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.

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?