> I'd argue that learning about the scope of history rather than just post-1800 is valuable. So would I. But much more is known about the years since 1800 than

> I'd argue that learning about the scope of history rather than just post-1800 is valuable. So would I. But much more is known about the years since 1800 than before year 1000, yet my most serious history courses spent so much time before year 0 they never made it to 1800 although they were supposed to. Moreover, drawing from a Markov assumption, which commonly does hold over time, for understanding 1900, what the situation was in 1800 is important, but, given what that situation was in 1800, what the situation was, in addition, in year 1000 or 1000 BC is next to irrelevant. Of course, what we really need to care about from history is what it can tell us about now and 10, 50, 100 years from now. For that, sure, can even just start in 1800 and lose very little from ignoring 1000 BC. Still, sure, I'd go along with a fast pass to year 1000, a little slower to year 1800, and then dig in. The academic study of history seems to be more an infatuation with the past than a source of lessons for the future, or from just a movie, "a passion for antiquities." > That said, you seem to lay the blame for all that on having to take what I assume was more or less an English literature class throughout that period (though I doubt it was such in 1st grade). No, I was careful not to say "class" or "course". They taught English in grades 1-6, and there the reading was essentially all just fictional literature, and the writing assignments were all essentially just versions of story telling, but the actual separate courses in English didn't start until grade 7. > But I personally think there's a lot of value in appreciating great literature (as well as other fiction). If that stuff is to be required, then the claims and support for them should be made clear. For appreciation, I'm a big fan of classical music. E.g., last night it was the von Karajan recording of the R. Strauss Ein Heldenleben. To me, passionate stuff. Highly meaningful. Still, very few people will get much out of that music. But, I do appreciate it, but just how and why are long stories. Net, I couldn't recommend that a music appreciation class with such music be required. Similarly for a class in appreciation of great literature. STEM subjects? Sure. > I'm sorry you apparently prefer to only read programming books. Take a pass through either of, say, Jacques Neveu, Mathematical Foundations of the Calculus of Probability or David G. Luenberger, Optimization by Vector Space Methods I listed, which I have done, especially the first, and still claim that these are "programming books". Both have as prerequisites a solid undergraduate pure math background; the first is heavily about measure theory, especially the Radon-Nikodym theorem; both are heavily about functional analysis, e.g., Hilbert and Banach spaces; and the second is heavily about the Hahn-Banach theorem. I take it that you like fictional literature. Well, I don't. And, whether I like it or not, since there is no common and very good case for the value other than just entertainment, I suggest that less of it be force fed.