, etc... these are often seen as just so much "filler". Personally, I believe that education up to a certain level... preferably college/university... should be as broad as possible. The notion that the student drawn to technical or mathematic/scientific fields should be able to choose only to study those fields is nonsense. We already have far too many one-dimensional human beings. I know with a certainty that had I been given the choice I would not have taken any mathematics or science in high-school... and might have passed on history and social sciences as well. While I've rarely ever put any of the advanced algebraic formulas to work in my private of my professional life (although I do employ geometry as an artist), I do not regret having made the effort to study something beyond my personal field of expertise. How many students drawn to the more "practical" or "utilitarian" fields of study will choose to study literature or music or art if given the choice not to? Our culture is already largely dominated by the mass media and popular culture... for many, the exposure to the arts they receive in school will be the only glimpse of a culture beyond pop culture they will know. For many others it will provide the spark leading them to investigate further on their own.

The following link offers some interesting thoughts on how we go about educating children today. The clip is quite humorous... but makes some interesting points or raises some interesting questions with regard to this notion of teaching with an eye to the practical:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY

[Aiculík]

You know, if we start thinking this way - what is necessary to learn for life after school - we could easily come to conclusion that there's not that much, besides basic skills of reading, writing and counting. We should only teach kids these, and then wait till they're old enough to choose what they want to study and do in their life. They'd be uncultural, unitelligent and ignorant to everything in the society besides their own work, but to hell with that. That won't help them to make money, and money is the only thing that matters. :rolleyes:

Literature teaches you to understand texts, to analyse and interpret them, to read also 'between lines", to decode different meaning of the text. And that's more than useful in every day life, even for matematicians. We have to read, analyse and interpret many texts: news, articles, reports... If people wouldn't be able to understand, e.g. what politician in TV really says (they very rarely say something directly) it would be very easy to manipulate them. To make them understand only what somebody else wants them to understand.

And as for literature improving communication skills - people who read a lot, have much bigger vocabulary, can use different registers, use different styles, create correct syntactic constructions more easily, and their spelling is much better. Their speech is more fluent, without fillers like "er..", they can usually express exactly what they want and are better in formulating their arguments - in both oral and written form.

[PeterL]

Effective expository writing of a techical nature is entirely different that of literary writing, and it is learned entirely through the study of technical writing and not the study of literature. If you study good technical writing, you learn how to be a good technical writer. Literary writing is written so differently with so different intentions, it will only help other literary writers improve. That's not to say that the cultural and comprehension benefits still aren't there, because they are there, and they are huge plusses of studying literature, but I definitely take objection with this idea that studying literature will make people better writers in a technical sense.

There is no fundamental difference between technical writing and writing fiction. The differences are form and the type of content, but both are written to communicate something in written language.

[kilted exile]

The idea of education for employment... and stressing only the most "practical" fields of study is most certainly not limited to the U.S. Math and Science followed by Reading and Writing sit atop the educational hierarchies around the world. Art, music, literature, theater, poetry, dance, philosophy, etc... these are often seen as just so much "filler". Personally, I believe that education up to a certain level... preferably college/university... should be as broad as possible. The notion that the student drawn to technical or mathematic/scientific fields should be able to choose only to study those fields is nonsense. We already have far too many one-dimensional human beings. I know with a certainty that had I been given the choice I would not have taken any mathematics or science in high-school... and might have passed on history and social sciences as well. While I've rarely ever put any of the advanced algebraic formulas to work in my private of my professional life (although I do employ geometry as an artist), I do not regret having made the effort to study something beyond my personal field of expertise. How many students drawn to the more "practical" or "utilitarian" fields of study will choose to study literature or music or art if given the choice not to? Our culture is already largely dominated by the mass media and popular culture... for many, the exposure to the arts they receive in school will be the only glimpse of a culture beyond pop culture they will know. For many others it will provide the spark leading them to investigate further on their own.

The following link offers some interesting thoughts on how we go about educating children today. The clip is quite humorous... but makes some interesting points or raises some interesting questions with regard to this notion of teaching with an eye to the practical:


OK, I have a few general points to make & also to address some of the parts in this post relating to my experience with school system etc.

1) English Literature is important to study because understanding literature develops skills in understanding all written & spoken language - connotation, irony, tone etc.

2) The teaching of English should also cover topics on grammer & report writing. I know my spelling & grammer skills became progressively worse after the age of 16 when grammer was no longer mentioned & instead all the time was devoted to critical analysis of literature.


All right, now to St.Lukes post. I do agree that high school should provide a well rounded curriculum, however as students become closer to graduation this becomes difficult to do whilst still providing an adequate level of information in the class. I will use the system of school I went to for an example.

Throughout the ages of 13 - 14, all students studied every subject available at the school, this usually meant around 2hrs per subject per week in class. Just enough for the pupil to get to know what the subject is about and whether they would enjoy studying it at a more advanced level.

At 15, we got to choose for the first time what subjects we wanted to study, however there were strict guidelines: Everyone had to take English & Mathematics; One Social Studies (History, Geography, Modern Studies or Religious Studies) subject was required; One technical subject (Craft & Design; Graphic Communication; or Technological Studies (electronics, pneumatics etc)); One Secondary Language (French; German; Spanish; Urdu or Latin; One Science (Biology; Chemistry; Physics; Human Biology); Two elective classes (anything so long as it fitted on the schedule/timetable) & One modular class (pure enjoyment, no exams to speak of). At this stage it would be generally 3hrs a week for the main classes & 1hr for the module. These are the same subjects studied for the next two years. A large percentage of pupils in the area I went to school leave after these 2yrs, it is typically only those intending to go on to further education that reamain

After that the number of courses is reduced to 5 - again with English & Maths both as pre-requisites. The other three can be anything you wish, that you studied over the previous 2 years (as an example mine were Biology;Chemistry; & Physics) This last year is very advanced with regards to the amount of information given as it is a university prep year in all but name.
Typically there is 5hrs in class time for each subject with the rest of the time given for private study & report work.

Now, in order to provide the pupil with the correct level of knowledge to continue their studies at university this amount of time is required, I do not see it as feasible to make all students study all subjects after the age of 14.

[Watershed]

There is no fundamental difference between technical writing and writing fiction. The differences are form and the type of content, but both are written to communicate something in written language.

I disagree. As you can tell by my poorly written posts, clearly the effects do not transfer. Narrative writing and the like is about creating effects and reactions in the reading and communicating stuff through a greater significance, whereas technical writing has to be to the point. Great fiction writers write garbage essays all the time, because the styles are a different type of communication.

[Oomoo]

The ability to recognize recurring motifs, find abstract ideas expressed in a specific story, understand how different periods of intellectual history are expressed in the constantly changing styles of literature are all beneficial to one's intelligence. These are the benefits of reading literature critically; but the active reader can make more out of it.

Creative writing is very different from technical writing. I would not necessarily argue it is only concerned with creating reactions in the reader; although it uses words, it paradoxically expresses that which words cannot express.

P.S
obvious troll ...

[aabbcc]

I personally believe that it is absolutely necessary to teach literature, and history of art, and philosophy, foreign languages, and a few of the other alike subjects, which are commonly viewed to be "unimportant" or "futile". Perhaps they are futile, in a way that one cannot profit economically out of some general knowledge on them; but those subjects precisely are that which is going to make you noble, in sense, raise you to the level higher than of a humanoid machine which owns solely that little technical knowledge which was taught, with limited view and feel of a world.

Some things or subjects are not meant purely to be utile economically, or to look cool on curriculum vitae, or to present precise knowledge - some things are meant to educate in one larger sense, to a point of being able to say that they raise more than just serve as utile knowledge. Even if you are not going to deal with them professionally, they are meant to be here to open some gates and some doors of perception to you - as well as to bring you to the level of well-educated citizen of your country, as a lot of material covered in those lessons consists of general cultural knowledge which one later in life feels ashamed of not knowing and not being able to recognise.

Just as children should be able to think scientifically and be given such perspective of the world, they should not be deprived of artistic one; for let us not forget one thing. On the anorganic level, it is about atoms; on the organic level, it is about cells; but on the level beyond, it is about signs. Whole of the culture - language, art - is made up of signs.
And guess what? Only humans have it. As a matter of fact, you could argue that that is precisely what makes us different than animals; another reason why, if something, it should be encouraged more in schools.

[Kafka's Crow]

Critical thinking is necessary to keep the values of truth, honor, duty and beauty alive in the world. No amount of technical knowledge can cultivate this knowledge. One sonnet by someone like John Donne holds more truth and understanding of life and death than all the technical manuals, books and booklets. Our world would, definitely, be the poorer and worse off without critical thinking and what better way to teach our young how to think critically than exposing them to the reflection of culture, life and truth in the form of literature.

[PeterL]

I disagree. As you can tell by my poorly written posts, clearly the effects do not transfer. Narrative writing and the like is about creating effects and reactions in the reading and communicating stuff through a greater significance, whereas technical writing has to be to the point. Great fiction writers write garbage essays all the time, because the styles are a different type of communication.

I included the word "fundamentally" in my comment with great deliberation. I agree that the styles are very different, but the general content, information, and the medium, writing, are the same. Whether one is writing an instruction manual or a novel, the writer must provide the information in the order and degree of detail that is necessary for the reader to understand what is being conveyed. Great fiction writers write great essays; mediocre writers of fiction are probably the ones who wrote the "garbage essays" that you mentioned. Great, and even just good, writers of fiction can change their styles to account for the requirements of different kinds of writing. Consider Umberto Eco, who has written great works of fiction, non-fiction, humor, and other. Swift wrote in different styles to reflect what he wrote about. We don't have any of Shakespeare's writing other than plays and sonnets, but he probably could switch into other styles.

[Grace&Chemicals]

As a student of both science and literature, I must strongly disagree. To say literature offers nothing to those outside of academia is an absurdity. Show me someone who is successful in business, mathematics, engineering, etc. who has not studied literature. Whether they liked it or not is irrelevant. Reading and writing about literature is essential to ensuring students are developing the skills in writing, and speaking, that are needed in all fields of the workforce. In addition to this, what is more important than the written word? It is the only way we can communicate our experiences to others through time. If literature is not stressed as an important subject, we run the risk of forgetting what makes us human.

