13 ms·

You’re comparing apples to oranges. There’s a big difference between wanting to learn and having to learn. Someone wants to be a doctor? Great, soon they’ll re

by tomp 5y ago

You’re comparing apples to oranges. There’s a big difference between wanting to learn and having to learn. Someone wants to be a doctor? Great, soon they’ll realise that they need to learn anatomy, and they’ll do that if they’re sufficiently motivated! But most of school was, you have to learn something because an adult (and not very smart adult either ... most teachers aren’t experts, they just seem like that, to kids) said so. I don’t care why Hamlet said something, I never did, I never will, I never needed that knowledge and never will, and to the extent that you can maybe learn some general life principles from such books, there are many other, better ways of learning that, including many better and more interesting books. Even the employment course you’re taking, you want to take - you’re getting something out of it (a promotion, hopefully) - even though even in your reply there’s some amount of bitterness about having to learn it (“memorizing stupid powerpoints about stuff I will probably never use”) - now imagine being a child with much less independence and agency and multiply that feeling of dread by 1000x...

sandworm101 5y ago
Learning Shakespeare has nothing to do with Shakespeare. It is taught is because doing so forces students to understand language. To read Shakespeare they must learn to examine language for nuance. By doing so they become better speakers regardless of whether they ever revisit the material.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  But why Shakespeare, especially given that the consensus amongst schoolkids is that it's indecipherable (given the language difference to today)? Shakespeare is taught...because Shakespeare has always been taught. It's recognized as important; to be fair, it is from an objective sense, but subjectively there is no reason to read it, nor even to watch it performed unless someone wants to. You learn language by practicing language. You can read or watch anything and better understand the nuances of a language; even better to talk to people who speak it. English evolves because of the latter; Shakespeare doesn't. Everyone who speaks a language other than English learned to do so without Shakespeare. I am unconvinced of the necessity of reading/watching Shakespeare unless someone wants to; it is but one means to an end.
  - sandworm101 5y ago
    If I were a highschool English teacher I would point the kids at more recent British works. I'd point them at Blackadder or Upstart Crow. Understanding that language, getting all the jokes, requires a degree of english comprehension that is probably slightly higher than the average highschool student. If I wanted to improve their spoken word while teaching them science, I'd assign them every single Attenborough or Brian Cox documentary.
    - meristohm 5y ago
      Blackadder has crisp enunciation, helping make the humor more accessible.
  - andrepd 5y ago
    Shakespeare is taught because Shakespeare is excellent. I disagree with the methods that are often used to "teach" literature (memorise this "official" interpretation, then spill these bullet points on the exam so the teacher is happy), but nobody can deny how brilliant it is. The mark of great art: they speak of things universal to the human condition, and transcend the time and space where they were produced. You are simply not a complete person if you do never read literature in your life. > Everyone who speaks a language other than English learned to do so without Shakespeare Well duh, they learn the masterpiece of whatever language they're learning. Be that Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Victor Hugo, or Luís de Camões.
    - mumblemumble 5y ago
      Shakespeare is excellent, but it took me years - long past when I graduated from school - to recognize its excellence. I place the blame here squarely on how it is presented in schools. First, it was dropped in abruptly, after years of focusing heavily on largely apoetic work like Old Yeller and Great Expectations. When poetry was introduced, it was typically dropped as part of some hermetically sealed unit, and all possibility of enjoyment was eradicated by analyzing each poem to death. [1] How are people supposed to learn to enjoy play on words when any hint of actual play has been surgically excised from the experience? And then, since this is a class, there will be a test, and so you have to format the presentation in a manner that makes it more amenable to testing. This means that, if the play is a comedy, then you'll have to stop every few lines to have the teacher