Should English be an optional subject not a compulsory one?

The Scientician

I mean Mandarin is going to displace it as the lingua franca of global commerce at some stage this coming century so it just seems like a waste of time. Listening to teenagers on the bus home there I realised sure they barely learn it after 13 years of schooling anyway. What say you AHers?

J K

they learn it good they do.

Fluorescence

Make them all learn Esperanto. It's a much more viable alternative to English for global language of communication

positron

It should be mandatory. And no, Mandarin is not going to be the global business language either. It would be an advantage to know, but Chinese will learn to do business in English.

J K

The Mandarins, a great bunch of lads.

4zn76tysfajdxp

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzh2b9hOCE1qe4kh8.png

kojack

The language of love should be compulsory. Imagine a world full of lollipops, rainbows and unicorns, where people skip with joy.

Sindri

Trying....to....find....grammatical....errors....in....OP.

AngryBollix

The Scientician wrote: »

I mean Mandarin is going to displace it as the lingua franca of global commerce at some stage this coming century so it just seems like a waste of time. Listening to teenagers on the bus home there I realised sure they barely learn it after 13 years of schooling anyway. What say you AHers?

At least they are fluent in it. (english that is. in fact now i think of it theres a better chance of them being fluent in mandarin than irish)

No subject should be compulsory at LC level

Yakult

We need to start learning Klingon. It's clearly the way forward.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

Going by the appalling grammar displayed on here from time to time then no, it should definitely be compulsory.

AngryBollix

baz2009 wrote: »

Going by the appalling grammar displayed on here from time to time then no, it should definitely be compulsory.

G'wan ourra dat

Fromthetrees

http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/chinese-military.jpg

AngryBollix

J K wrote: »

they learn it good they do.

English makes my brain think good too

AngryBollix

Fromthetrees wrote: »

http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/chinese-military.jpg

They're already here

http://blogs.riverbed.com/.a/6a00e5508a3ca78834012876f22d4d970c-800wi

TeddyTedson

Only 10% of the marks of an English Leaving Cert paper are allocated to grammer and spelling and all that ****, as far as I remember.
Every subject should be optional for Leaving Cert me thinks.

GLaDOS

Considering the appalling level of English used by a significant amount of people every day in a country that uses it as it's primary language, I think it definitely should remain compulsory.

Bad Panda

I won't dignify the original question with a proper answer as it's beyond ridiculous.

However, more emphasis should be placed on grammar in secondary school.

Sindri

Bad Panda wrote: »

I won't dignify the original question with a proper answer as it's beyond ridiculous.

However, more emphasis should be placed on grammar in secondary school.

You did though .

Zaph

When you read the number of people each day on Boards who think that alot is a word and that they hate it when their team is loosing, I think extra English classes should be compulsory, not less.

Daniel S

OP U hav to b kiddin!!1!

shure haf the cuntry cant rite proper!!!!!!

GLaDOS

Zaph wrote: »

When you read the number of people each day on Boards who think that alot is a word .

Always makes me think of this.

TeddyTedson

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Always makes me think of this.

Witch in turn makes me think of this
This one's for you Dr.B

Mardy Bum

I don't mind spelling mistakes, some of the greatest writers ever couldn't spell for their lives; by the time a person reaches secondary school the emphasis on spelling and grammar should be dropped. I think English in secondary school classes should concentrate solely on literature. Literature is about the only way to expel general ignorance (race, gender etc) which pervades most areas in society. The only way people will learn is through the classics.

Fluorescence

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I don't mind spelling mistakes, some of the greatest writers ever couldn't spell for their lives; by the time a person reaches secondary school the emphasis on spelling and grammar should be dropped. I think English in secondary school classes should concentrate solely on literature. Literature is about the only way to expel general ignorance (race, gender etc) which pervades most areas in society. The only way people will learn is through the classics.

Absolutely not. Everyone should be encouraged to write themselves.

Ghost Buster

The Scientician wrote: »

I mean Mandarin is going to displace it as the lingua franca of global commerce at some stage this coming century so it just seems like a waste of time. Listening to teenagers on the bus home there I realised sure they barely learn it after 13 years of schooling anyway. What say you AHers?

Hmmmmm. Lets see.I can speak English and have ok grammar, spelling and punctuation. I cant speak irish in spite of having learned it from age 5 to 18. I have good working French having only learned it from age 14 to 18.
Nah. Keep English I reckon. And French.

Mardy Bum

fluorescence wrote: »

Absolutely not. Everyone should be encouraged to write themselves.

Well obviously students would respond to their texts by writing. The only way to learn how to write, if someone would like to pursue it, is through reading and engaging with the classics otherwise its a waste of time.

Pacifist Pigeon

Should life be optional or compulsory?