[Silvia]

Oh yes, it is!
Literature education really opened to me a new world...I feel I'll never thank my teachers enough for introducing me to literature (both Italian, and that of the other languages I study in Highschool)in the way they did it!
As someone here has already said, it "opens" your mind, in the sense that it really makes you think of things you wouldn't even consider otherwise....I mean, it enriches you humanely and emotionally!!
Moreover, " all the subjects you study at school won't serve you in practical life" as my philosophy teacher would say, probably adding "don't behave like vispe terese!":nod:
Knowledge of literature may not be required at your working place, but surely it'll mean much to you, because knowledge of literature is knowledge of mankind, knowledge of human thought. It provides you with a means by which you can dig into yourself and others...

[poofyhead15]

is this really a serious question? just put some kid who read in middle school/high school on their own accord next to someone who watched MTV every afternoon. That should be enough of a scientific study to show how important literature education is. I took all the advanced lit. classes in high school and am only now starting to appreciate the works and take more of an interest in the tremendous wealth of great stuff out there. But without the exposure to it initially, I don't think the interest would be there. God help us if we only teach kids what is deemed "necessary." Look how art and music are being taken out of schools.

[dramasnot6]

The wonderful thing about literature, is the incorporation of all that is essential to the study of the English language with the study of texts- the ultimate application and exploration of words in human society.
Literature is everything- it is philosophy,science,psychology,English, history, cultural studies, it is the world through writing.
Literature allows you to read and write while learning why these things are so important and beautiful.

Even the kids who failed my lit class and want to go into an entirely different profession loved lit. Where as those who just studied English tended to be a lot less passionate and excited about the subject.

Literature as a high school class changed my life. In my opinion, the study of literature is the height of intellectual expansion.
'nuff said? :)

[Sucundus]

I agree that a passion for literature may bring forth more educated and productive members of society, But not only in that aspect. I don't believe that this is a "utilitarian" society at all. Our educational system surely has it's weaknesses and flaws but students are only given a general education in hopes that some of what they learned would be usefull in the future regardless of their career choices. If we focused more on literature and took away from the other ciriculums wouldn't we be creating a utilitarian society based on the knowledge of literature?

[kandaurov]

I admire your courage, because even though users of this forum are very open-minded, this has to be the toughest crowd you could preach this idea to :p

I'll try to present yet a further argument in favour of teaching literature in school; if it has already been presented, my apologies, I must have overlooked it.

I read very little besides comics until I came to the age of 15, maybe 16. Then, because I chose Humanities, I had to read a couple of portuguese and english classics, and now I'm a literature fiend. It's a very good idea to be exposed to all kinds of subjects at an early stage, including literature, so that you can find your true vocation.

[amanda_isabel]

i've heard that question before. :) personally though i really can;t answer that question. the only thing i can say about it is that literature is a pretty good mirror of what society was like at the time it was written, and thus reading it would help us appreciate our past.

:) a little addition--i was once saying to someone that i hoped to be someone as big as shakespeare, and he told me that he'd hate me for it, because i'd be the cause of the failing literature grades of his descendants :)

[superunknown]

I disagree. As you can tell by my poorly written posts, clearly the effects do not transfer. Narrative writing and the like is about creating effects and reactions in the reading and communicating stuff through a greater significance, whereas technical writing has to be to the point. Great fiction writers write garbage essays all the time, because the styles are a different type of communication.
I think there's something to that. I mean, take Orwell as an example, he always was really more of a journalist/essayist, that's how he started out, and even when he wrote novels it still had more the feel of an essay. Don't get me wrong, I've read all his novels and I do think he was a very good novellist (Coming Up for Air perhaps being the one exception), but he wasn't as concerned with the actual language in the way that a real literary novelist, for example Hemingway, would be. In Orwell's case language was used to convey meaning, not to celebrate its own beauty.

I do agree, however, that studying literature improves your analytical skills. This was made overwhelmingly clear to me after my first few lessons with my 9th grade English teacher, who clearly had a passion for the subject and had a way of analyzing a book which no previous teacher I'd had possessed. He was the one person in my life who got me interested in literature and for that I owe him a lot, and being (not to brag) probably one of the brightest and most genuinely interested students he's had we formed quite a close bond. Needless to say, I wouldn't have given up that education for anything, and my life has become extremely enriched by it - never mind that whatever job I may go on to have will have nothing to do with literature, or even that I'm not now doing a degree in it (though I'm still an avid reader and, having talked to some of the people over here doing literature degrees, much more knowledgeable about it than many of them). But back to what I was talking about, I definitely think that studying literature has made me a much more perceptive and intelligent person, as well as exponentially increasing my capacity to express myself. Really, just show me anyone who is well-spoken and eloquent and I'll show you someone who will have done a fair bit of reading. I'm not necessarily referring to the classics or Ulysses but just reading in general (obviously going beyond just The Da Vinci Code).

Also, but this is just my personal preference, I believe that a condition of employment of every English teacher should be a little gleam of insanity in the eyes.

[teejay17]

But, still, I do feel that perhaps the importance of literature from a compulsory academic point of view is times over-estimated. Whereas history, the other great social science, aids one in a myriad of fields, especially ones in government and journalistic work, literature still is not really necessary to learn about except to teach it or study it. Publishing and creative writing both can be pursued through other much more lucrative fields, such as English language and business.
You're overlooking the very important fact that History, the Social Sciences, and the other "myriad of fields" (especially ones in government and journalistic work) can all be improved, indeed can almost be taught completely, using Literature for a base. The saving grace of Literature is that it encompasses all of the fields you've just jotted down, and then some.
I believe that if people were not cultured in Literature, then the other subjects would suffer a stifling and uncreative existence.

[Erichtho]

My experiences with literature in secondary education aren't too good, in fact I'm sure many people in my class have been scared away from further occupation with literature because of which and especially how literature was taught. Even though I have been an avid reader during those years (reading high literature, not trash) I was never able to find any interest or even pleasure in those lessons.

But still I think teaching literature is ultimately necessary, since - let's face it - many, if not most students will never return to it after school again. The literature curricula in schools create the body of what we call canon - those works of which knowlegde is assumed amongst almost every social circle; and sooner or later people will feel ashamed for not knowing and not being able to recognise those works.

Reading literature is certainly enriching me, both intellectually and emotionally, and gives me access to many things I could not experience in any other way. Although my teachers have failed to enthuse me for literary criticism they still have given me a solid overview about the different literary periods and the most known (national) authors, a foundation on which I can pursue further studies on my own.

[ReynardKitsune]

literature is my favourite subject and i love it that it is availablde as a subject the lessons are so relaxing and is the only one i find true pleasure in.
it also makes me understand alot of things and also depicts alot of picture and human nature in my mind

[hhc]

A few reasons why litterature should be taught in highschools:

1. It teaches you not to see the world just with the eyes of logic, money, egoism, etc. It introduces you to a way of seeing that gives a chance to dreasms, humanism, philosophy, wondering, love and altruism. If you're wondering about the practicality of this, let's just say that if you take it seriously, it might stave off depression, mental or emotional breakdown when you reach 50.

2. It is a basic tool in understanding history, a science that I believe everyone thinks should be taught. To go even further, history can't be studied without mentioning art. Art is a crucial factor and motive that has been making things happen throughout the centuries. Reading a Dostoyevski book can help you look deep into the eyes of the Russian society in his time.

3. It enriches the vocabulary of the students and teaches them how to read between the lines and find the message the writer wants to give us. I believe this is a very useful for all future adults.

4. Litterature is pleasant to read. Students definitely need a creative break from our materialistic, cement-filled every day lives. Otherwise they would just explode.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I believe in education for the sake of education, the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom above all things. It is the purpose of education to fill an empty mind with an open one, and not to produce employment drones, manufactured to serve other people.

One of the biggest mistakes with today’s education is that it is constantly sold with the image of “study for employment” and this is wrong. Maybe it would be better to cut out the middleman and have burger flipping lessons or to have classes on how to please your boss more effectively?

Shakespeare out, burger flipping in. I’m sure that would please many people, but forgive me if I am not one of them.

Great video posted previously:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY
Do schools today kill creativity?

[Michigan J Frog]

I wouldn't mind either way. Schools murder real literature anyways.
Omg Annotate 11!!1!!!1

Nothing is a real necessity to teach once you get beyond middle school. Not like you learn anything after that in school anyways. A waste of time and money.

[JBI]

I wouldn't mind either way. Schools murder real literature anyways.
Omg Annotate 11!!1!!!1

Nothing is a real necessity to teach once you get beyond middle school. Not like you learn anything after that in school anyways. A waste of time and money.

Perhaps its the learner. It all depends on the teacher anyway - if you don't like the method of reading literature in high school, wait until university. I tell you, it is about 1000x more in depth, cutting every piece apart, and writing scansion for more poems than you have ever read.

All the boredom you think of when you think of English class is there for a reason.

On the bold: just pointing out, this is what happens when you let the standard slip, you get the birth of vernacular.

[Michigan J Frog]

Perhaps its the learner. It all depends on the teacher anyway - if you don't like the method of reading literature in high school, wait until university. I tell you, it is about 1000x more in depth, cutting every piece apart, and writing scansion for more poems than you have ever read.

All the boredom you think of when you think of English class is there for a reason.

On the bold: just pointing out, this is what happens when you let the standard slip, you get the birth of vernacular.You used anyway yourself...:)

I don't mind the work or the boredom, if that's what you call it, but you can pick apart the whole book, write 10 essays on it, learn all the literary techniques, and even "understand it", but without experiencing it all these are useless. The person who is able to experience it knows more about the books than the lit. majors.
It's almost impossible to explain to people who do like to "analyze" books. As in Salinger's later novels- he dedicated those books to the reader who reads and runs. I cannot speak for other writers but I myself would not want one of my written works to be read like that. I am probably not interested in reading writers who want their books to be analyzed.

I am not saying it applies to poems, as I was thinking more of short stories and novels when I wrote my post. I am not terribly interested in poetry and have not read much of it- so I can't comment on that.

And in university you can dodge those classes.

I suppose the one positive to come out of teaching literature in public school is that you force them to read and might spark their interest in literature. (Though from my past experience I know that most of the students end up reading cliffnotes/sparknotes)

These classes are no different than others- most students only care about their grades- college they get into- job.
And the ones that end up as majors- well we don't need any more critics and scholars.

