4 ms·

This is a very immature take. Of course you can BELIEVE that English classes didn't help you learn how to read and write more effectively or how to better unde

This is a very immature take. Of course you can BELIEVE that English classes didn't help you learn how to read and write more effectively or how to better understand what was left unsaid or unwritten, but believing something doesn't make it so. And yes, as a student reading the classics often sucks. After all, you're not reading them for pleasure - you're reading them to learn how to identify and discuss their themes. But more than that, you see how themes are repeated throughout history, and how the author's experiences changed how they illustrated those themes. English classes taught you plenty of history - not so much in rote facts, but rather by illustrating parts of the cultural zeitgeist of different eras and how authors reinforced, protested, or recorded what was happening at the time. I doubt many children appreciate education while they're learning, but adults certainly can be thankful that they weren't left in the dark.

scotty79 2y ago
It's very impolite to label lived experience of another educated and probably somewhat accomplished adult as immature. At 45 years old I can confidently say that anything I've "learned" on my native language classes through 12 years of having them was totally useless garbage and I'm using none of it in my writing, reading and culturural appreciation or understanding of the world. Everything I use was self-acquired in the time I had that was not spent in native language classes. Ideas of education are great, but the implementation is terrible to the point of being useless. On the other hand math, physics and chemistry I learned at school has been immensely practically and culturally useful and I wouldn't know a fraction of it if I wasn't taught it in school.
- ben_w 2y ago
  40, and I concur. Even if the goal is a cultural appreciation, Shakespeare's plays will tell you as much about England in 1585-1613 as Terry Gilliam's filmography does about the Anglosphere in 1971-present. It's more than zero, but it's also missing the overwhelming majority of the context and the world in which it exists. Modern readings treat Shakespeare with excessive reverence: not just "a playwright" but "The Bard". Those plays were made to be performed with very short rehearsal time before performing, outside, with no lights (at most fire, but it was wood and thatched and burned down from a theatrical cannon), in a crowded venue where audiences would be expected to jeer and cheer, whereas today it's a finely rehearsed performance by people who take it seriously performed for an audience who consider it high culture. Monty Python's Gumbies aren't well understood by new viewer today, as modern news treats "the man on the street" somewhat differently than in the 70s. How wrong do modern viewers comprehend Shakespeare's characters, considering that "The Taming of the Shrew" is classified as a comedy? That said, I was also busy teaching myself a lot of maths and science ahead of the classes; what I learned from school but would not have taught myself was the basics of German and French (though only the former stuck with me), the absolute basics of music notation, some metalworking and woodworking, and PE. Oh, and the practical experiences in the chemistry lab, though I'd have still done the theory myself without that.
  - scotty79 2y ago
    > Shakespeare's plays will tell you as much about England in 1585-1613 as Terry Gilliam's filmography does about the Anglosphere in 1971-present. Why, given the vast ocean of possible knowledge, would you assume I or most people would have any interest or benefit in that? Over something like geometric algebra, soldering or solving quadratic equations? Human creations can be roughly divided in two categories, tools and content. Teaching content is pointless. Its selection is arbitrary and its value is roughly same and miniscule. Millions will choose Frotnite streamer over Shakespeare any day of the week. Math, physics, chemistry, foreign language are tools. Tools that the knowledge of can help you create whatever you desire, both content and whats more important and rare new tools. Native language classes, history, geography, even biology are very content heavy and very poor on tools. Thus they are mostly useless.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      I was agreeing with you about these points, sorry if that didn't come across, I was rather tired while writing that. I was also saying that even though the lens of culture, the generally mandatory Shakespeare is overrated.
      - scotty79 2y ago
        It's my fault that it didn't come across. English is not my native language. Most of it maps to my brain really well, but there are some phrases that my brain just refuses to properly assimilate. "I concur" is the one. Somehow my brain intuitively maps it rather to "I object" than "I agree" like it should.
        ben_w 2y ago
        Ah, interesting. I would never have guessed from the username. :) I have a similar problem with a few words in German, despite being in Berlin for 6 years now — "Es war krass" sounds like it should be a bad thing.

scotty79 2y ago

It's very impolite to label lived experience of another educated and probably somewhat accomplished adult as immature. At 45 years old I can confidently say that anything I've "learned" on my native language classes through 12 years of having them was totally useless garbage and I'm using none of it in my writing, reading and culturural appreciation or understanding of the world. Everything I use was self-acquired in the time I had that was not spent in native language classes. Ideas of education are great, but the implementation is terrible to the point of being useless. On the other hand math, physics and chemistry I learned at school has been immensely practically and culturally useful and I wouldn't know a fraction of it if I wasn't taught it in school.

ben_w 2y ago
40, and I concur. Even if the goal is a cultural appreciation, Shakespeare's plays will tell you as much about England in 1585-1613 as Terry Gilliam's filmography does about the Anglosphere in 1971-present. It's more than zero, but it's also missing the overwhelming majority of the context and the world in which it exists. Modern readings treat Shakespeare with excessive reverence: not just "a playwright" but "The Bard". Those plays were made to be performed with very short rehearsal time before performing, outside, with no lights (at most fire, but it was wood and thatched and burned down from a theatrical cannon), in a crowded venue where audiences would be expected to jeer and cheer, whereas today it's a finely rehearsed performance by people who take it seriously performed for an audience who consider it high culture. Monty Python's Gumbies aren't well understood by new viewer today, as modern news treats "the man on the street" somewhat differently than in the 70s. How wrong do modern viewers comprehend Shakespeare's characters, considering that "The Taming of the Shrew" is classified as a comedy? That said, I was also busy teaching myself a lot of maths and science ahead of the classes; what I learned from school but would not have taught myself was the basics of German and French (though only the former stuck with me), the absolute basics of music notation, some metalworking and woodworking, and PE. Oh, and the practical experiences in the chemistry lab, though I'd have still done the theory myself without that.
- scotty79 2y ago
  > Shakespeare's plays will tell you as much about England in 1585-1613 as Terry Gilliam's filmography does about the Anglosphere in 1971-present. Why, given the vast ocean of possible knowledge, would you assume I or most people would have any interest or benefit in that? Over something like geometric algebra, soldering or solving quadratic equations? Human creations can be roughly divided in two categories, tools and content. Teaching content is pointless. Its selection is arbitrary and its value is roughly same and miniscule. Millions will choose Frotnite streamer over Shakespeare any day of the week. Math, physics, chemistry, foreign language are tools. Tools that the knowledge of can help you create whatever you desire, both content and whats more important and rare new tools. Native language classes, history, geography, even biology are very content heavy and very poor on tools. Thus they are mostly useless.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    I was agreeing with you about these points, sorry if that didn't come across, I was rather tired while writing that. I was also saying that even though the lens of culture, the generally mandatory Shakespeare is overrated.
    - scotty79 2y ago
      It's my fault that it didn't come across. English is not my native language. Most of it maps to my brain really well, but there are some phrases that my brain just refuses to properly assimilate. "I concur" is the one. Somehow my brain intuitively maps it rather to "I object" than "I agree" like it should.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        Ah, interesting. I would never have guessed from the username. :) I have a similar problem with a few words in German, despite being in Berlin for 6 years now — "Es war krass" sounds like it should be a bad thing.