Should English be an optional subject not a compulsory one?

The King of Moo · 23-02-2012 03:02AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

So no modern, relevant value then?

Yes, plenty. His greatest works will always be relevant. Again, look at the example I gave earlier of fifteen-year olds pissing themselves laughing at Much Ado About Nothing, and not just finding it funny, but being completely gripped in a way that fifteen year olds don't tend to get about many things.

And it wasn't just the humour that still felt fresh. The themes of the battles between the sexes and the thin line between infuriation and infatuation are still relevant today and played out in the same basic manner in real life and in modern drama. But in the case of the latter, without the same level of insight into humanity in general and gender relations in particular.

later12 · 23-02-2012 03:05AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

S
It is pretty much worthless - look at literacy rates even with the focus on such literature, not great.

Ok then you're making a completely different argument.

This is an argument against the compulsory nature of English literature, which personally I could get on board with.

But AFAIK, Shakespeare is not required at ordinary level (where the difficulties with grammar and spelling are most pronounced). His works are of significant influence in English literature and I see no problem at all in making the study of at least one Shakespeare drama compulsory at Higher level, as is the case (or used to be a few years back).

Doc Ruby · 23-02-2012 03:09AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

Yes, plenty. His greatest works will always be relevant.

Not to modern education and improving students' chances.

later12 wrote:

His works are of significant influence in English literature

Good for him; they are of zero value in today's world.

Lads, come on. Who are you trying to kid.

Everyone gets Shakespeare was good, so were many, many writers and authors down the millennia, many far superior to Shakespeare. However anyone seriously arguing his works have any place in a broad based modern curriculum has lost touch.

stovelid · 23-02-2012 03:15AM

Split the course into two parts: philology, grammar, writing etc compulsory and pure literature optional.

The King of Moo · 23-02-2012 03:15AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Not to modern education and improving students' chances.

Good for him; they are of zero value in today's world.

Lads, come on. Who are you trying to kid.

Everyone gets Shakespeare was good, so were many, many writers and authors down the millennia, many far superior to Shakespeare. However anyone seriously arguing his works have any place in a broad based modern curriculum has lost touch.

Chances with what?

I don't see how Shakespeare is any less relevant to modern society than any other author, and no Leaving Cert honours student, and few third years, should have any difficulty with him, provided appropriate plays should be selected. I know quite a few people who were inspired by studying Shakespeare in school in a way that they weren't by other writers, and most of those people didn't even have very good teachers.

Doc Ruby · 23-02-2012 03:22AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

I don't see how Shakespeare is any less relevant to modern society than any other author

Au contraire, the works of Master Sun Tzu are studied across the Far East and used in business and politics constantly to this day, and he predated Shakespeare by many centuries. Tolstoy, another master who didn't like Shakespeare. René Descartes, Voltaire, the list of authors with a far more useful modern application is inexhaustable.

johnmcdnl · 23-02-2012 03:27AM

learning about Shakespeare and trying to find meanings in poems - that should be optional and be separated from teaching students grammar and say letter writing and actually practical skills...

how many students just get essays written out by their teachers and recite it back on the day of the leaving cert... kind of defeats the purpose of the course as it is doesn't it???

if students wish to learn about English literature they should have the option of it without question but having it forced on them is wrong..

in response to the poll - yes it should be compulsory but get rid of the literature section and actually focus on teaching kids how to spell their names and how to write an email or a letter without grammar mistakes and actually do it themselves rather than learning off answers which is all many students seem to want to do in English in schools from what I remember anyway

The King of Moo · 23-02-2012 03:28AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Au contraire, the works of Master Sun Tzu are studied across the Far East and used in business and politics constantly to this day, and he predated Shakespeare by many centuries. Tolstoy, another master who didn't like Shakespeare. René Descartes, Voltaire, the list of authors with a far more useful modern application is inexhaustable.

I've no beef with any of them. And I'd also add Dickens as someone who would be worth studying at secondary level. His depictions of social inequality and injustice are arguably more relevant now than they have been in some time.