[Drkshadow03]

These classes are no different than others- most students only care about their grades- college they get into- job.
And the ones that end up as majors- well we don't need any more critics and scholars.

That's true in a way, the job market for college-level literature jobs is extremely saturated at the moment. Not to mention it's extremely difficult to find something new to say about any major literary work because so much of it has been said already.

[sprinks]

I think it is important, for pretty much all the reasons previously stated by others :).



So, my belief then is that the best way to treat this situation is this. In high schools and perhaps colleges, for English requirements, students should be offered two options.

1. An English course which primarily focuses on literature
2. An English course which primarily focuses on linguistics

The literature one will be a traditional later-grades English class, where the writing is primarily essays relating to how well you've studied a work of literature and much of the class has to do with comprehension, while the linguistics one will focus much more on learning about the craft of writing in general along with the study of the language and its facets in high level detail. This one might go in depth on the theories behind clause usage and the numerous meanings of words based on contexts, etc.

This is what we have at school. There's English Literature (which I take) which is focused on essays, oral presentations, and analysis and knowledge of texts (primarily classics). Then there's about 4 other English classes, each a different level of work and focus, the lowest being about how to write letters and resumes and the like, the next being a little more indepth and harder, the next a little harder and branching into novels a little more, and then the one just below Lit, where it's more of a focus on personal response, and is not just about texts, but also film analysis and creative writing and things like that.
Although, the Lit class is changing next year, to include creative writing. Darn! :lol:

[JBI]

Michigan, just so you know, the comment was on "anyways" not anyway. As far as I know, "anyways" is considered a bastardized "informal", slang, form of anyway, carrying the same definition, but being viewed as not suitable for formal language. But then again, thank you for reinforcing my point.

[Emil Miller]

I think there's something to that. I mean, take Orwell as an example, he always was really more of a journalist/essayist, that's how he started out, and even when he wrote novels it still had more the feel of an essay. Don't get me wrong, I've read all his novels and I do think he was a very good novellist (Coming Up for Air perhaps being the one exception), but he wasn't as concerned with the actual language in the way that a real literary novelist, for example Hemingway, would be. In Orwell's case language was used to convey meaning, not to celebrate its own beauty.

I do agree, however, that studying literature improves your analytical skills. This was made overwhelmingly clear to me after my first few lessons with my 9th grade English teacher, who clearly had a passion for the subject and had a way of analyzing a book which no previous teacher I'd had possessed. He was the one person in my life who got me interested in literature and for that I owe him a lot, and being (not to brag) probably one of the brightest and most genuinely interested students he's had we formed quite a close bond. Needless to say, I wouldn't have given up that education for anything, and my life has become extremely enriched by it - never mind that whatever job I may go on to have will have nothing to do with literature, or even that I'm not now doing a degree in it (though I'm still an avid reader and, having talked to some of the people over here doing literature degrees, much more knowledgeable about it than many of them). But back to what I was talking about, I definitely think that studying literature has made me a much more perceptive and intelligent person, as well as exponentially increasing my capacity to express myself. Really, just show me anyone who is well-spoken and eloquent and I'll show you someone who will have done a fair bit of reading. I'm not necessarily referring to the classics or Ulysses but just reading in general (obviously going beyond just The Da Vinci Code).

Also, but this is just my personal preference, I believe that a condition of employment of every English teacher should be a little gleam of insanity in the eyes.

Your comparison of Orwell with Hemingway omits to mention that the main difference between these writers was not one of language but that one wrote stories while the other dealt in polemics. Whatever Hemingway's faults, he wasn't on some self-imposed mission to change peoples political/ social views; whereas Orwell patently was.
Hemingway went to the Spanish Civil War to report on it for the US press whereas Orwell went there to fight in it with a delegation from the Independent Labour Party (a ragbag breakaway group from the Labour party consisting of fellow travellers, anarchists and various other social misfits).
They both wrote books about the civil war but one is a straightforward novel while the other, as in so much of Orwell's writing, is left-liberal propaganda.
I acknowledge that though there have been many writers who have used the novel as a platform for their political or social viewpoint: Wells, Shaw, Dickens etc. etc. their work has, like Hemingway, been just as much about telling a story as propagating their opinions.

[Michigan J Frog]

Michigan, just so you know, the comment was on "anyways" not anyway. As far as I know, "anyways" is considered a bastardized "informal", slang, form of anyway, carrying the same definition, but being viewed as not suitable for formal language. But then again, thank you for reinforcing my point.
Okay. Good to know. I will type in formal language on this forum from now on.

Go Academia.

[carrotcake]

I think literature courses in high school and colleges/universities are far more important than most people realize. Considering that (especially) high school students are so moldable still, the literature they encounter (and analyze, as in school) will help transform them into the people are...

Instead of just learning how to calculate your grocery bill in a math class or learning about how the human body functions in a science class (both very important subjects, too, nonetheless), literature courses allow people to grow in more significant ways. :)

[wilbur lim]

The merits of literature is eclectic,that's what we can mechanically conclude.I perceived that literature can be taught to all,nonetheless,if students don't befits to study that,then there is no legitimate point to teach.

[wilbur lim]

You used anyway yourself...:)

I don't mind the work or the boredom, if that's what you call it, but you can pick apart the whole book, write 10 essays on it, learn all the literary techniques, and even "understand it", but without experiencing it all these are useless. The person who is able to experience it knows more about the books than the lit. majors.
It's almost impossible to explain to people who do like to "analyze" books. As in Salinger's later novels- he dedicated those books to the reader who reads and runs. I cannot speak for other writers but I myself would not want one of my written works to be read like that. I am probably not interested in reading writers who want their books to be analyzed.

I am not saying it applies to poems, as I was thinking more of short stories and novels when I wrote my post. I am not terribly interested in poetry and have not read much of it- so I can't comment on that.

And in university you can dodge those classes.

I suppose the one positive to come out of teaching literature in public school is that you force them to read and might spark their interest in literature. (Though from my past experience I know that most of the students end up reading cliffnotes/sparknotes)

These classes are no different than others- most students only care about their grades- college they get into- job.
And the ones that end up as majors- well we don't need any more critics and scholars.

Ah,nice elucidation.I relish going Sparknotes and Cliffnotes' websites.It is a privilege to have some notes to teach the gist and purport of your doubt.Personally,literature is my primacy.

[PeterL]

Perhaps in these days of diminishing challenges in education, when post-secondary education is largely technical job training, there may be no reason for students to study literature. Few people need to learn the analytical skills involved, and literature may be beyond the intellectual capacities of most students. If literature and other language skills were removed from education, it should be possible for students to complete their studies earlier and become productive members of society. There would be minor problems with that, but nothing that couldn't be worked around. Simplified language would allow anyone with a third grade education in language to understand anything that would be necessary. It might be a good idea to have a few schools that would teach advanced language, so that there would be someone to interpret past literature, such as nursery tales and advertising slogans.

[Drkshadow03]

Perhaps its the learner. It all depends on the teacher anyway - if you don't like the method of reading literature in high school, wait until university. I tell you, it is about 1000x more in depth, cutting every piece apart, and writing scansion for more poems than you have ever read.

All the boredom you think of when you think of English class is there for a reason.


Eh, I found high school English boring, but I really enjoyed my undergrad and graduate school experiences.

You're college experience sounds far more intense and rigorous than mine, and keep in mind I've been to three different universities (all with very different atmosphere and slightly different focuses in their English departments).

Literary Studies pretty much consisted of: 1) read novel/poem/essay/short story 2) talk about it and interpret it as a class. 3) Sometimes write an essay on it if assigned.

The only difference in grad school really was: Read significantly more each week, talk about it even more in depth, and write an essay every week for the works plus a major essay at the end rather than just the one or two assigned essays.

[JBI]

Yes - but even undergrad, of which I am going through right now, introduces approaches to literature, which simply weren't known before university. I don't think I ever had to actually do research on critical opinions of texts before university. The fact remains that university English requires a) more reading time b) deeper analysis with direct observations, and more supported theses, c) less assignments, but far more difficult ones, which actually are marked on things other than content, and d) lectures over discussions (at least for my school, since most classes are 100+ people for the first three years, and therefore it is impossible to really have a highschool-size discussion).

Lets be honest, I would never have thought to have to scan a poem, and then look for all rhetorical devices inside it, in highschool. Most people in highschool think of metre as 5 iambs, yet when you get to university, you need to learn things like Pyrrhic substitution, sporadic substitution, female rhyme, masculine rhyme, accentual metre, and even more complex things like quantitative metre in English, which is perhaps the most difficult metre to scan, in my opinion. That is just scansion though, rhetorical tropes are even more abundant and complex - to me, high school poetry was looking for metaphors in Shakespeare's sonnets - university poetry is more like looking for the effects of said devices, how he uses them, and what effect they have upon the reader/argument.

I think the big difference, specifically for poetry, is a switch from what is poetry to how is poetry, which is simply a 1000x more in depth analysis.

[blp]

Yes it is.

[Drkshadow03]

Yes - but even undergrad, of which I am going through right now, introduces approaches to literature, which simply weren't known before university. I don't think I ever had to actually do research on critical opinions of texts before university. The fact remains that university English requires a) more reading time b) deeper analysis with direct observations, and more supported theses, c) less assignments, but far more difficult ones, which actually are marked on things other than content, and d) lectures over discussions (at least for my school, since most classes are 100+ people for the first three years, and therefore it is impossible to really have a highschool-size discussion).

Lets be honest, I would never have thought to have to scan a poem, and then look for all rhetorical devices inside it, in highschool. Most people in highschool think of metre as 5 iambs, yet when you get to university, you need to learn things like Pyrrhic substitution, sporadic substitution, female rhyme, masculine rhyme, accentual metre, and even more complex things like quantitative metre in English, which is perhaps the most difficult metre to scan, in my opinion. That is just scansion though, rhetorical tropes are even more abundant and complex - to me, high school poetry was looking for metaphors in Shakespeare's sonnets - university poetry is more like looking for the effects of said devices, how he uses them, and what effect they have upon the reader/argument.

I think the big difference, specifically for poetry, is a switch from what is poetry to how is poetry, which is simply a 1000x more in depth analysis.