explain, in detail, why what you just read is funny. Which it may not be, because performance comedy is all about presentation and timing, but we're not watching a performance, we're reading the text. Imagine encountering Spaceballs for the first time in script form, so that you're completely unable to associate any of the lines with the performances of John Candy or Rick Moranis. It won't be nearly as good. And having someone sitting over your shoulder repeatedly interrupting you to say, "Now, in the actual movie, this part is hilarious because..." only makes it less funny. If the work being studied is a tragedy, well, it's a similar story, only in this case it is kind of funny because the tragedy has gone meta. Not that anyone sitting in the classroom is in a position to realize that. They're too focused on taking notes so they can remember details - especially details about the teacher's interpretation of the story - for the coming test. Because furiously scribbling in notebooks and trying to memorize every detail is an essential part of the way in which members of the groundling audience, literate and illiterate alike, experienced performances in the original Globe Theatre. Ugh. It makes me irritated all over again just thinking about it. Primary and secondary education classes are seemingly predicated on the notion that the best place to study everyday human experience is in a cadaver lab. Largely only because the courses are being designed by people who sell scalpels and formaldehyde for a living. [1] Exhibit A: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/07/poet-i-cant-answer-questions-on-texas-standardized-tests-about-my-own-poems/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
hdctambien 5y ago
> most teachers aren’t experts, they just seem like that, to kids Oof. That's cold. Not necessarily wrong, but cold. I mean, most software developers are not actually good at developing software, they just seem like that because they've only been asked to write the same CRUD app over and over again. Teachers may not be "experts" like a PhD in a topic is an expert, but they are educated (Bachelors minimum, many states require a Masters eventually) but they are often experts in education. It turns out just knowing a lot about a topic does not qualify you to teach it (see: many college professors). Effective teaching is a skill that lots of people think they have, but few actually do. It doesn't really matter what Hamlet said. Literature is a class where you learn to express yourself and are exposed to how other people/cultures/times express themselves in a structured way. And how would you know that you don't care about Hamlet unless you were made to read it? You could live a successful life without reading any books ever (you could even be President of the United States!) but it would be much richer if you were exposed to ideas/topics that challenge you. And who knows where you could use that information. Heck, Bob Dylan made an entire career as a musician off of the AP English curriculum.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  I can guarantee you that challenging someone who does not want to be challenged will not actually cause them to learn anything. When I was a kid, two different years, the teachers had us read/read to us "Where the Red Fern Grows". At the time, I was reading fantasy from the adult section at the library (and was teased for it; both the fact I was reading for fun, and the subject matter). Literally the only thing I remember about that book is how much I hated it. It's one thing I have to give Harry Potter, despite J. K. Rowling. It popularized fantasy enough that kids read on their own, and normalized reading books for fun in schools.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - hdctambien 5y ago
    I don't disagree with you. When I was in school (and still now, really) if there wasn't a dragon or a spaceship on the cover, I wasn't interested in it. I remember more about Where the Red Fern Grows, but not much (a kid gets mail order dogs to hunt with and (spoilers) the dogs die ... because the dogs always die). The only thing I remember about Silas Marner is that he buried his money and it was stolen (not a spoiler, that's like chapter 1). Something to know about English classes in particular (but also History and other liberal arts/non-science classes) is that isn't not about "the books", but critical thinking and discussion. In fact, it's likely that the mandated standards don't specify specific books to read. It turns out, though, that in a class of 30+ kids, it's easiest (or even possible) to have a critical discussion if everyone reads the same books at the same time. Also, if the kids think they are being "taught the book" but the