But I also think Shakespeare's best works are timeless as at the core of his genius is a fundamental understanding of what makes humanity tick, expressed at the highest artistic level, something that will always be worth passing on to the next generation, and that when taught properly, at least some of them will be able to grasp.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 23-02-2012 03:29AM

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?

The OP is clever.

Unfortunately, it based on the misconception that English is a compulsory subject. It isn't; the only compulsory Leaving Cert subject is Irish. Maths and English are normally studied by almost all pupils - but they are not compulsory. The only subject that the Department of Education make compulsory for Leaving Cert is Irish.

http://www.politics.ie/forum/education-science/152500-irish-only-compulsory-subject-leaving-cert-4.html#post3565278

later12 · 23-02-2012 03:29AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Good for him; they are of zero value in today's world.

No they are of zero utility to you. Not to everyone. It has already been stated that Shakespeare's works raise relevant modern issues - from racism to financial embarrassment to power struggles between individuals to anti social behaviour... to pretty much any theme you will find in any piece of literature selected from a more modern collection.

The only difference is that these themes are framed in an older context. So what are you suggesting. A use-by date for poetry and literature? That we should cast out Tain Bo Cuailgne and The Odyssey with Macbeth and Henry V? It's just absurd tbh.

Knowledge of, or familiarity with Shakespeare is of benefit to those who go on to study English at third level. He is a major force in English literature, whether or not you like his works personally.

Doc Ruby · 23-02-2012 03:33AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

at the core of his genius is a fundamental understanding of what makes humanity tick

Not really. Its a fundamental understanding of what Shakespeare thought made humanity tick. Whether or not that is actually the case is a matter for debate, to put it mildly.

I stick by my earlier stance, there are far more valuable topics Irish students could be mastering than the works of a playwright long gone and no longer relevant. Beautiful work, but a matter for scholars and enthusiasts really.

Doc Ruby · 23-02-2012 03:35AM

later12 wrote: »

The only difference is that these themes are framed in an older context.

And so are less useful.

later12 wrote: »

So what are you suggesting. A use-by date for poetry and literature? That we should cast out Tain Bo Cuailgne and The Odyssey with Macbeth and Henry V? It's just absurd tbh.

Just focus on grammar and spelling on the taxpayers euro, that should put us head and shoulders above every other English speaking country competitively.

later12 wrote: »

Knowledge of, or familiarity with Shakespeare is of benefit to those who go on to study English at third level.

Again, so what.

The King of Moo · 23-02-2012 03:40AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Not really. Its a fundamental understanding of what Shakespeare thought made humanity tick. Whether or not that is actually the case is a matter for debate, to put it mildly.

I stick by my earlier stance, there are far more valuable topics Irish students could be mastering than the works of a playwright long gone and no longer relevant. Beautiful work, but a matter for scholars and enthusiasts really.

But the difference with Shakespeare, as well as the greatest writers, is that he had a remarkably keen insight, not just any old opinion.

As I said before, I disagree that he's irrelevant, and believe many of his works deal with core issues that continue to affect us, with a level of insight few others have ever attained.

But even if that weren't the case, I think his work should be taught at some level in schools simply for its intrinsic greatness. Even if there were no practical value to studying Shakespeare, I think every English speaker should be exposed to him as part of their broader education.

An education should never be about purely practical matters. It should also be about making one a more well-rounded individual.

later12 · 23-02-2012 03:47AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

And so are less useful.

Rubbish. A text's efficacy in expressing a theme or a question in a salient manner can be judged by the craft, wit, and style of its author in the course of his work, not by measuring its age.

To be honest, I don't know that you even know what you're arguing yourself here. Five minutes ago you were referencing the usefulness of Sun Tzu, 544–496 BC. Which presumably makes your above suggestion redundant, as you clearly do not believe that decreasing relevance is a function of age.