I am fascinated about how different our educations were. We never focused on things like that in the various universities I attended. I've done a couple of scansions sure, but it didn't sound half as intense as what you had to do (we had to find some devices, not all, and again most of the time was spent on the meaning of the poem). Then again I am the first to admit that I found my education extremely piecemeal.

Like I said, most of our education was read story/poem/essay and have a discussion/interpet in a group with the professor guiding. Sometimes we would talk about techniques of rhetoric in a poem or short story or novel, but those rarely happened and almost always was to elaborate on the meaning of a poem (how the structure or a technique produces a certain meaning). My education focused less on concrete knowledge about literary techniques, although we learned a little of that when necessary and were expected to know the basics of course, and more on critical thinking skills to develop proper interpretive abilities. On the other hand, my English classes were never more than 30 students and usually a lot less than that, so it as easier to have such discussions.

Even in my poetry classes there was more emphasis on trying to introduce the student to many different types of poetry and poets and styles than a lot of time spent on the actual formal techniques of the poets themselves. ::shrugs::

[LitNetIsGreat]

What about literary theory: Marxist criticism, psychoanalytical, feminism, structuralism and so on, weren't they on your course? I personally find such methods of analysis very interesting, if not a little difficult at times, but usually always rewarding.

[Kafka's Crow]

Yes - but even undergrad, of which I am going through right now, introduces approaches to literature, which simply weren't known before university. I don't think I ever had to actually do research on critical opinions of texts before university. The fact remains that university English requires a) more reading time b) deeper analysis with direct observations, and more supported theses, c) less assignments, but far more difficult ones, which actually are marked on things other than content, and d) lectures over discussions (at least for my school, since most classes are 100+ people for the first three years, and therefore it is impossible to really have a highschool-size discussion).

Lets be honest, I would never have thought to have to scan a poem, and then look for all rhetorical devices inside it, in highschool. Most people in highschool think of metre as 5 iambs, yet when you get to university, you need to learn things like Pyrrhic substitution, sporadic substitution, female rhyme, masculine rhyme, accentual metre, and even more complex things like quantitative metre in English, which is perhaps the most difficult metre to scan, in my opinion. That is just scansion though, rhetorical tropes are even more abundant and complex - to me, high school poetry was looking for metaphors in Shakespeare's sonnets - university poetry is more like looking for the effects of said devices, how he uses them, and what effect they have upon the reader/argument.

I think the big difference, specifically for poetry, is a switch from what is poetry to how is poetry, which is simply a 1000x more in depth analysis.

When I completed my BA back in 1989, we had to study 'Practical Criticism'. Did a whole module in Critical Theory & Practical Criticism for my first MA in early 90s. We were taught major critical theory from Aristotle's Poetics and Longinus' On the Sublime to TS Eliot's two essays on Milton and Tradition and Individual Talent. When I went back to university in 2000-2001, there was less emphasis on 'practical criticism' and absolutely no talk of prosody and metre etc. In ten years, the standards were totally changed. Lecture meant open discussion, Practical Criticism was totally overlooked, even while studying poetry. Marking had become less strict and there was less toil, sweat and pure Columbian coffee involved in our labour. Still studying literature meant reading hundreds and hundreds of books but we were expected to be more precise and systematic in citing our references. There was a whole compulsory module on 'Research Methodology' in which we were taught how to use resources and how to find and cite them.

I had totally forgotten about prosody till I read Stephen Fry's The Ode Less Travelled last month which brought it all back to me after almost sixteen years. Excellent and very amusing book. Highly recommended:http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ode-Less-Travelled-Unlocking-Within/dp/0099509342/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221419774&sr=8-1

[Drkshadow03]

What about literary theory: Marxist criticism, psychoanalytical, feminism, structuralism and so on, weren't they on your course? I personally find such methods of analysis very interesting, if not a little difficult at times, but usually always rewarding.

I cannot speak for JBI, but I had a ton of literary theory in graduate school. Prior to graduate school I had hardly any; we talked about it once or twice in a lecture or two in an intro class and we talked about semiotics once during a poetry class I took, but really only touched upon it briefly.

It wasn't until graduate school that I really wrestled with theory for better or worse, and even then I only touched the surface because there is just so much of it to learn that you could never fully cover in a Master's program.

However, had I gone to undergrad where I went to graduate school I would have had to have taken an undergrad class on theory and the professors would've had theoritical essays and books to read in addition to literary works, having seen some of the syllabuses for the undergrads. The reason for this is my program here is extremely theory-oriented. So it really all depends where you end up going to school I suppose.

My other two programs, one a community college, and the other a private university, were NOT theory-oriented at all, but we spent most of our time reading, you know, actual literature.

I think my last sentence sort of betrays my feeling on theory. Theory can indeed be interesting, especially if you're interested in philosophy, but it takes up time in the classroom that can be spent covering actual literary works, and it has the tendency to devolve into what I have called "checklist criticism," in which you stop paying attention to the unique qualities and themes a particular work expresses and try to plug it in so it fits your pet theory. This isn't to say all literary criticism that turns to theory is automatically awful, but I've listened to far too many long-winded papers loaded with theoritical jargon that could've made exactly the same point about the work without once drawing on theory. I find that theory tends to obfuscate a work rather than enlighten us about its meaning, with a few rare exceptions.

[mangueken]

This is always a good debate to have. But sometimes we need to step back and try to get a different perspective. I wonder, for example, what someone who never had access to education might think of this debate? There are many such people still in the world. In the Northeastern states of Brazil many people can't read and write and yet they still have a popular form of poetry called Cordel. It's a type of poetry that tells stories, has it's own rhythm and rhyme scheme. There are people who travel from small town to small town singing these cordel poems and people, uneducated, mostly rural peasants enjoy them.
I think we have a basic need to hear stories, read stories be a part of stories about people and create a relationship with them that helps define who we are. A story can challenge and change our views and perceptions of the world and of ourselves.
Most humans have, in fact, lived without education in the arts and philosophy. Those things were reserved for higher classes.
I, for one, am glad to live in country where so many people read. I don't care that most of what is read is of the King, Rice or some self help/ new age equivalent. It just means our education has to go the next step and help people learn how to read more critically and ask more out of what they read.
I disagree with the idea that somehow math and science are more or less important than the arts though. If anyone had told me when I was graduating high school that I would one day live in a Portuguese speaking country getting extra work from biologists and doctors translating and editing their studies for publication in British and American scientific journals I doubt I would have thought the person could have come up with a more impossible situation in my life. Thankfully, my natural love of literature and reading in general as well as the science classes, which I thought were torture back in high school, opened up opportunities for me.
I think, that, in the end, is the point. We don't know what the future holds for us or our children and they should be exposed to as much as possible in our education system. Not only for economic benefit but also for personal wealth it creates.
Truck drivers love a good short order cook. I'm always grateful there are people who come to pick up my trash twice a week. But is that all they should expect from life? Think how much more fulfilled life is when you have literature and the arts in general to accompany you.

[teejay17]

Literature is one of the most important subjects because it can incorporate every other subject taught in school.

[Mariamosis]

This topic or argument against teaching literature in school really hits a nerve for me.

Just the other day a co-worker was arguing the same point. He was chiefly concerned with why schools would make history and literature a mandatory class whereas music and visual arts are electives. He feels that history and literature should be considered electives as well.

He also feels that math should only be required up to a certain point. Primarily addition, subtraction, multiplication and division as the only required subjects to understand unless you are going to become a mathemetician or work for NASA.

According to him science should be limited to focus generally on a few simple issues, unless of course you are to become a scientist. His view of history would result in teaching a broad view of the past 50-100 years.

.... and this is a grown man who has had some fairly lucrative careers! .... incidentally, his wife is a teacher!!!

[blazeofglory]

Of course it is really necessary and at a very tender age literature should be taught to children so that they can discriminate between good and bad.

And of course they will be morally guided and learn their responsibility in life.

[kiki1982]

In Belgium, up until now, they do not narrow down.

Primary school is basic with Dutch or French or German main language (depending on where in the country you live of course) (learning to read), something like science all in one, mathematics, later French/Dutch second languae at 11 and with that also Geography and History.

Flemish system:

at 12-13: Latin (5 hours a week) or Modern Languages (i.e. Dutch and French, but a little more) plus Mathematics (4), French (4 at least), Biology (2), Geography (2), History (2), Dutch (4), and a few fillers like PE, RE, Drawing and Technology.

at 13-14: English is iintroduced, together with Greek for the ones who would like that. Normal sucjects continue. One can change towards the modern languges section as they have had the same programm, only in a more drawn out time-span.

Here you can choose for to a more 'specialised' approach, although you will keep all your subjects, hours will be taken off or put on subjects you like better. German, for example, is one like that. The students of Modern Languages get 1 hour per week from 15 onwards, after 2 years 3, while the students of Latin get one hour per week only at 17 through to 18.

at 14-15: German is introduced with Chemistry, Physics and IT, other subjects continue.

at 15-16: Nothing changes much.

at 16-17: Normally you continue your course of 'specialisation' and more focus comes on the things you like, but other subjects continue.

at 17-18: The same as the year before.

Until the end, you get all your sciences (although their amount of hours might b reduced from 2 to 1 hour f.e.), all your languages (4) with Grammar and exercises. For the mothertongue, actually, you only start on literature at 16-17 (poetry). The year after there are the books and some foreign pieces when it comes to the classic period. Before then it's all about vocabulary, grammar (how do I spell...?) and linguistics in general (what is a subject, verb, adjective...?). French focusses largely on comprehension and grammar too, as does English. With English, in the last 2 years, something can be done as to Shakespeare and with French too. German is difficult, but for the Dutchspeaking there is a possibility. Although most of that course still focusses on that grammar that is so important.

The huge amount of grammar you get in your mothertongue might seem useless as you know how your own bl**dy language works, but it is of great use when learning another like German, French or Russian (as I am doing now). If they tell you 'the adverb comes before the verb' and you don't know what an adverb is, you have a problem. Learning a language becomes much harder without basic linguistics. Other than that adult literature cannot be taught to one below 16 as they cannot grasp difficult psychological concepts. Who is going to understand the struggle between propriety and passion when not old enough?