Sindri

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I don't mind spelling mistakes, some of the greatest writers ever couldn't spell for their lives; by the time a person reaches secondary school the emphasis on spelling and grammar should be dropped. I think English in secondary school classes should concentrate solely on literature. Literature is about the only way to expel general ignorance (race, gender etc) which pervades most areas in society. The only way people will learn is through the classics.

This is the greatest load of pseudo-intellectual bull**** I have ever heard.




But I agree about the classics. Classical Studies should be compulsory.

Sky King

Their / there / they're

You're / your

etc etc etc

Learn that shit up some.

Additional:

Etc is pronounced Et Cetera and not EK-SETRA

Seanchai

baz2009 wrote: »

Going by the appalling grammar displayed on here from time to time then no, it should definitely be compulsory.

Clearly the compulsory English policy in schools is a failure and we need to change it rather than continuing to waste public funds on this failed policy. At the very least we need to change the way we teach English given the number of people who cannot speak it properly.

Seanchai

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Considering the appalling level of English used by a significant amount of people every day in a country that uses it as it's primary language, I think it definitely should remain compulsory.

Number; it's always number of people.

Previous point about the failed compulsory English policy demonstrated.

PS: And 'its' rather than 'it's', which means 'it is'.

Bruthal

The Scientician wrote: »

I mean Mandarin is going to displace it as the lingua franca of global commerce at some stage this coming century

It might be german, the ways things are going, and without a war.

jased10s

are you not asking and typing this question in english ?

Seanchai

Sindri wrote: »

Trying....to....find....grammatical....errors....in....OP.

Trying...to...find...grammatical...errors...in...OP.

.... only when it is the completion of a sentence (the final ellipsis indicates the period).

Chuck Stone

Sindri wrote: »

Classical Studies should be compulsory.

Like Shakespeare and Dickens?

I don't care much for classics myself and think the idea that young people should be forced to study them is outdated. The focus should be changed to more technical aspects of English imho.

Formal education should concentrate on teaching the 'mechanics' of English. I believe spelling, sentence structure, using paragraphs, not using the same word twice in a sentence twice, one sentence one idea, end of a paragraph introduces the next - that kind of thing should be the function of the English curriculum.

Sindri

Seanchai wrote: »

Trying...to...find...grammatical...errors...in...OP.

.... only when it is the completion of a sentence (the final ellipsis indicates the period).

¿Que?

Sindri

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Like Shakespeare and Dickens?

I don't care much for classics myself and think the idea that young people should be forced to study them is outdated. The focus should be changed to more technical aspects of English imho.

Formal education should concentrate on teaching the 'mechanics' of English. I believe spelling, sentence structure, using paragraphs, not using the same word twice in a sentence twice, one sentence one idea, end of a paragraph introduces the next - that kind of thing should be the function of the English curriculum.

*with justified outrage*

Classical studies, dear sir*, is the study of is the branch of the Humanities comprising the languages, literature, philosophy, history, art, archaeology and other culture of the ancient Mediterranean world (Bronze Age ca. BC 3000 – Late Antiquity ca. AD 300–600); especially Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome during Classical Antiquity (ca. BC 600 – AD 600). Initially, the study of the Classics (the period's literature) was the principal study in the humanities.†




*I use that term loosely.
†May or may not be taken from Wiki.

Namlub

Seanchai wrote: »

Number; it's always number of people.

Previous point about the failed compulsory English policy demonstrated.

PS: And 'its' rather than 'it's', which means 'it is'.

Surely your needless pedantry just reinforces his point?

the groutch

no subject should be compulsory for the leaving cert.

Chuck Stone

Sindri wrote: »

*with justified outrage*

Teach children how to use the tools of knowledge and critical thought*, clarity of thought and creativity will follow.

*I don't believe education systems are designed to encourage children to think critically fwiw.

'The educational system is supposed to train people to be obedient, conformist, not think too much, do as you're told, stay passive, don't cause any crisis of democracy, don't raise any questions and so on.

You know that the only people who make it through are people like me and most of you, I guess, who are willing to do it no matter how stupid it is, because we want to go to the next step.

Well there are people who don't do that, there are people who say 'I'm not going to do that it's too ridiculous'. Those people are called behavioural problems ... they end up in the principle's office or on the streets or selling drugs or whatever ... all of this is a technique for selection for obedience'

Noam Chomsky

Doc Ruby

Mardy Bum wrote: »

I don't mind spelling mistakes, some of the greatest writers ever couldn't spell for their lives

Who?

Sindri wrote: »

Classical studies, dear sir*, is the study of is the branch of the Humanities comprising the languages, literature, philosophy, history, art, archaeology and other culture of the ancient Mediterranean world (Bronze Age ca. BC 3000 – Late Antiquity ca. AD 300–600); especially Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome during Classical Antiquity (ca. BC 600 – AD 600). Initially, the study of the Classics (the period's literature) was the principal study in the humanities.†

Doesn't have much to do with English tbh, much as some might wish it did.