teacher is trying to teach "literary literacy" using "the book" as an example, that's when you get arguments like "I didn't learn anything!" and "This is a waste of my time!" and "This other book is better!". Those arguments are besides the point. You should have been talking about why the author made the literary decisions they made, what were the themes? Whose point of view was it told from? How was the book impactful (or not)? These are the standards in Texas. Other states should have this information publicly available and I assume they will be very similar. https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/ch110c.pdf https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/ch110c.pdf For English II these are the skills a student should learn (notice no specific books are mentioned, but "traditional", "contemporary", "classical", and "diverse" are used to describe the books) - The student develops oral language through listening, speaking, and discussion - The student uses newly acquired vocabulary expressively - The student reads grade-appropriate texts independently. - The student is expected to self-select text and read independently for a sustained period of time. - The student uses metacognitive skills to both develop and deepen comprehension of increasingly complex texts - The student responds to an increasingly challenging variety of sources that are read, heard, or viewed - The student recognizes and analyzes literary elements within and across increasingly complex traditional, contemporary, classical, and diverse literary texts - The student recognizes and analyzes genre-specific characteristics, structures, and purposes within and across increasingly complex traditional, contemporary, classical, and diverse texts - The student uses critical inquiry to analyze the authors' choices and how they influence and communicate meaning within a variety of texts. - The student analyzes and applies author's craft purposefully in order to develop his or her own products and performances. - The student uses the writing process recursively to compose multiple texts that are legible and use appropriate conventions - The student uses genre characteristics and craft to compose multiple texts that are meaningful - The student engages in both short-term and sustained recursive inquiry processes for a variety of purposes Much like learning a foreign language is about more than learning vocabulary, but you can't learn how to talk in a restaurant if you don't know the restaurant related vocabulary. English class is about more than reading books, but you can't have those discussions if you haven't read the books. Or, it would be much more difficult to effectively "analyze literary elements" in a classroom setting with 30 kids that all ready 30 different books. Sure, teachers can be better or worse (or very, very bad) at teaching the material, or conveying what is being taught. But if you view English class as equivalent to "sitting under a tree and reading a book" (that was another commenter's words, not yours) then you're missing the forest for the tree and it won't matter how good the teacher is, you will be fighting them the whole way (which is maybe your point about not being able to challenge someone that doesn't want to be challenged)
Spooky23 5y ago
Shakespeare isn't about life lessons, it's more about analysis and understanding the nuance of the language. The difference between that an occupational training / brain dumps is that it has more long-term value. There's a reason education isn't just taking a bunch of occupational certifications. As an anecdote, I've always been in tech roles; I dual-majored in History and Computer Science for reasons. Looking back at various roles I've had in my life's journey, the skill framework I learned studying and writing about Napoleonic warfare or the Silk Road, were just as essential as the framework in math and engineering on the CS part of my education, maybe more so.
aledalgrande 5y ago
100% agree with this. Education should not put everyone in a box and feed them all the possible information. Look at the Finnish model, there's a reason they have the best performance. I used to hate art when it was forced down my throat in school. Now that I can go to museums by myself and learn what I want, I love it. And about "having to learn" stuff, I feel like it's more a justification the parent poster gave to themselves so they get over with it, not a real _need_ to learn something. What's the point of memorizing stuff you'll never use?
rendang 5y ago
Wait a sec, I'm on your side with the criticism of public education thing but in saying that there are "many better and more interesting books" than Hamlet, what are you criticizing about the play, exactly?