The carrying on of all of those subjects on the side allows for a consistent programm that concludes at the end of the whole education. Biology ends with the humans and cell-reproduction (mytosis, chromosomes and whatnot), history ends with WWII and the cold war, Geography with demography and whatnot, Chemistry with organic links and Physics with electricity (if I am right on that). This long, long programm with a lot of informaion that seems useless is not so as it induces a better understanding of everything in life later. If I only have learned about the cold war for 1 hour, how can I understand the society of now? My dryer burned a little bit, is an electricity problem or just the dust in it if the safety did not do its work?

It is not what is useful or what one likes that one has to learn, it is what might be useful some day that one should learn. If I now learn Russian, I am so grateful that I had this great amount of grammar thrust upon me, because it is much clearer like that, than if I did not know what they meant. If one does not know what a direct object is, then one does not know where to put the accusative, or one has to learn by experience which costs a lot more time and talent.

Also, a teenager cannot know where his interests will go. I was good at maths once, but it did not work out. Where had I stood if I had specialised in math at 14? (when I was still good at it). Interests, even later on in life, change. We cannot deprive anyone from the chance to discover an interest because we find all should be specialised.

Belgian universities do not even teach on a low level, so the argument that a specialised level is necessary to reach the right level in university is not valid.

And of course literature should be taught. It is one of the most accessible arts adn it offers, as StLukes said, an understanding of a culture. Not to mention its usefulness (:D) when it comes to vocabulary, grammar, and tone in writing and speaking...

[LitNetIsGreat]

This topic or argument against teaching literature in school really hits a nerve for me.

Just the other day a co-worker was arguing the same point. He was chiefly concerned with why schools would make history and literature a mandatory class whereas music and visual arts are electives. He feels that history and literature should be considered electives as well.

He also feels that math should only be required up to a certain point. Primarily addition, subtraction, multiplication and division as the only required subjects to understand unless you are going to become a mathemetician or work for NASA.

According to him science should be limited to focus generally on a few simple issues, unless of course you are to become a scientist. His view of history would result in teaching a broad view of the past 50-100 years.

.... and this is a grown man who has had some fairly lucrative careers! .... incidentally, his wife is a teacher!!!

Yeah, but there are a lot of morons around, so such opinions don't surprise me. Just ignore him. I'm sure that there are people around who would want to replace literature with burger flipping or till operating classes; we live in that sort of world.

Kiki, that is interesting, though unsurprising, about the Belgian educational system regarding languages especially. England is so behind when it comes to languages, it's quite embarrassing, damn country.

[JBI]

I cannot speak for JBI, but I had a ton of literary theory in graduate school. Prior to graduate school I had hardly any; we talked about it once or twice in a lecture or two in an intro class and we talked about semiotics once during a poetry class I took, but really only touched upon it briefly.

It wasn't until graduate school that I really wrestled with theory for better or worse, and even then I only touched the surface because there is just so much of it to learn that you could never fully cover in a Master's program.

However, had I gone to undergrad where I went to graduate school I would have had to have taken an undergrad class on theory and the professors would've had theoritical essays and books to read in addition to literary works, having seen some of the syllabuses for the undergrads. The reason for this is my program here is extremely theory-oriented. So it really all depends where you end up going to school I suppose.

My other two programs, one a community college, and the other a private university, were NOT theory-oriented at all, but we spent most of our time reading, you know, actual literature.

I think my last sentence sort of betrays my feeling on theory. Theory can indeed be interesting, especially if you're interested in philosophy, but it takes up time in the classroom that can be spent covering actual literary works, and it has the tendency to devolve into what I have called "checklist criticism," in which you stop paying attention to the unique qualities and themes a particular work expresses and try to plug it in so it fits your pet theory. This isn't to say all literary criticism that turns to theory is automatically awful, but I've listened to far too many long-winded papers loaded with theoritical jargon that could've made exactly the same point about the work without once drawing on theory. I find that theory tends to obfuscate a work rather than enlighten us about its meaning, with a few rare exceptions.

I don't know - I've been reading theoretical works that tie in in all different sorts of places and courses - I got communication theory for a course I did on Canadian media, I get all sorts of strange theoretical readings from working now with East Asian focuses, and all sorts of other stuff depending on what I take - but on the whole, theory is interesting, but hardly useful - the bulk of what I have been doing is intense close reading of texts, which requires some idea of the theoretical, preferably Aristotelian theoretical stuff, as apposed to the onanist trash you get from contemporaries wanting to get tenure, but on the whole, theory has been sidelined for me as approaches, rather than as content.

But of course, it depends on what one take - my university has pretty strict guidelines that ensure a sort of rounding, but I know in the states one can get away without really studying the classics much, and with focusing on contemporary issues tied in with pseudo-philosophies and political hogwash.

It doesn't matter though, as I generally read theory anyway on my spare time - but one could easily get by with just picking up the theoretical stuff second-hand in condensed form from a professor, and rarely, if needed, flipping to the primary texts.

[kiki1982]

@Neely:

I think the problem the English have is that they never see another language on television. Belgium (or at least the Flemish part, because the Frenchspeaking are as good as the French...) buys a lot of English, French and sometimes German broadcasts. Sometimes even Spanish and what-not. They are all subtitled. People who speak strange languages in the news are subtitled,not dubbed like on the BBC. That allows people to practice or learn.

The problem is also, in my view, that their education (also in languaes) is too much centred on practice and skills. Not on grammar and translation. True, you preferably learn to have a conversation in a language, but without good grammar and some systematic learning, most of us will not master it. Particularly things like German become very hard when not explained and practiced. Also the failure of teaching students English (apostrophes, what are they for? How do I spell 'intelligence'?) is harmful for their later careers. What employer wants a secretary who cannot spell properly in e-mails? Or what professor wants a paper of a student that is full of spelling mistakes? I think the English could do very well with a course in French, because they would then maybe spell their words correctly, or at least a great part of them. Their mentality of 'never mind, English is too difficult to spell because the pronunciation is so different (poor children)' always makes me scream. How come that I can write tolerably? and others too? Do we suddenly pronounce the language diffrently? It is largely down to the concern for skills and toning down of knowledge-school. 2+2 can never be allowed to be 5 or 3, yet 'men's toilets' can become 'mens toilets' (really seen on a public toilet in Manchester five steps rom the town hall!)?

The Luxemburgers appartently head the list on language education, as they know five, and four very well and compulsory and a fifth one free choice.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes it has a lot to do with Britain being and isolated country in comparison to most other countries in Europe. I don't think most Brits feel European at all, which has a knocking-on effect when it comes to learning other languages.

As for grammar, long ago the government decided that studying grammar is all but a waste of time in the majority of schools, and consequently very little of it is studied at all. As you say this makes it even more difficult to pick up other languages, especially as they are not compulsory study in the majority of cases, as well as impacting on the study of English itself.

[joebob]

It makes little difference. The kids that like to read will, the ones that don't, won't.

The only thing that should be taught in schools are things that they are able to shove down the throats of students with ease; everything else is just a waste of time.

so that means little to none of
art, music, literature, and gym (that's all I can think of right now).

To become skilled in any of those area you need a passion, a love, for the subject. All school does is crush whatever chance a child might have at adoring one of those.

[Drkshadow03]

It makes little difference. The kids that like to read will, the ones that don't, won't.

The only thing that should be taught in schools are things that they are able to shove down the throats of students with ease; everything else is just a waste of time.

so that means little to none of
art, music, literature, and gym (that's all I can think of right now).

To become skilled in any of those area you need a passion, a love, for the subject. All school does is crush whatever chance a child might have at adoring one of those.

Not true. I wasn't much of a reader when I was younger and that changed around the end of high school and beginning of college. Oh, don't get me wrong, I read books when I was little, but I was much more interested in my video games. That's why I always feel like I'm playing catch-up with my literary reading, even though, I have two degrees in the subject.

Even your premise that there should be little to none of these subjects is flawed. Music is rarely Classical Music Appreciation or Music History, neither is art. Music usually takes the form of chorus or orchestra or band. By high school, music and art are no longer mandatory, but many people take these classes for fun as electives (chorus, band, etc.).

I know more kids who hate math than they do literature or art or music. It's not easy to shove down their throats as you put it. Should we get rid of math as well? Ditto science and history. Bye, bye, science and history? Exactly what would be taught in schools then?

Subjects should not be jettisoned because some kids lack a passion for them and find them difficult.

[Mariamosis]

Yeah, but there are a lot of morons around, so such opinions don't surprise me. Just ignore him. I'm sure that there are people around who would want to replace literature with burger flipping or till operating classes; we live in that sort of world.

Kiki, that is interesting, though unsurprising, about the Belgian educational system regarding languages especially. England is so behind when it comes to languages, it's quite embarrassing, damn country.

That is true, he most likely would want to teach burger flipping. :)

The US is extremely behind in languages as well. Spanish could be considered the second language in the southeast, however the opinions of the American people typically are: "If they come here let them learn our language." (and usually say it with built up hostility) Although it is now getting to the point where it is difficult to maintain certain jobs without knowing the language, yet southerners still refuse.

We teach it in school, yet it is viewed as a joke. Very few people come out of high school with a grasp of any other language but english. (and not a good grasp of that)

[Drkshadow03]

That is true, he most likely would want to teach burger flipping. :)

The US is extremely behind in languages as well. Spanish could be considered the second language in the southeast, however the opinions of the American people typically are: "If they come here let them learn our language." (and usually say it with built up hostility) Although it is now getting to the point where it is difficult to maintain certain jobs without knowing the language, yet southerners still refuse.

We teach it in school, yet it is viewed as a joke. Very few people come out of high school with a grasp of any other language but english. (and not a good grasp of that)

Because it should start earlier. Languages usually begin in Middle School/Junior High. We should start around 3rd or 4th grade, I think.

[kiki1982]

That is not necessarily true. In the Southern part of Belgium, some school teach Dutch from Kindergarten but they keep a too low level. The result is that pupils stay forever on that low level and never learn to speak the language properly.

Starting late does not really signify, it is how well it is taught.

