<p>In 7th grade, I remember reading the book "Seedfolks" and on the test, one of the questions was "What street was the garden located on?" or something like that and the answer was "Folk Street."</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>How will that help me in life? Seedfolks is fiction, so it's not like I'm ever gonna visit there. Another thing is... I DON'T CARE. Why must we learn useless knowledge like this? Besides writing, all the writing and grammar could be easily learned in like a whole school year rather than having 4 years of English class.</p>
<p>It’s good to be able to analyze literature. That’s what English class teaches you (when it’s not drilling essay patterns into your skull for the zillionth time). I wouldn’t have picked up half the things in BNW without an English class.</p>
<p>I could write a 20 page essay on this topic since I’ve had hour long debates on the purpose of English class and whether it should even be taught. But I won’t.</p>
<p>I think English class is an arbitrary choice to be one of the main subjects taught (i.e. Math, Science, Foreign Language, History/Social Science, Art/Music). It is obviously important for students to be able to read and write well, but I hardly think an English class is required for that. If only other subjects could put more emphasis on those things, English would be unnecessary. In fact, most people do have to write and read for their jobs later in life, but few do literary analyses or analytical papers; most apply their English skills to other subject matters. So wouldn’t it just be more practical for other subjects in school to do more writing as it pertains to that subject?</p>
<p>I’ve heard that English class is supposed to make people more sympathetic. I suppose that’s nice in theory, but I don’t know how true that is. I guess I’d have to read research showing that students without an English class grew up to be crueler for me to believe that. I guess if students had no creativity in their lives, that’d be somewhat understandable, but as long as they had some sort of an art/music/read on their own, I find it improbable that that’d be an issue.</p>
<p>More important than English class, I believe is encouraging kids to read a lot on their own. I don’t exactly know how to do that, but I don’t think class does it. I’m an avid reader (I come from a family of writers), and I have found that that has made me the good writer that people tell me I am, not classes.</p>
<p>As to your specific question, that was probably to just check you had read the book and absorbed something, because had you not, the answer “Folk Street” would have probably seemed to obvious.</p>
<p>My experience with English classes has given me the impression that the English curriculum is significantly flawed. Clear writing and nonfiction reading need to be become more important, and literary interpration and analysis need to take a back seat.</p>
<p>Analyzing literary works spoils appetites, as typical literature critics are always odious. When a literary work is ‘analyzed’, it is dissected, and becomes lifeless.<br>
I think OP is right in that knowing the garden is located on Folk Street is completely useless. But writing, grammar and literature are useful for every student. Maybe it’s alright to condense English courses; yet can one be confident to say students who take English course for 1 year can write as good as students who has been learning English for 4 years? Besides, writing is a good means to kill time, especially when one is good at it.</p>
<p>The question you mentioned was probably only on the test to encourage 7th graders (middle schoolers) to learn to be better at reading comprehension.</p>
<p>I see the real goals of English class to be:
-Better understanding of literature (makes you more worldly)
-Better writing
-Better grammar </p>
<p>I think it is worth it overall, though, I admit, it often tries my patience.</p>
<p>7th grade? That’s like saying, “Why did we read Dr. Seuss in the first grade when all of the writing and grammar can be easily learned in a few semesters rather than 8 years of general English education and 4 more years of literature study.”</p>
<p>You take the class to learn how to properly communicate with your peers at acceptable professional and technical levels through both verbal and written mediums, how to analyze literature and poetry at a rudimentary level, and to be introduced to various forms of culture you would probably otherwise not have ever known. You learn English so you can eventually have the competency to write down explicitly and without ambiguity your thoughts and ideas so that others can contemplate them. </p>
<p>The average student, according to what I’ve observed, is hardly able to communicate effectively in a high-pressure professional setting. Most students would fail spectacularly when speaking in front of a large audience. I doubt the average student can write an eloquent thesis, even assuming a sufficient level of technical knowledge. Most people in general fall far short of producing a proper argument in a debate, where words always matter. Even on CC there are people who don’t realize that speaking pedantically just ****es other people off. Then there’s always the matter of being silently judged when your grammar or sentence structure just falls apart.</p>
<p>Your level of competency in the English language comes to light in conspicuous situations. You’re held accountable for what comes out of your mouth. How you deliver a statement can affect how other people perceive you. </p>
<p>People reach these levels of efficiency at different rates. Often even all of those years of English practice isn’t enough. The idea is that the longer you study the subject, the better you’ll be. So all of those years of English is mostly for the people that would benefit from multiple years of study, as well as to impede the inevitable deterioration of their speaking and writing skills.</p>
<p>Besides, maybe there are people out there who actually like their English classes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Do rainbows lose any of their beauty or sentimentality just because you know how one is formed? Perhaps you might say that the process of analyzing a work is more work than the enjoyment you get out of a straightforward cursory reading.</p>
<p>That’s like asking “What’s the point of math?” Very few people use calculus or trig in their real-life occupations, yet we still have to learn it.</p>
<p>Well from what I’m doing, English class is a waste to me. Learning facts from books is useless. I don’t know or care what Dill’s real name from To Kill a Mockingbird is and I don’t care if I get that question wrong or not.</p>
<p>The only time I’ve ever become motivated in English class is when we read the book “Outliers: A Story of Success” and I could relate to it. That’s real knowledge. Our summer reading assignment is “analyzing the American dream” and that’s not that important to me anyways.</p>
<p>^ That was my summer assignment the summer before junior year for my honors American lit class. </p>
<p>I think the problem is not with the subject of English itself; rather, it’s with the way that teachers/schools choose to force-feed it down our throats and have us meticulously analyze every work of literature down to its core. There are a lot of facets of English that are useful and practical; too bad teachers think analyzing the significance of a pair of shoes is more important than anything else. Not only is this redundant and dull, but it’s also turned me into a zombie that tries to dig deep and find meaning with EVERYTHING I read, just because that’s how I’ve been trained to approach literature.</p>
<p>You know, what if one of these supposed “significant meanings” wasn’t really that significant. What if it just happened to be something simple, like if the pig on a stick in Lord of the Flies was just a pig on a stick?</p>
<p>^But you know as well as I know that it wasn’t just a pig on a stick. Most authors love allegories and symbolism in their novels, and it’s rare that something is ‘just what it seems’.</p>
understanding formation of rainbow is science related;there’s only one true explanation. While for a certain fiction whatever interpretation is acceptable as long as it ‘makes sense’. You could analyze light spectrum of a star or structure of a building, but not literature nor arts. It’s like: we know Mona Lisa is a masterpiece, we know what kind of techniques Da Vinci used, now somebody tries to make out why Da Vinci chose this girl instead of another one, why painting her smile instead of her frown, why a slight smile instead of a big smile…things begin to be revolting. Similar in literature: Why Mr. A is different from Mr. B even if they two have similar family backgrounds? What makes Becky Sharp changed so much, from a little cynic to a cunning courtesan? It’s very well to analyze prose style, narrative techniques etc, in order to better one’s own writing, but to ask questions such as ‘what kind of character is this?’‘what street is the garden located on?’ is completely useless, and indeed, a waste of time.</p>
<p>Being able to analyze and write about literature [and have good grammar… i hate it when politicians have bad grammar. it makes them sound stupid] is a useful skill that translates into real life.</p>
<p>As long as there is sufficient evidence and reason to believe that something is significant, then it is significant. What the author or writer intended does not need necessarily need to apply. The important thing is that the audience finds something of meaning. Often however, the author understands that the audience will already have expectations of certain symbols due to their long-established nature.</p>