Just focus on grammar and spelling on the taxpayers euro, that should put us head and shoulders above every other English speaking country competitively.

I'm not so convinced that it should. Literacy statistics do not equal or correspond directly with economic competitiveness.

Having said that, I'm not opposed to making English literature optional for some.

Again, so what.

So what? The H Level English syllabus is designed to take the student to a level where he might possess adequate skill to pass onto an English course at university (it is the same for all subjects at this level). Given the importance of Shakespeare in English literature and at university, it's of no surprise that Higher level students are expected to familiarise themselves with at least one of the works of Shakespeare.

Doc Ruby · 23-02-2012 03:47AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

But the difference with Shakespeare, as well as the greatest writers, is that he had a remarkably keen insight, not just any old opinion.

And maybe scholars of the far future will think the lyrical stylings of Snoop Doggy Dogg contain within their assonatic verse deep insight, but I personally still think he's full of crap, a bit like Tolstoy's opinion of Shakespeare.

The King of Moo wrote: »

But even if that weren't the case, I think his work should be taught at some level in schools simply for its intrinsic greatness.

His works are great, but there are greater and far more useful. Why should students not be exposed to those mightier wordsmiths instead?

Doc Ruby · 23-02-2012 03:52AM

later12 wrote: »

To be honest, I don't know that you even know what you're arguing yourself here. Five minutes ago you were referencing the usefulness of Sun Tzu, 544–496 BC. Which presumably makes your above suggestion redundant, as you clearly do not believe that decreasing relevance is a function of age.

Okay, can you point out which works of Shakespeare are studied by tens of millions of people as a direct guide in matters of business, politics, and war today?

later12 wrote: »

I'm not so convinced that it should. Literacy statistics do not equal or correspond directly with economic competitiveness.

Someone that can spell properly has an indubitable advantage over someone that cannot.

later12 wrote: »

So what? The H Level English syllabus is designed to take the student to a level where he might possess adequate skill to pass onto an English course at university (it is the same for all subjects at this level). Given the importance of Shakespeare in English literature and at university, it's of no surprise that Higher level students are expected to familiarise themselves with at least one of the works of Shakespeare.

Sorry, maybe we misunderstood one another. What value does a degree in English hold, for most people?

The King of Moo · 23-02-2012 03:54AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

And maybe scholars of the far future will think the lyrical stylings of Snoop Doggy Dogg contain within their assonatic verse deep insight, but I personally still think he's full of crap, a bit like Tolstoy's opinion of Shakespeare.

Well now we're getting into the realm of personal opinion, and we can't base school curricula on that.

Shakespeare is regarded generally (and by myself) as one of the greatest writers we know of, which is why he's taught in schools.

If the spacemen of the future elevate Snoop to that status, and his greatness is mostly unquestioned, then I'm sure he'll be taught in school, regardless of the opinions of indivizzles.

Doc Ruby wrote: »

His works are great, but there are greater and far more useful. Why should students not be exposed to those mightier wordsmiths instead?

Out of curiosity, who do you think is better?
Also, I would put usefulness very low down on a list of reasons for studying literature. Not every aspect of education has to have practical value, and there are other subjects which have almost solely practical reasons for being taught.

But yes, if they are better than Shakespeare, they should be taught. I believe that an English education should involve exposure to at least some of the greatest works of literature, also taking into account the students' ability to comprehend the works and relate to them (which I don't think are major issues for most young people with Shakespeare).

smokedeels · 23-02-2012 04:01AM

I'm confused.

Is the suggestion that we teach no language to pupils?

Anyway, I love English, some of the finest examples of poetry and prose have been written in it.

I think we should force it down their little Jersey Shore, Boring-Ginger-Lad-with-a-guitar loving faces until they appreciate real beauty.

later12 · 23-02-2012 04:02AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Okay, can you point out which works of Shakespeare are studied by tens of millions of people as a direct guide in matters of business, politics, and war today?