[isidro]

Of course literature should be compulsory! I understand thoroughly arguments to the contrary but I fear that is where American pedagogy is really quite misguided. One does not learn best by studying each specified subject in its respective cubbyhole but as a culmination of all of them together. How can one understand history if one does not understand the people who made it, and literature certainly tends toward that end. As a certified English teacher, I do not believe that literature can or should be taught alone but alongside history and other humanities and surely anyone who has read Moby Dick must accept that a novel carries with it much information in it of science, humanities, and the like in a much more palatable form. By combining the disciplines one can make physics, chemistry, mythology or anything else far more easily understood by placing it in the setting of a novel. And if you read Ford's The Good Soldier you must agree that literature teaches analytical skills and psychology without taking specified time from precious other subjects to do it. Perhaps it is not that literature is overused, but wrongly used.

Great question and argument, though! Bravo!

[Mariamosis]

Because it should start earlier. Languages usually begin in Middle School/Junior High. We should start around 3rd or 4th grade, I think.

This is true, however, I was taught Spanish beginning in elementary school and still was unable to say anything more than 'hello' and 'sit down' in the language.

I have to agree with kiki1982 in that it depends how well it is taught and how the culture views the teaching of it.

[LitNetIsGreat]

My French is improving bit by bit thanks to Michel Thomas. I would recommend his courses (available to learn French, Spanish and German) as offering something a little different from the standard fair. His method of breaking down the language into small parts and letting the learner think it out seems to suit me better than the usual scenarios, whereby you learn stock phrases set around corny incidents. I would recommend them for sure.

I just got the lot from the library, even though it has taken a while for them all to arrive, it is better than paying around £150 for the whole set. So, I think I am going to be busy with these for a while.

Has anyone else used Michel Thomas with success?

[JBI]

My French is improving bit by bit thanks to Michel Thomas. I would recommend his courses (available to learn French, Spanish and German) as offering something a little different from the standard fair. His method of breaking down the language into small parts and letting the learner think it out seems to suit me better than the usual scenarios, whereby you learn stock phrases set around corny incidents. I would recommend them for sure.

I just got the lot from the library, even though it has taken a while for them all to arrive, it is better than paying around £150 for the whole set. So, I think I am going to be busy with these for a while.

Has anyone else used Michel Thomas with success?

Heh, I find his teaching terrible - his Italian was actually pitiful since, although he gets you basics quickly, he really screws people up, by making the parative "ne" (equiv in French as "en") mean "some" as apposed to "a part of", and then misusing it within that context, to make ne ho comprato I bought some, and j'en ai acheté into "I bought some", which makes sense in context, but completely misses the point.

His most interesting property is his, I guess, teaching of morphology between related languages - but when applied to the long scale, it really butchers the nuance - especially since it is essentially purely oral, which means for a language like French, you miss most of the stuff (the accents, spelling, and grammar, essentially).

Strangely enough, one can find much better resources online (if one knows where to go) - Michel is good for a quick 5-hour intro, but anything beyond that - kind of dreadful, especially at the higher level recordings.



In all honesty, I think education outside of a classroom for languages doesn't work to well - once one gets a foundation, it is different, but really, nothing compares to a living person. In that sense, I don't think elementary and high school language acquisition is very good - university teaching is certainly a lot better (four years of high school is like the equivalent to one year of university) and really functions better - simply because, when a professor calls something a "direct object pronoun", you don't spend a full hour going around having every single person in the class ask what that is - you either know it, or, if you want to do well, make yourself know it - also, I think the fact that the textbooks are being paid for, in a sad sort of way increases their quality - although they are always expensive, the actual quality of the text, being that they change the texts every other year or so, is far better than the textbooks they use (well, at least in French) in high schools.


Still, when it comes down to it, I regret not really taking French in high school - I've already caught up to where I should have been, had I taken it, but there is still that idea that I wasted time and money - but who knows.


As for cultural determinance - Canada is an officially bilingual country, but I would argue, besides a slight portion of anglophone Quebec citizens, and people living in New Brunswick, very few people are fluent in both languages - of course, the bulk of the population is probably bilingual, to an extent - or at least a sizable portion of it, but the vast range of languages - anything from Haitian Creole to Anishinaabemowin - doesn't really create a unity or recognizance a sort of national bilingualism.

Though, when it comes down to it, it doesn't matter - language acquisition is, from my experience, only successful if somebody really wants to learn it - in high school, I doubt that is the case for most people, and in elementary school, other than some songs, I doubt much will come out of people - generally if you had all the language teaching as extracurricular, you would probably do better, as the parents would push the children more, rather than relying on the system - but that is just a guess of mine, it will never be tested.

[Drkshadow03]

This is true, however, I was taught Spanish beginning in elementary school and still was unable to say anything more than 'hello' and 'sit down' in the language.

I have to agree with kiki1982 in that it depends how well it is taught and how the culture views the teaching of it.

Of course, I'm not saying all that is necessary is to start early and let's only hire crappy teachers. But I think you'll find more students are tuned into their education when they are younger. Much more interested in their learning, until around the time middle school (6-7 grade) hits. Then they get distracted with the opposite sex, popularity, and learning isn't as socially acceptable anymore.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Heh, I find his teaching terrible - his Italian was actually pitiful since, although he gets you basics quickly, he really screws people up, by making the parative "ne" (equiv in French as "en") mean "some" as apposed to "a part of", and then misusing it within that context, to make ne ho comprato I bought some, and j'en ai acheté into "I bought some", which makes sense in context, but completely misses the point.

His most interesting property is his, I guess, teaching of morphology between related languages - but when applied to the long scale, it really butchers the nuance - especially since it is essentially purely oral, which means for a language like French, you miss most of the stuff (the accents, spelling, and grammar, essentially).

Strangely enough, one can find much better resources online (if one knows where to go) - Michel is good for a quick 5-hour intro, but anything beyond that - kind of dreadful, especially at the higher level recordings.


Yes it is mostly oral, although he does keep throwing in little bits of grammar and spelling, so it is not all that bad. I intend to finish off the first 8 hour course ('bout halfway through now) and then I have his 5 hour advanced course, as well as the review and the language builder, which are a couple of hours each I think.

He does seem to work for me though, I really can't work with the "Gerald is on a business trip to France and doesn't speak the language, let's learn with him" sort of thing. How good Michel's stuff is in reality, I don't know, but I at least feel that I am getting somewhere, even if I have to build on it to a greater degree later - it seems to work as a starter anyway. Michel claims that his courses give a practical and workable knowledge of the language, which I would be happy with at stage one.

Fortunately I do know a few French speakers at work, so I'm sure that they would be willing to help me along the way too. It's true I think that you can't really beat proper interaction.

I also have the first course in Italian and I have listened to the first disk, but I'm putting that aside for now to concentrate on French.

[mortalterror]

Can't say I've found a use for all that Physics and Calculus I took.

[JBI]

Yes it is mostly oral, although he does keep throwing in little bits of grammar and spelling, so it is not all that bad. I intend to finish off the first 8 hour course ('bout halfway through now) and then I have his 5 hour advanced course, as well as the review and the language builder, which are a couple of hours each I think.

He does seem to work for me though, I really can't work with the "Gerald is on a business trip to France and doesn't speak the language, let's learn with him" sort of thing. How good Michel's stuff is in reality, I don't know, but I at least feel that I am getting somewhere, even if I have to build on it to a greater degree later - it seems to work as a starter anyway. Michel claims that his courses give a practical and workable knowledge of the language, which I would be happy with at stage one.

Fortunately I do know a few French speakers at work, so I'm sure that they would be willing to help me along the way too. It's true I think that you can't really beat proper interaction.

I also have the first course in Italian and I have listened to the first disk, but I'm putting that aside for now to concentrate on French.

I dunno - I learn best from text-books with audio CDs - there are some fantastically put together ones with interesting vocabulary and cultural information, though they tend to be on the pricier side of things (new, for like 130$ or so). Generally, for such a grammar savvy language like French, I feel a grammar book is really essential - the whole language is built on grammar, and I think the only thing Thomas will really build is a sort of confidence, which will let people go out and embarrass themselves - the actual ability to speak and understand French though, comes from intensive memorization of vocabulary, and proper introduction to grammar - something which audio cannot really give properly.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes I see, I'll get myself a grammar based text book. Do you have any particular recommendations or any useful websites, though I suppose they are pretty much all the same? Of course I am reading a little French alongside Mr Thomas too. I do wonder though if he is really as bad as you make out, as I say he does throw in a little grammar and such as he goes on.

[kelbel3abh]

All I can say is that "Silas Marner" changed my life. I never realized that there were books like that "out there" before high school and I wish I had known sooner.

[teejay17]

All I can say is that "Silas Marner" changed my life. I never realized that there were books like that "out there" before high school and I wish I had known sooner.
I thought that way when I read The Chrysalids, Deliverance, Lord of the Flies, and Cat's Cradle—all in high school.

[spookymulder93]

You'd get different responses on a math or science forum

LOL.

For the most part though, you have a better chance at making a good living if you're good at math and science. I didn't say it was a definite I'm just saying you have a better chance.

I mean you kind of HAVE to know that 2+2=4, but you don't HAVE to know who Charles Dickens is.

[Whifflingpin]

"I mean you kind of HAVE to know that 2+2=4, but you don't HAVE to know who Charles Dickens is."

I think humans found story and song to be a necessity before they discovered mathematics.

[spookymulder93]

"I mean you kind of HAVE to know that 2+2=4, but you don't HAVE to know who Charles Dickens is."

I think humans found story and song to be a necessity before they discovered mathematics.

This is the year 2010.

[OrphanPip]

Actually, on the science forum where I also post regularly, most thought that teaching literature in public schools was necessary as well. After all, you can't be a proper scientist if you lack the ability to communicate properly, or don't know how to formulate and structure an argument, which is what English classes in high school teach more than they teach literature.

[spookymulder93]

Oh yea I agree with that.

I was talking about the kind of literature where you analyze and come up with the hypothesis that the river represents freedom. That kind of literary training isn't needed.

[IceM]

Literature provides the most pertinent form of education--knowledge about the human self. No other field can do this.

Science works within the limits of natural laws. Mathematics works within the dimension of numbers. Economics only relates how a broad body spends money and history relates the story of what everyone else did. These fields present how and why the world works in a very limited sense. Literature guides us in our understanding of why we need an understanding--it teaches to us what being human is in myriads of situations and how to find our place in a mathematically computed, scientifically defined world. Literature then is perhaps the greatest neccessity in school.

[kelby_lake]

I'd say yes. Not every job requires a knowledge of science but pretty much every job requires a basic literary knowledge and a good enough vocabulary to communicate effectively.