by tomp 5y ago

sandworm101 5y ago

Learning Shakespeare has nothing to do with Shakespeare. It is taught is because doing so forces students to understand language. To read Shakespeare they must learn to examine language for nuance. By doing so they become better speakers regardless of whether they ever revisit the material.

lostcolony 5y ago
But why Shakespeare, especially given that the consensus amongst schoolkids is that it's indecipherable (given the language difference to today)? Shakespeare is taught...because Shakespeare has always been taught. It's recognized as important; to be fair, it is from an objective sense, but subjectively there is no reason to read it, nor even to watch it performed unless someone wants to. You learn language by practicing language. You can read or watch anything and better understand the nuances of a language; even better to talk to people who speak it. English evolves because of the latter; Shakespeare doesn't. Everyone who speaks a language other than English learned to do so without Shakespeare. I am unconvinced of the necessity of reading/watching Shakespeare unless someone wants to; it is but one means to an end.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  If I were a highschool English teacher I would point the kids at more recent British works. I'd point them at Blackadder or Upstart Crow. Understanding that language, getting all the jokes, requires a degree of english comprehension that is probably slightly higher than the average highschool student. If I wanted to improve their spoken word while teaching them science, I'd assign them every single Attenborough or Brian Cox documentary.
  - meristohm 5y ago
    Blackadder has crisp enunciation, helping make the humor more accessible.
- andrepd 5y ago
  Shakespeare is taught because Shakespeare is excellent. I disagree with the methods that are often used to "teach" literature (memorise this "official" interpretation, then spill these bullet points on the exam so the teacher is happy), but nobody can deny how brilliant it is. The mark of great art: they speak of things universal to the human condition, and transcend the time and space where they were produced. You are simply not a complete person if you do never read literature in your life. > Everyone who speaks a language other than English learned to do so without Shakespeare Well duh, they learn the masterpiece of whatever language they're learning. Be that Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Victor Hugo, or Luís de Camões.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    Shakespeare is excellent, but it took me years - long past when I graduated from school - to recognize its excellence. I place the blame here squarely on how it is presented in schools. First, it was dropped in abruptly, after years of focusing heavily on largely apoetic work like Old Yeller and Great Expectations. When poetry was introduced, it was typically dropped as part of some hermetically sealed unit, and all possibility of enjoyment was eradicated by analyzing each poem to death. [1] How are people supposed to learn to enjoy play on words when any hint of actual play has been surgically excised from the experience? And then, since this is a class, there will be a test, and so you have to format the presentation in a manner that makes it more amenable to testing. This means that, if the play is a comedy, then you'll have to stop every few lines to have the teacher explain, in detail, why what you just read is funny. Which it may not be, because performance comedy is all about presentation and timing, but we're not watching a performance, we're reading the text. Imagine encountering Spaceballs for the first time in script form, so that you're completely unable to associate any of the lines with the performances of John Candy or Rick Moranis. It won't be nearly as good. And having someone sitting over your shoulder repeatedly interrupting you to say, "Now, in the actual movie, this part is hilarious because..." only makes it less funny. If the work being studied is a tragedy, well, it's a similar story, only in this case it is kind of funny because the tragedy has gone meta. Not that anyone sitting in the classroom is in a position to realize that. They're too focused on taking notes so they can remember details - especially details about the teacher's interpretation of the story - for the coming test. Because furiously scribbling in notebooks and trying to memorize every detail is an essential part of the way in which members of the groundling audience, literate and illiterate alike, experienced performances in the original Globe Theatre. Ugh. It makes me irritated all over again just thinking about it. Primary and secondary education classes are seemingly predicated on the notion that the best place to study everyday human experience is in a cadaver lab. Largely only because the courses are being designed by people who sell scalpels and formaldehyde for a living. [1] Exhibit A: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/07/poet-i-cant-answer-questions-on-texas-standardized-tests-about-my-own-poems/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2017/01/...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

hdctambien 5y ago

> most teachers aren’t experts, they just seem like that, to kids Oof. That's cold. Not necessarily wrong, but cold. I mean, most software developers are not actually good at developing software, they just seem like that because they've only been asked to write the same CRUD app over and over again. Teachers may not be "experts" like a PhD in a topic is an expert, but they are educated (Bachelors minimum, many states require a Masters eventually) but they are often experts in education. It turns out just knowing a lot about a topic does not qualify you to teach it (see: many college professors). Effective teaching is a skill that lots of people think they have, but few actually do. It doesn't really matter what Hamlet said. Literature is a class where you learn to express yourself and are exposed to how other people/cultures/times express themselves in a structured way. And how would you know that you don't care about Hamlet unless you were made to read it? You could live a successful life without reading any books ever (you could even be President of the United States!) but it would be much richer if you were exposed to ideas/topics that challenge you. And who knows where you could use that information. Heck, Bob Dylan made an entire career as a musician off of the AP English curriculum.