No, you missed the point.
My point is quite irrelevant to the numbers who study Shakespeare, my point concerns the relevance of Shakespeare's themes itself and the relationship of the age of his works to his relevance. I said:

The only difference is that these themes are framed in an older context.

To which you replied

And so are less useful

Now it appears as though you were attempting to relate the age of Shakespeare's works ("...and so") to their relevance. Surely this is a contradiction, since you seem to feel (as I do) that even older works can hold relevance.

Someone that can spell properly has an indubitable advantage over someone that cannot.

Again, you miss the point completely.

You said that "Just focus[ing] on grammar and spelling... that should put us head and shoulders above every other English speaking country competitively." Unless improved literacy would magically wipe out issues with unit labour and energy costs, or unless literacy levels correspond directly with competitiveness, your point suffers from a serious credibility issue.

Sorry, maybe we misunderstood one another. What value does a degree in English hold, for most people?

That's irrelevant here because I already said I'm in favour of making English Literature optional for some. One significant aim of the syllabus for Higher Level English is to cover the groundwork that will allow students to transition easily to a degree with a significant English Literature content at university. And given the strategic importance of Shakespeare in English Literature, it makes sense to cover him at Higher Level Leaving Certificate English: which is what happens.

Doc Ruby · 23-02-2012 04:08AM

The King of Moo wrote: »

Well now we're getting into the realm of personal opinion, and we can't base school curricula on that.

Good! Let's dispense with Shakespeare then.

The King of Moo wrote: »

Shakespeare is regarded generally (and by myself) as one of the greatest writers we know of, which is why he's taught in schools.

Only English speaking schools.

The King of Moo wrote: »

also taking into account the students' ability to comprehend the works and relate to them (which I don't think are major issues for most young people with Shakespeare).

Yes, early modern English is perfectly understandable to young people struggling with modern English, and those sidebars in the textbooks are simply publishers with a surplus of ink.

later12 wrote:

unless literacy levels correspond directly with competitiveness

Thats the one. There are plenty of jobs where an effective grasp of English is a prerequisite, especially in the European Union.

later12 wrote:

That's irrelevant here because I already said I'm in favour of making English Literature optional for some.

Why not for all?

There is no justification for supporting the cost to Irish taxpayers of teaching the works of an ancient playwright. Its an embarrassing anachronism in this day and age.

psycjay · 23-02-2012 04:11AM

There should be an oral component to the curriculum. The number of people who pronounce the 'th' phoneme as 'd' is shocking.

later12 · 23-02-2012 04:14AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Thats the one. There are plenty of jobs where an effective grasp of English is a prerequisite, especially in the European Union.

Yes there are. But you seem to specialise in irrelevant points. That is completely irrelevant to the point I made and to your earlier, outlandish point about putting "head and shoulders above every other English speaking country competitively". Literacy is not a synonym for competitiveness, nor was it ever. Philology as much as spelling has a very dubious relationship with economic competitiveness.

Why not for all?

Because some will want to study it at University. Just the same as I would make Mathematics an obligation for studying many science and finance courses, as well as all mathematics courses.

As for your repeated reference to the taxpayer, this applies to English literature at large, not Shakespeare. I have no idea why you keep bringing that very separate issue back to Shakespeare, when presumably you would be just as unhappy with Ted Hughes or Charles Bukowski being studied in his place.

The King of Moo · 23-02-2012 04:17AM

Doc Ruby wrote: »

Good! Let's dispense with Shakespeare then.

Only English speaking schools.

Yes, early modern English is perfectly understandable to young people struggling with modern English, and those sidebars in the textbooks are simply publishers with a surplus of ink.

Thats the one. There are plenty of jobs where an effective grasp of English is a prerequisite, especially in the European Union.

Why not for all?

There is no justification for supporting the cost to Irish taxpayers of teaching the works of an ancient playwright. Its an embarrassing anachronism in this day and age.

It's really not that hard. The grammar is the exact same, and most of the vocabulary is surprisingly similar. With a half-decent teacher even fairly uninterested students can get with it.