And even the 'river=freedom' sort of analysis is important. It teaches you to think of the book as a product that a writer has carefully constructed; it allows you to tap into the writer's mind and realise how language can be persuasive and worked to your advantage.

Being able to understand the opinions of others is a pretty good life skill as well as a handy tool for business.

[blazeofglory]

Technology is widespread today and today's children are deadpans. They are glued to the electronic device all the while and that has stifled them emotionally. Today children are getting acculturated, severed from some of the important aspects of life and losing vivacity. Literature keep them in tune with life. The significance of literature is growing all the more today than ever before

[Seasider]

It's clear opinions differ about the value of literature. I doubt there would be the same disagreements about the value of teaching pupils to write correctly and grammatically. I would suggest that the original poster who thought up the grammatically challenged title for this thread go back to school and learn the basics of subject, verb and object.
A better phrasing would be:- Should Literature be taught in Public Schools?

[Gladys]

Literature tends to deal with human experience in a radical and subversive way. The student of literature is invited to lay aside prejudices and preconceptions in understanding the meaning conveyed.

Unfortunately schools, as the bastion of conventional values and perspectives, are ill-suited to encouraging the student in this task. Instead schools tend to undermine understanding and discourage critical thinking through a conservative, majority-rules approach to interpreting a text - the ignorant leading the blind. Nevertheless a few students do manage to see anyway.

Is literature education worth it for the few?

[blazeofglory]

This is somewhat difficult to answer question in point of fact. All I see is literature is indispensable in school and in life too, but one of the tricky things with literature is it at times corrupt the fertile mind, since we grownups' minds can discriminate between good and bad but small kids cannot do. They take many things for granted and they cannot say imaginative from real. They fantasize. While literature is paramount, but to recommend a better and educative text is vital. Therefore I feel while prescribing literature the board accountable for this must scrutinize as to whether that cultivates the minds of them or corrupt. Meanwhile teachers must know or think twice before recommending literature.

[Alexander III]

I think literature along with music and art are all subjects of equal worth, which should be taught to students, as they teach the values of imagination and expression, which are rather important in my opinion.

However as was mentioned above, in most schools you ahve teachers teaching the arts, who are ignorant themselves, weather they do the class or not is the same, unless you have a teacher who knows what he's doing, which sadly in most public schools is not the case.

[Jeremydav]

Literary education enriches anyone who participates in it. It might not be necessary for survival, but really, no academic subject is.

[stlukesguild]

Literature tends to deal with human experience in a radical and subversive way. The student of literature is invited to lay aside prejudices and preconceptions in understanding the meaning conveyed.

Unfortunately schools, as the bastion of conventional values and perspectives, are ill-suited to encouraging the student in this task. Instead schools tend to undermine understanding and discourage critical thinking through a conservative, majority-rules approach to interpreting a text - the ignorant leading the blind. Nevertheless a few students do manage to see anyway.

Is literature education worth it for the few?

I agree that the institution of schools are inherently conservative. As institutions, could they be otherwise? Indeed, is not the very notion that we should look toward an institution to promote a challenge to conventions somewhat absurd? Of course, part of what should be taught in school is the ability to think critically which will allow the individual; to develop his or her own understandings... even to question conventional wisdom or entrenched thinking. The problem, I believe, does not lie so much with teachers, but rather with the administration. Administrators in general seem to be a rather conservative lot and have little concept of the worth of art or culture beyond its value in financial terms... or as a means of promoting that which is truly important: literacy skills, math skills... the things which show up on standardized proficiency tests. It never dawns on them that music may have worth beyond its link with mathematics, or that visual art may have a value beyond a means of further illuminating history or geometry or other practical fields of study.

For quite some time, the arts have been employed as a means of conveying certain conventional moral or ethical ideas. I remember the continual push to recognize the moral or the message that the writer or artist sought to convey... and I agree with you that there is often this notion that only the interpretation agreed upon by the teacher and the majority holds any value. The possibility that Shakespeare challenges traditional notions of the clear separation of "good" and "evil" and the eventual triumph of "good" is not something likely to be popular with educational leaders. It wasn't even popular with Tolstoy. Can we really expect that the institution of education will embrace the questionable ideas put forth by Blake, Shelley, Emerson, etc...? Are we really surprised that not only the Beats or radical thinkers such as Sartre and Nietzsche represent a threat to traditional/conventional values... but that Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Goethe, Shakespeare, even Dante do as well? Can we really be surprised at the efforts of school leaders to clean up the arts when we consider that a vast portion of the whole of art deals with such issues as sex and violence? Its no surprise that so many young readers flock to certain writers such as Rimbaud and the Beats and Dostoevsky when so many of the great writers of the past have been sanitized and painted in the most boring manner. One of the greatest joys, I think, is rediscovering great literature for oneself... but unfortunately the lock-step mode of teaching it can turn a great many potential readers from ever wishing to explore it on their own.

[Alexander III]

"Can we really be surprised at the efforts of school leaders to clean up the arts when we consider that a vast portion of the whole of art deals with such issues as sex and violence? Its no surprise that so many young readers flock to certain writers such as Rimbaud and the Beats and Dostoevsky when so many of the great writers of the past have been sanitized and painted in the most boring manner. One of the greatest joys, I think, is rediscovering great literature for oneself... but unfortunately the lock-step mode of teaching it can turn a great many potential readers from ever wishing to explore it on their own."


I totally agree here, The Shakespeare I was taught at school was mundane and dull, but now that I am reading Hamlet I am seeing a new side, the true side, of a man who challenged convention and belief just as much as Rimbaud or Ginsberg did. By painting certain writers in the light of sanitized moralists and conveyers of the beliefs of institution, it kills their image in sorts, it kills the very beauty of their art, newness, new thought, new beauty, new ! that is what all the greats were, radical innovators, yet we are shown many of them in this unflattering light which kills any interest in them.

[qimissung]

Your discussion is interesting, but I believe there is only one response needed: yes. Do we want our children taught deeply and well? Then their teachers should also be well-educated. And we should want them well taught in literature, science, math, history. It is the foundation from which all else in their life springs. It may be idealistic, but not to strive for this would be a travesty.

[Gladys]

Of course, part of what should be taught in school is the ability to think critically which will allow the individual; to develop his or her own understandings... even to question conventional wisdom or entrenched thinking.

On radio this week, an Australian academic proposed that: universities (and I would include schools) do so much teach critical thinking as reward those students who have already acquired that skill.

It is more heartening, of course, to suppose that critical thinking can be taught.

[stlukesguild]

"Higher order thinking skills" and "critical thinking" are both catch phrases used in education as part of the Progressive ideas of teaching. I have posted this before, but I suppose it deals with the question at hand. Progressive education in America is something rooted in theories of Rousseau and Dewey and promotes the notion of eliminating a set curriculum or agreed upon body of knowledge, facts, and skills... and instead focusing upon helping the student to develop the so-called "higher order thinking skills"... abilities such as analysis, synthesis, comparison, etc... The problem that is ignored by the Progressive educators is that these abstract concepts of learning and thinking cannot be taught or developed within a vacuum. The idea that it could be is just as idealistic and unrealistic as the concept of "whole language" where phonics, spelling, vocabulary, etc... were thrown out the window in the belief that a child could learn language simply through immersion by the process of osmosis.

E.D. Hirsch in his book, The Schools We Need (and why we don't have them) confronted many of the problems with Progressive teaching methods.. Hirsch was a great champion of a liberal idea of public education... the notion that all children should be given an equal access to the quality education needed to succeed in our society... an idea one would hope that everyone... regardless of political leaning, is on board with. Hirsch noticed that a great many of the liberal/progressive educational strategies (such as the "feel-good/no losers" approach, and the avoidance of memorization of objective "facts") actually had the exact opposite effect... especially in the poor schools which needed education the most. Hirsch discovered that the Italian politician and theorist, Antonio Gramsci (imprisoned by Mussolini) had recognized the problem of progressive education as early as the 1930s:

"The new concept of Schooling is in its Romatic phase (ala Rousseau) in which the replacement of "mechanical" by "natural" methods has become unhealthily exaggerated... Previously pupils at least acquired a certain baggage of concrete facts. Now there will no longer be any baggage to put in order... The most paradoxical aspect of it all is that this new aspect of school is being advocated as being democratic, while in fact it is destined not merely to perpetuate social differences, but crystallize them in Chinese complexities."

The "romantic" progressive concepts of schooling avoid the learning of "facts" because it is feared these will perpetuate stereotypes... the notion that one writer, one artist, one historical personage is more important than another. This was seen as unacceptable to educational progressives as "Multiculturalism" and "Egalitarianism" became the catch-phrases of the day. This, in the US, is then combined with the lack of any real federal or national standards resulting in a system in which almost every school has its own curriculum... makes its own choices about what books to read and what facts to present. When this is further combined with No Child Left Behind which has resulted in schools focusing more upon teaching strategies for taking tests as a means of grabbing the needed scores as opposed to actually teaching a curriculum that is aligned with what the student will be tested upon, the result is an absolute mess in which we cannot be certain that a child in this school at this age will be expected to have mastered the same knowledge and skills as a student in another school just around the block... let alone across the country. Such an approach to teaching is surely not conducive to developing critical thinking, either. Indeed, if anything, one can imagine it would lead to a deal of frustration, cynicism... and even the increased occurrences of cheating. After all... if schools spend more time trying to cheat the system than teach facts and skills, these facts and skills surely must not be something of the greatest importance.:(

Hirsch recognized that in order to succeed in education and in our society one must accumulate a certain agreed upon body of knowledge. One cannot master reading... let alone "higher order thinking skills" such as analysis, comparison, synthesis, etc... without a body of concrete facts. Progressive educators argue that a curriculum based upon such facts is inherently bound to be racist, sexist, nationalistic. The problem is that the alternative handicaps those very students it claims to assist. The reality is that public education is not the end-all/be-all. Once a student has mastered certain facts, reading, math, etc... he or she is certainly free... and more important, able to branch out and explore other alternative ideas and voices... and certainly higher education should be expected to offer just that. At present, however, higher education needs to begin at a remedial level... teaching many of the basic skills and body of knowledge that should have been mastered in elementary and secondary school.