lostcolony 5y ago
I can guarantee you that challenging someone who does not want to be challenged will not actually cause them to learn anything. When I was a kid, two different years, the teachers had us read/read to us "Where the Red Fern Grows". At the time, I was reading fantasy from the adult section at the library (and was teased for it; both the fact I was reading for fun, and the subject matter). Literally the only thing I remember about that book is how much I hated it. It's one thing I have to give Harry Potter, despite J. K. Rowling. It popularized fantasy enough that kids read on their own, and normalized reading books for fun in schools.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- hdctambien 5y ago
  I don't disagree with you. When I was in school (and still now, really) if there wasn't a dragon or a spaceship on the cover, I wasn't interested in it. I remember more about Where the Red Fern Grows, but not much (a kid gets mail order dogs to hunt with and (spoilers) the dogs die ... because the dogs always die). The only thing I remember about Silas Marner is that he buried his money and it was stolen (not a spoiler, that's like chapter 1). Something to know about English classes in particular (but also History and other liberal arts/non-science classes) is that isn't not about "the books", but critical thinking and discussion. In fact, it's likely that the mandated standards don't specify specific books to read. It turns out, though, that in a class of 30+ kids, it's easiest (or even possible) to have a critical discussion if everyone reads the same books at the same time. Also, if the kids think they are being "taught the book" but the teacher is trying to teach "literary literacy" using "the book" as an example, that's when you get arguments like "I didn't learn anything!" and "This is a waste of my time!" and "This other book is better!". Those arguments are besides the point. You should have been talking about why the author made the literary decisions they made, what were the themes? Whose point of view was it told from? How was the book impactful (or not)? These are the standards in Texas. Other states should have this information publicly available and I assume they will be very similar. https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/ch110c.pdf https://tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/ch110c.pdf For English II these are the skills a student should learn (notice no specific books are mentioned, but "traditional", "contemporary", "classical", and "diverse" are used to describe the books) - The student develops oral language through listening, speaking, and discussion - The student uses newly acquired vocabulary expressively - The student reads grade-appropriate texts independently. - The student is expected to self-select text and read independently for a sustained period of time. - The student uses metacognitive skills to both develop and deepen comprehension of increasingly complex texts - The student responds to an increasingly challenging variety of sources that are read, heard, or viewed - The student recognizes and analyzes literary elements within and across increasingly complex traditional, contemporary, classical, and diverse literary texts - The student recognizes and analyzes genre-specific characteristics, structures, and purposes within and across increasingly complex traditional, contemporary, classical, and diverse texts - The student uses critical inquiry to analyze the authors' choices and how they influence and communicate meaning within a variety of texts. - The student analyzes and applies author's craft purposefully in order to develop his or her own products and performances. - The student uses the writing process recursively to compose multiple texts that are legible and use appropriate conventions - The student uses genre characteristics and craft to compose multiple texts that are meaningful - The student engages in both short-term and sustained recursive inquiry processes for a variety of purposes Much like learning a foreign language is about more than learning vocabulary, but you can't learn how to talk in a restaurant if you don't know the restaurant related vocabulary. English class is about more than reading books, but you can't have those discussions if you haven't read the books. Or, it would be much more difficult to effectively "analyze literary elements" in a classroom setting with 30 kids that all ready 30 different books. Sure, teachers can be better or worse (or very, very bad) at teaching the material, or conveying what is being taught. But if you view English class as equivalent to "sitting under a tree and reading a book" (that was another commenter's words, not yours) then you're missing the forest for the tree and it won't matter how good the teacher is, you will be fighting them the whole way (which is maybe your point about not being able to challenge someone that doesn't want to be challenged)

Spooky23 5y ago

Shakespeare isn't about life lessons, it's more about analysis and understanding the nuance of the language. The difference between that an occupational training / brain dumps is that it has more long-term value. There's a reason education isn't just taking a bunch of occupational certifications. As an anecdote, I've always been in tech roles; I dual-majored in History and Computer Science for reasons. Looking back at various roles I've had in my life's journey, the skill framework I learned studying and writing about Napoleonic warfare or the Silk Road, were just as essential as the framework in math and engineering on the CS part of my education, maybe more so.

aledalgrande 5y ago

100% agree with this. Education should not put everyone in a box and feed them all the possible information. Look at the Finnish model, there's a reason they have the best performance. I used to hate art when it was forced down my throat in school. Now that I can go to museums by myself and learn what I want, I love it. And about "having to learn" stuff, I feel like it's more a justification the parent poster gave to themselves so they get over with it, not a real _need_ to learn something. What's the point of memorizing stuff you'll never use?

rendang 5y ago

Wait a sec, I'm on your side with the criticism of public education thing but in saying that there are "many better and more interesting books" than Hamlet, what are you criticizing about the play, exactly?