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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelbel3abh
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.
"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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whifflingpin
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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.
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.
Literary education enriches anyone who participates in it. It might not be necessary for survival, but really, no academic subject is.