English grammar and spelling, yes a focus on that is important, but you could pretty much cut out the Shakespeare and so on and nobody would miss it. So I'd lose about half the English classes. Maybe do a recommended reading extra curricular thing for more points or something. It is far more important for the future of students that they be able to write and express themselves accurately, and 16th century diction along with iambic pentameter is of exactly zero value in that regard.

Maybe it could be taught in history as a sidebar?

Sindri

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'd agree with certain aspects of philosophy, history and language (English structure as mentioned above) but the rest is a sure fire way of boring children.

Give children the tools and allow them to craft their own creations I say.

Classical studies is brilliant. Basically everything you need to know about anything is contained with the subject.

No it's intellectually stimulating. Everyone could benefit from it. Plus the LC course is a piece of piss. You're nearly guaranteed at least a B in it.

Doc Ruby

Sindri wrote: »

Bin it.

Agreed.

Chuck Stone

Sindri wrote: »

Classical studies is brilliant. Basically everything you need to know about anything is contained with the subject.

Oh come on now Sindri. Sit down and have some tea and cake.

I know very little about 'the classics' and I think I can hold my own fairly well intellectually.

Mardy Bum

Sindri wrote: »

This is the greatest load of pseudo-intellectual bull**** I have ever heard.




But I agree about the classics. Classical Studies should be compulsory.

How is it exactly? If you can get a group of teenagers to engage with a texts by authors like Steinbeck, Wilde, O Casey, Yeats they will learn much more important lessons for life than they will in the majority of the rest of their studies at that age.

Coriolanus

You could argue literature should be optional, but if anything we should be spending more time teaching basic English.

The King of Moo

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Who?


Doesn't have much to do with English tbh, much as some might wish it did.

English grammar and spelling, yes a focus on that is important, but you could pretty much cut out the Shakespeare and so on and nobody would miss it. So I'd lose about half the English classes. Maybe do a recommended reading extra curricular thing for more points or something. It is far more important for the future of students that they be able to write and express themselves accurately, and 16th century diction along with iambic pentameter is of exactly zero value in that regard.

Maybe it could be taught in history as a sidebar?

I agree that we should have a strong focus on grammar and spelling, but I don't think any secondary-school curriculum is complete without Shakespeare.

On the surface his work might seem old-fashioned and irrelevant, but I think any passionate teacher could get most teenagers into Shakespeare, provided they chose the right plays.

The language does seem impenetrable at first, but apart from some more formal constructions and old-fashioned terms it's quite straightforward, and school editions will have a glossary in the margin anyway. And the grammar is the same as it is now.

Also, his best works have timeless, universal narratives and themes. You just need to pick the right plays and really open kids' eyes to it and show them what they're about.
For example: we did The Merchant of Venice in Junior Cert and though I enjoyed it, I didn't love it and most of the class were bored by it. There wasn't much in it for a fourteen-year old to relate to, and our teacher made it worse by trying to get us to see how funny it was, when it really, really wasn't, not by modern standards.

But something like Much Ado About Nothing would be a much better introduction to Shakespeare. It has an always-relevant story about the battle between the sexes and genuinely witty humour that anyone can get and relate to. I saw it performed at The Globe and there was a big group of schoolkids there who were obviously studying it for their GCSE's and the majority of them absolutely loved it!

Also, Shakespeare had lots and lots of dick jokes, which everyone loves.

Sorry to go on, but I just really love Shakespeare.

Mardy Bum

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Who?


Doesn't have much to do with English tbh, much as some might wish it did.

English grammar and spelling, yes a focus on that is important, but you could pretty much cut out the Shakespeare and so on and nobody would miss it. So I'd lose about half the English classes. Maybe do a recommended reading extra curricular thing for more points or something. It is far more important for the future of students that they be able to write and express themselves accurately, and 16th century diction along with iambic pentameter is of exactly zero value in that regard.

Maybe it could be taught in history as a sidebar?

Ireland's greatest poet W.B Yeats couldn't spell; his manuscripts are laughable. If students were actually taught Shakespeare properly it would be much more interesting. Personally, I'd teach modern drama instead of Shakespeare because the average pupil switches off when they see Elizabethan English.

Chuck Stone

Nevore wrote: »

You could argue literature should be optional, but if anything we should be spending more time teaching basic English.

Nevore wrote: »

You could argue literature should be optional, but if anything we should be spending more time teaching basic English.

Nevore! :mad:

What have I told you about repeating yourself in class?

I want you to write 'I will not repeat myself' 500 times and have it on my desk first thing in the morning. :mad:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Optional until when...?

If a student cannot communicate at the age of 15 or so, somethin it seriously wrong. After that, it should be optional

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Every subject should be optional for Leaving Cert me thinks.

Listen to Teddy, children.