Of course it is to be expected that an institution such as public education would focus upon certain conservatives conventions when dealing with literature... or the arts in general. In spite of all the lip-service and idealizations, the primary role of public education is to produce productive, contributing members of society able to function in the economic realities of the time. It is thus little surprise that schools often avoid the more subversive aspects of the arts... the manner in which they question or challenge many of the values of society. In the US we continually read about ultra-conservative parents becoming irate over the audacity of a teacher's attempt to present alternative ways of thinking about religion, politics, history, etc... The danger, of course, is that a democracy depends upon the thinking abilities of the larger populace, and this demands a critical thinking ability. The manner in which vast numbers accept the most outrageous claims made by extremist on the right or the left is disheartening... and disturbing. The manner in which extremists on either side challenge the very notion of critical thinking... of checking sources... of looking at the arguments and facts presented by both sides... is increasingly scary. If only as a tonic for such group think, I would argue that teaching literature is a necessity in our schools.

[JBI]

Meh, Rousseau is probably the last person we should be emulating for child-care and education. It's all a mask anyway. Truth be told, it doesn't really come down to rich or poor in education, as rich people always have the fall-back of private school. What it really comes down to is the fact that parents a) don't like their kids to work, and b) don't like to work themselves. If you look at the quality of education in other countries, in the most objective of all subjects, mathematics, you will find that forcing education on Children is always the better method.

As for literature, it depends how much a culture values its traditions - for instance, how many people today use Erasmus' Adages? They aren't quoted, so aren't taught. In contrast, Chinese 4 character idioms are necessary to properly read and write, so they are taught, along with the literature behind them (generally short stories), as well as other classics (generally there is a surprisingly lost list of poems that anybody who grew up in China and had a middle-school education would know by heart).

The problem with Western education is that it is run by lazy people, for lazy people. Anybody who wants to learn anything, and is encouraged to do so, will do so. Everyone who is emulating lazy parents will turn out lazy themselves, unless the system forces them otherwise.

The question comes down to how much should schools force children to learn. It's been proven time and time again that stricter discipline leads to better results - that's why the son of a rich kid whose parents push him does better on average than the son of the poor kid, whose parents neglect him.

[fetish]

That this should even be brought up is the very reason I won't be raising my kids in North America.

+1! :thumbsup:

[Paulclem]

In the UK there s change afoot in the standard 16 year old's Engish qualification- GCSE. Formerly the course required the study of a Shakespeare play, a 19th C novel, media and a creative writi piece. These led to the submission of 4 essays. The exams (2) tested essay writing on poetry as well as compehension and unseen essays.

The change to functional skills will instead focus upon supervised essay writing in class for coursework (to stop internet plagiarism and electronic assistance such as spellchecking). There will be an exam question on a poem, but the novel and Shakespeare will be dropped.

Although I think there is a lot of value in literature, too often it has been fed to disinterested kids who develop a negative view of the classic stuff, which may put them off going to it in the future. Shakespeare as a read text is difficult for 14-16 year olds who perhaps need to develop the basics to be able to express themselves adequately.
20% of UK kids leave school with inadequate reading writing spelling grammar etc. How much more inadequate do they feel after struggling with Shakespeare? It would be much better to cover in media studies.

Of course there are further Literture courses which can be taken up once the basics have been established, but these will be done by kids who have an interest in literature.

[spookymulder93]

What careers can you get with a top notch literary education?


That's the number 1 question.

[Paulclem]

Academic careers based solely on a lit ed, though there's always the writing jobs, but they require more skills than a literary ed would give.

[EJMathews]

That this should even be brought up is the very reason I won't be raising my kids in North America.

I am going to have to agree with the sentiment here. I fear book burning is step 2, after all, the literature may all (by someone's editing standards) be available electronically anyway. I'm not a fan of those electronic things, a computer, at a friends or at the library is as close as I care to be to electronics at my age.

[spookymulder93]

Academic careers based solely on a lit ed, though there's always the writing jobs, but they require more skills than a literary ed would give.

True. There are exceptions, but for the majority you'll end up with a academic career.

Like I said earlier, you can get through life without EVER having read Shakespeare, but you won't get far without knowing that 2+2=4.

[stlukesguild]

Like I said earlier, you can get through life without EVER having read Shakespeare, but you won't get far without knowing that 2+2=4.

Yes, yes... and we all ignored it the first time because its a stupid analogy. You are comparing the achievements of a single individual within a given discipline with an entire field of study: Shakespeare vs Mathematics. A more logical analogy would be to compare the necessity of Mathematics vs that of reading and writing. And then you might bring up the question of whether the goal of education should be solely focused upon the practical... and the materialistic? Do you measure the value of things solely in monetary terms?

[spookymulder93]

You should first try and understand what I'm saying. There's no need to try and insult me by calling what I said stupid.

I use Shakespeare as merely an example to represent literature and 2+2=4 to represent math. You can replace Shakespeare's name with any writer of fiction that you choose and it'll be the same.

I'm not saying that Literature is irrelevant, I'm just saying that if you want to get a job and put a roof over your head, food in your stomach, and clothes on your back, which are the basic necessities, you don't need a education in literature. If you have basic reading and writing skills you can get a good job.

The same can be said for math as well, but an advanced education in math will probably get you a higher paying job than an advanced education in Literature.

I remember when I was in high school and I asked my teacher what kind of job could I get with an English degree and she flat out said "nothing".

[LMK]

I wasn't even going to read this thread, because the title sounded as if it were baiting the forum; it is a Liturature Network Forum after all.

However, I decided to respond, not to any poster other than the opening title. Yes, I do believe that Liturature should be taught. My interest in becoming a serious student was sparked by a Lit class I took in High School. It was billed as a College Prep class and I took it as a challenge to myself. I had always liked to read, but I learned how to think about it and how to express my thoughts, how to sometimes look beyond the written word and into the meaning and sometimes to read the words on the page and take them at their value.

This has been the best lesson in LIFE I have yet received. I have much math under my belt, as was required for my B.Sc. degree and my early computer programming days, then even in my technical writing and on into other written work, as well. So feel safe in saying, yes, it is as important as any other class.

I might say that what I could have lived without was Biology, Chemistry, and other sciences, but I'm sure it has helped enrich my life even though I do not see where it has.

[stlukesguild]

I remember when I was in high school and I asked my teacher what kind of job could I get with an English degree and she flat out said nothing.

Sounds like a jaded English teacher.:goof:

Seriously, there are few jobs where a degree in Mathematics, English, Science, History, etc... are enough. Most jobs demand specialized skills and even a combination of skills. A math teacher and the secondary level, for example, would be expected to have a good many credits in math and geometry... but he or she would also need to take courses on Pedagogy, the History of Education, Legal aspects of Education, Computers and Educational technology, Psychology, Child Psychology, Special Education courses, and certainly Literature/Languages as a teacher would be expected to be able to communicate well... both orally and in writing. The National testing for any teacher involves a general knowledge test demanding a level of competence in Mathematics, Science, History and Social Studies, Reading, Writing, and the Arts. Many other careers involve an equal mix of skills and abilities. Employers are not likely to seek out employees with tunnel-vision or a single focus.

Certainly an undergraduate degree in Literature is not likely to gain you an ideal position. But this degree combined with other areas of study can be highly sought-after. There is always a demand for good writing skills in Journalism, Technical Writing (scientific, mathematical, medical, etc...). Skills in writing, literature, and language can be useful in careers ranging from translation, marketing, business, the law, education, politics, etc... You may have noticed that a great many leaders in any number of careers have a definite mastery of language... of the spoken and written word. The value of literature is not limited solely to Phd.s in British Literature or to writers any more than the value of math is limited to Mathematicians and Engineers.

[Buh4Bee]

Your discussion is interesting, but I believe there is only one response needed: yes. Do we want our children taught deeply and well? Then their teachers should also be well-educated. And we should want them well taught in literature, science, math, history. It is the foundation from which all else in their life springs. It may be idealistic, but not to strive for this would be a travesty.

Then they should stop laying off teachers in the US!!
:flare:

[spookymulder93]

I remember when I was in high school and I asked my teacher what kind of job could I get with an English degree and she flat out said nothing.

Sounds like a jaded English teacher.:goof:

Seriously, there are few jobs where a degree in Mathematics, English, Science, History, etc... are enough. Most jobs demand specialized skills and even a combination of skills. A math teacher and the secondary level, for example, would be expected to have a good many credits in math and geometry... but he or she would also need to take courses on Pedagogy, the History of Education, Legal aspects of Education, Computers and Educational technology, Psychology, Child Psychology, Special Education courses, and certainly Literature/Languages as a teacher would be expected to be able to communicate well... both orally and in writing. The National testing for any teacher involves a general knowledge test demanding a level of competence in Mathematics, Science, History and Social Studies, Reading, Writing, and the Arts. Many other careers involve an equal mix of skills and abilities. Employers are not likely to seek out employees with tunnel-vision or a single focus.

Certainly an undergraduate degree in Literature is not likely to gain you an ideal position. But this degree combined with other areas of study can be highly sought-after. There is always a demand for good writing skills in Journalism, Technical Writing (scientific, mathematical, medical, etc...). Skills in writing, literature, and language can be useful in careers ranging from translation, marketing, business, the law, education, politics, etc... You may have noticed that a great many leaders in any number of careers have a definite mastery of language... of the spoken and written word. The value of literature is not limited solely to Phd.s in British Literature or to writers any more than the value of math is limited to Mathematicians and Engineers.

I agree. I mean there's a reason for every subject. The thing is with the world we live in today, at least here in the states, the main thing we're focused on is getting a job. Most high school students will see literature as useless if they haven't been taught its value earlier.

I'm trying to remember my elementary school days, and I did tons of reading back then on my own time, though they were all Goosebump books and fantasy, but I don't recall us ever having to read a novel for class.

I don't think I've ever had to analyze a book before either. Mainly it's just remembering certain details and being able to answer a question about it.

[blazeofglory]

One of the needs why I think lityerature is essential is it inculcates values and of course as long as we are in society or in association values, essentially good or moral are a must and of course a good piece of literature fosters great values. But at times I foresee some menace too while supporting the idea or importance of it in public education, for we must hammer this home to all that more often than not a piece of literature can be injurious to society and for that matter we must be very selective of what we are going to implant in the tender hearts of our kids.