Should English be an optional subject not a compulsory one?

Seanchai · 23-02-2012 12:36AM

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 · 23-02-2012 12:38AM

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 · 23-02-2012 12:39AM

are you not asking and typing this question in english ?

Seanchai · 23-02-2012 12:45AM

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 · 23-02-2012 12:47AM

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I don't care much for classics myself and think the idea that young people should be forced to study them is outdated.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 · 23-02-2012 12:51AM

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 · 23-02-2012 12:56AM

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I don't care much for classics myself and think the idea that young people should be forced to study them is outdated.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 · 23-02-2012 01:00AM

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 · 23-02-2012 01:02AM

no subject should be compulsory for the leaving cert.

Chuck Stone · 23-02-2012 01:03AM

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 · 23-02-2012 01:04AM

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 · 23-02-2012 01:15AM

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 · 23-02-2012 01:17AM

Sindri wrote: »

Bin it.

Agreed.

Chuck Stone · 23-02-2012 01:35AM

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 · 23-02-2012 01:44AM

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 · 23-02-2012 01:47AM

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

The King of Moo · 23-02-2012 01:51AM

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 · 23-02-2012 01:51AM

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 · 23-02-2012 01:52AM

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 · 23-02-2012 01:58AM

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.

Doc Ruby · 23-02-2012 02:18AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

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.

I love Shakespeare too but its worthless from an educational perspective. There isn't one single point you raise above which makes the bard valuable for modern education. Drop it, complete waste.

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Ireland's greatest poet W.B Yeats couldn't spell; his manuscripts are laughable.

Source?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 23-02-2012 02:25AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I love Shakespeare too but its worthless from an educational perspective. There isn't one single point you raise above which makes the bard valuable for modern education. Drop it, complete waste.

Judging by the way Romeo and Juliet type stories get rehashed, yes.
No porblem with Shakespeare, but for ****s sake do it properly. Make it relevant. Show how Shakespeaian plots and characters have been reignited in modern day movies and TV shows.

And why spend two years doing the ame ****ing play? It's a bit like going to Holyhead for two weeks and saying you've done Europe.

The King of Moo · 23-02-2012 02:27AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I love Shakespeare too but its worthless from an educational perspective. There isn't one single point you raise above which makes the bard valuable for modern education. Drop it, complete waste.

Oh, I disagree. Great literature in general can teach us so many ways that mere facts can't, from giving us a great insight into how people and societies really work, to showing how beautiful the English language can be.

And for me, Shakespeare was the best of the best.

The main stumbling blocks are the superficially outdated language and the olde timey settings, as well as uninterested teachers, but in an ideal world any half decent teacher who truly loved Shakespeare would be able to communicate that love to their students and inspire them.

Though I'll grant you that in reality, not teaching him in the best manner can really put some students off not only The Bard, but literature and drama in general.

But I do think we'd be better served trying to ensure that Shakespeare is taught properly by having passionate teachers choose appropriate plays, instead of dropping him completely.

Doc Ruby · 23-02-2012 02:33AM

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Judging by the way Romeo and Juliet type stories get rehashed, yes.

Shakespeare did a fair bit of rehashing himself. The more I learn about the grittier parts of history, the more I wish I hadn't put in the effort. It's Bismarck's sausage all over again.

The King of Moo wrote: »

The main stumbling blocks are the superficially outdated language and the olde timey settings, as well as uninterested teachers, but in an ideal world any half decent teacher who truly loved Shakespeare would be able to communicate that love to their students and inspire them.

Shakepeare's works are sublime, magnificent, and utterly irrelevant, I'm afraid. Theres not much he can teach that couldn't be taught better in a more direct manner using modern techniques. I would be in favour of some kind of extra curricular rewards for learning the classics and Shakespeare though.

Mardy Bum · 23-02-2012 02:33AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

I love Shakespeare too but its worthless from an educational perspective. There isn't one single point you raise above which makes the bard valuable for modern education. Drop it, complete waste.

Source?

The Yeats exhibition in the national library has most of his manuscripts. His spelling was atrocious. Shakespeare's drama has been a massive contribution to humanity. If teachers taught about the power and feeling instead of the basic boring what happened when formula it can and would be very beneficial for anyone. Most teachers in the secondary school system are not too far ahead of their pupils in my opinion anyway.

Doc Ruby · 23-02-2012 02:40AM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Shakespeare's drama has been a massive contribution to humanity. If teachers taught about the power and feeling instead of the basic boring what happened when formula it can and would be very beneficial for anyone.

You know the way everyone had crap teachers and really good teachers? I had a great English teacher, who taught Shakespeare. I still think it should be removed, it's just not relevant and certainly not worth taxpayer euros.

later12 · 23-02-2012 02:46AM

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.

Is it? I have always felt the fact that the bulk of Western-Chinese business relations are executed as Bearla suggested that the tendency is going towards English. The Chinese government even sponsor English language learning circles to promote proficiency in our language. I don't believe people who suggest that Mandarin or any other form of Chinese is the language of the future. I don't see any evidence for that in the increasing universalization of English.

Sindri wrote: »

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

I'd agree with this. I don't think I'd make it compulsory, but it is a pity that it's such an abandoned subject. Its breadth is just enormous: logic, philosophy, science, history, politics, architecture, art, language and poetry. It's not for everybody, but I think it must be of interest to more than currently take it.

The King of Moo · 23-02-2012 02:47AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Shakespeare did a fair bit of rehashing himself. The more I learn about the grittier parts of history, the more I wish I hadn't put in the effort. It's Bismarck's sausage all over again.

Shakepeare's works are sublime, magnificent, and utterly irrelevant, I'm afraid. Theres not much he can teach that couldn't be taught better in a more direct manner using modern techniques. I would be in favour of some kind of extra curricular rewards for learning the classics and Shakespeare though.

I'll just have to agree to disagree with you on that one. Though modern works are of course an essential part of the range of literature that should be taught in schools and can also demonstrate the way in which the same themes can recur throughout the ages, I think that when taught well, Shakespeare's works can be revealed to be still relevant, and bear the mark of genius that at least some of the best students will recognise.

later12 · 23-02-2012 02:51AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

it's just not relevant and certainly not worth taxpayer euros.

How much does it actually cost?

Unless you're arguing that English literature itself is worthless (and that's quite a different matter entirely), then I'm afraid you're left arguing that Shakespeare is more worthless than modern drama or modern poetry: which essentially capture similar themes, sometimes with considerably less distinction and artistry imo.

Doc Ruby · 23-02-2012 02:56AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

I'll just have to agree to disagree with you on that one. Though modern works are of course an essential part of the range of literature that should be taught in schools and can also demonstrate the way in which the same themes can recur throughout the ages, I think that when taught well, Shakespeare's works can be revealed to be still relevant, and bear the mark of genius that at least some of the best students will recognise.

So no modern, relevant value then?

later12 wrote: »

How much does it actually cost?

Unless you're arguing that English literature itself is worthless (and that's quite a different matter entirely)

It is pretty much worthless - look at literacy rates even with the focus on such literature, not great. Those rates are what matters, not whether students can hold a conversation about Shakespeare for the 3 months it takes them to forget eveything after they pass their exams.

Hard truths folks, hard truths.

As for cost, multiply time spent teaching this stuff x wage of English teachers x number of English teachers. Not at all insignificant.

Should English be an optional subject not a compulsory one?

Comments