He's probably a step too far for Junior Cert ordinary level, and maybe some Leaving Cert ordinary level students, but the average teenager shouldn't have any great difficulty with Shakespeare. Anyway, it is school, it's not supposed to be easy!

But you seem to be arguing for an education system based purely on practical knowledge which is something I would fight tooth and nail against, and which most cultures have always seen as incredibly limited.
Though maybe someday a lost manuscript of Shakespeare's will be discovered which details a foolproof method for saving the Eurozone, and he'll become relevant again

.

Sindri · 23-02-2012 05:29AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

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.

That's what it Classical Studies does. It is basically teaching critical thinking to students.

You can't learn the subject matter without asking why.

What you learn is relevant to today. What the British Empire did (the Empire was based on what the Romans did; they actively sought out Classically educated Governors), what the Americans are doing today, their policies and actions, were done thousands of years beforehand by the Greeks and Romans.

You have to think critically within the subject and you are actively asked to do so.

It is where you learn the basis of western philosophy, political science and western literature,and on top of that it is extremely easy.

Chuck Stone · 23-02-2012 08:00AM

Sindri wrote: »

That's what it Classical Studies does. It is basically teaching critical thinking to students.

I know little of classical studies* and yet I would consider myself of a critically minded persuasion.

Explain that with your fancy books and wurds and letters on pages... and.. and stuff.

*Apart from listening to the odd philosophy lecture on youtube.com

Wibbs · 23-02-2012 09:02AM

Mandarin won't "take over the world" for all sorts of reasons. Numero uno, while a billion people speak Chinese, the vast majority are... well they're in China. Fewer people may speak English or Spanish, but they do so all over the world far from England and Spain. Chinese is overly complex too. It's a tonal language so for those who don't come from a similar language background it's bloody tough, whereas English and Spanish are easier to pick up by comparison(esp the latter). The written language is daftly complex. Cue old jokes about the size of Chinese typewriters. It's one reason why printing took longer to take off in China, even though they had it for a couple of centuries before Europe. Movable type is a doddle when you're only dealing with 20 odd letters, not 1000's of pictograms.

The Scientician · 23-02-2012 09:07AM

Way to turn a semi-jokey satirical thread into an actually quite interesting discussion. Fair play everyone. I'm not sure when English will be supplanted. It could be in our lifetimes or many years hence but it's definitely worth thinking about. The function of languages beyound their absolute utility is also worth pondering. Anyway thanks everyone.

Wibbs · 23-02-2012 09:22AM

I suspect English won't be supplanted any time soon, if ever(I'd say similar of Spanish and French to a lesser extent). Well it'll change and adapt of course. Indias growing population have many local languages but english is the lingua franca of business across these various languages. It's the international language of the air and sea travel. It's the language of the world wide web, even the various higher level programming languages are "in English". It's proven to be a very adaptable language, if bloody awkward and illogical at times.

Irish Guitarist · 23-02-2012 09:48AM

I think it's ridiculous that teenagers have to read Shakespeare when they can't even spell the most basic of words. It would be far more beneficial to teach children the differences between 'looser' and 'loser', 'definitely' and 'defiantly', 'weather' and 'whether' and that 'alot' is not a word than to make them read Romeo and Juliet.

I think a better way of teaching English would be to ask the class what their favourite film is. Some of the films that the class mention are bound to be based on books that they can then read. Reading any modern book would give children a better grasp of spelling and grammar than some indecipherable nonsense that was written in the seventeenth century.

Lord TSC · 23-02-2012 09:54AM

I like to think in the future, we will speak a hybrid of English and Chinese, with the later covering most of our swear words. In the process, we will return to wearing brown long coats, ride horses while improving space travel, prostitutes will become a far more credible and revered profession, I will have a ship with a rag-tag crew of Misfits and we will name our weapons. I call mine Vera.

Should English be an optional subject not a compulsory one?

Comments