Should English be an optional subject not a compulsory one?

Doc Ruby

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

The King of Moo

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

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

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

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

The King of Moo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

later12

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Lord TSC

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

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.

On a more serious note, as a qualified English teacher, I have to respond here. The mistake you're making with this is you're presuming all this happens at the same level of education. The average student should have about 10 years of school education before they reach Shakespeare. A 14 year old should know the basics of spelling before they reach second year and before they start clashing with tougher materials.

I know a lot don't. I know I was shocked the first time I dealt with first years and had to go over basic, basic punctuation and spelling. But my point is that alot of those things you are saying should be taught should already have been taught before they hit Shakespeare. It's not an either/or situation. It's one should be done well before the other. And if, by 14, people are still struggling with that, then they should be given extra help, but it shouldn't stunt the rest of the class' growth in terms of literature and the english language.

Irish Guitarist

I've always thought reading Shakespeare in school was ludicrous. I hate the notion that if you dislike one particular author from hundreds of years ago that you're an idiot. I was forced to read Romeo and Juliet when I was fifteen and I hated every boring outdated word of it. I thought it was a load of nonsense. I still stand by that.

I think something like John Grisham would be just as worthy, if not more worthy, of being read in school as Shakespeare. Even Stephen King can spell, construct a coherent sentence and writes more interesting stories than a lot of 'classic' authors.

Just sitting down and reading any book would teach the basics of spelling to anyone who doesn't already know it. And going by what I see on Boards there are plenty of people in their twenties or older who can't spell basic words.

Solair

English should be split into English Language and English Literature. There's an over emphasis on literature in the Irish system. It's fine if you are good at languages, but a lot of people aren't!

The standard of written and communicative English is pretty poor. I know a lot of third level academics are complaining that students can't write an essay!

Despite the OP's claim, Mandarin is not likely to become the lingua franca. English is the de facto international business language and its the largest language spoken as a second language. It's also still growing rapidly! .

Mardy Bum

Solair wrote: »

English should be split into English Language and English Literature. There's an over emphasis on literature in the Irish system. It's fine if you are good at languages, but a lot of people aren't!

The standard of written and communicative English is pretty poor. I know a lot of third level academics are complaining that students can't write an essay!

A lot of third level academics cannot write proposals themselves, mainly in the sciences I might add.
Why should people who are fit for higher level English be studying the language instead of literature. Ordinary level English can be studied by those who are not as proficient. If there ever was a case of dumbing down subjects this thread testifies to that.

elefant

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

I've always thought reading Shakespeare in school was ludicrous. I hate the notion that if you dislike one particular author from hundreds of years ago that you're an idiot. I was forced to read Romeo and Juliet when I was fifteen and I hated every boring outdated word of it. I thought it was a load of nonsense. I still stand by that.

I think something like John Grisham would be just as worthy, if not more worthy, of being read in school as Shakespeare. Even Stephen King can spell, construct a coherent sentence and writes more interesting stories than a lot of 'classic' authors.

Just sitting down and reading any book would teach the basics of spelling to anyone who doesn't already know it. And going by what I see on Boards there are plenty of people in their twenties or older who can't spell basic words.

I love English literature, and I felt similar to what you did when I sat my Leaving Cert. I was sick of reading texts like 'How Many Miles to Babylon?' when I felt I could have better spent my time reading books I actually enjoyed (like those by John Grisham, as you mentioned).

I've concluded that my dislike for a lot of the stuff I studied in secondary school stemmed from being force-fed my opinions on the texts. I got into exams and, seeing the questions, immediately started to think in a 'what do they want me to write?' mode. I had never even considered the possibly of writing an essay on how I disliked something I studied.

Studying literature in college helped me develop the 'critical thinking' side of literature that has been mentioned here before, and I think English Lit. would be enjoyed, and benefitted from, a lot more by secondary level students if this side of the study was emphasised (or at least acknowledged) a bit more.

Lord TSC

I've concluded that my dislike for a lot of the stuff I studied in secondary school stemmed from being force-fed my opinions on the texts. I got into exams and, seeing the questions, immediately started to think in a 'what do they want me to write?' mode. I had never even considered the possibly of writing an essay on how I disliked something I studied.

Studying literature in college helped me develop the 'critical thinking' side of literature that has been mentioned here before, and I think English Lit. would be enjoyed, and benefitted from, a lot more by secondary level students if this side of the study was emphasised (or at least acknowledged) a bit more.

It's not that Id ever say another teacher was doing it "wrong". But the problem of being force-fed opinions is something a lot of English teachers seem to do in a bid to get high exam scores, as opposed to trying to teach the critical analysis side of English. As far as I know, the curriculum is designed to encourage students to develop and produce their own opinions, and I was very lucky to have a magnificent English teacher for my LC (a man who literally helped write the curriculum) who helped nurture our opinions, and actively encouraged us to speak out in essays if we disagreed with the premise of the question (something I did in my LC and got an A for). A good English teacher should be helping develop the critical thinking side of literature.

If they don't, I guess it really is the exam system which should be blamed, not the English teacher, since it's not just an aspect of the English subject but all of them. That's not to say there aren't teachers who are doing it wrong. Just the idea of force feeding opinions is necessary due to the expectation that teachers have to get the highest grades and not the best education out of students...

Solair

Mardy Bum wrote: »

A lot of third level academics cannot write proposals themselves, mainly in the sciences I might add.
Why should people who are fit for higher level English be studying the language instead of literature. Ordinary level English can be studied by those who are not as proficient. If there ever was a case of dumbing down subjects this thread testifies to that.

Perhaps because a subject called English is supposed to be a lot more than literature!

English language modules do not mean some kind of dumbed down course. It should include creative writing, drama writing, presentation / speech writing, phonetics, linguistics, the history and evolution of the language etc etc

Language and literature are two distinct subject matters!

The reality is that a lot of intelligent people, particularly science oriented types not want to spend years studying a dry selection of literature and poetry!

(typed on a touchscreen, ignore typos!)

phasers

Higher level English should focus on Literature and analysis of text like it already does, Ordinary level English should focus on one core text with some analysis and revision of grammar and literary terms, and foundation level English can be spelling and grammar. I don't think they actually offer foundation level English but they should, and it should be the basics. The amount of sixth year students who can't spell properly or form sentences is appalling.

Mardy Bum

Solair wrote: »

Perhaps because a subject called English is supposed to be a lot more than literature!

English language modules do not mean some kind of dumbed down course. It should include creative writing, drama writing, presentation / speech writing, phonetics, linguistics, the history and evolution of the language etc etc

Language and literature are two distinct subject matters!

The reality is that a lot of intelligent people, particularly science oriented types not want to spend years studying a dry selection of literature and poetry!

(typed on a touchscreen, ignore typos!)

English is the first language in Ireland. People learn it immediately and are saying their first words from two or three. The reason for the recent upsurge of poor grammar and spelling etc is because of texting. Personally I' be deeply embarrassed if I didn't have a very advanced grasp of my first language at the age of 14 or 15 and was forced to learn where to put commas and spell correctly.
Science academics generally cannot write grant proposals because they are awful at expressing themselves due to years and years immersed in mathematics.

How can you teach someone creative writing or drama without reading literature? What will people do presentations on in English class other than literature?

Fluorescence

phasers wrote: »

he amount of sixth year students who can't spell properly or form sentences is appalling.

Scrap that, college students :eek:.