<p>English class exists to remind people like the majority of contributors in this thread that there is a “value” apart from practical applications of information.
Literature, for example, has aesthetic and cultural value. It’s also spiritually fulfilling when embraced. The simple, “meaningless” questions on an English test are there to make sure you at least <em>read</em> the book. The more involved questions to see if you understood it or thought about it. </p>
<p>End of story. Sorry that reading and analyzing Antigone or Hamlet aren’t going to earn you money when you’re an investment banker ripping people off for profit. At the same time, I pity anyone who deems the former worthless because it doesn’t contribute to the latter.</p>
<p>@SoulandRomance: Some people do not “appreciate” the values you mentioned. I do not believe in “spiritually fulfilling” or spirit itself for that matter and I don’t highly value cultural or aesthetic value. I’d like to mention that I don’t care much about making a profit; I don’t even care about money as long as I can make a decent living. I simply don’t value what modern English classes aim to teach. In fact, whenever I read a fictional book for book, I ask myself “why are we wasting trees to print something like this? We are on a shortage of natural resources and I think trees could be use for other more productive reasons.”</p>
<p>English is too subjective and should focus on objective material such on grammar and nonfiction. Those who needs “spiritual fulfilling” and “aesthetic appreciating” books can read on their own. </p>
<p>I conclude that fictional literature is not worth the paper used to print the books, and the values these books aim to teach are honestly worth little and unnecessary to humanity. No, one does not need to read Hamlet of Antigone to be “nice.”</p>
<p>lol to be nice is not the purpose, it is to reach inner fulfillment. Emotion at times is more powerful than our logical faculties, and the best works of fiction and poetry reach one part of our mind through the other. The written word is still a form of artistic expression, and a world without art would be intolerable for those who wish to have a connection to human-kind. </p>
<p>Again, one can learn just as much from fiction and poetry as from non-fiction if they can connect with a book or poem, though of course the individual work varies from person to person. It is just this subjectivity that is so valuable, for one can have a view of a book that is completely one’s own. I’m sure that if you read Within a Budding Grove or “Asphodel that Greeny Flower”, you’d be quite bored and perhaps disgusted at the sentimentality involved, but I found them both quite moving and inspiring.</p>
<p>“for those who wish to have a connection to human-kind.”</p>
<p>that’s always the way I’ve viewed it; literature and fiction have been an integral part of human culture since the beginning of time, and to forego classics such as shakespeare, aristotle, and tolstoy would be to forego priceless connections with the rest of humanity. </p>
<p>not to mention literature is the perfect medium in which one can learn how to academically and critically analyze text - partly because there are universal consensuses on the meanings of all the great works, but also because there’s always room for a new theory, extra analysis or simply just another point of view from which to view the book.</p>
<p>the fact that you think “why are we wasting trees to print something like this? We are on a shortage of natural resources and I think trees could be use for other more productive reasons” doesn’t make you altruistic or even particularly efficient. the percent of “trees” that are cut down to make books is so exceptionally tiny compared with the percent that is used for buildings, houses, etc, makes such an argument ignorant and worthless anyway.</p>
<p>not to mention that the best way to write well is to imitate the syntax and prose of time’s greatest writers. and maybe you are a big enough math nerd to get by in the world without knowing how to write, but for the rest of us mere mortals such a skill is valuable in almost any field we choose to go into.</p>
<p>They should replace reading books with essay writing all the time. It’s MUCH MORE IMPORTANT for standardized tests, colleges, and even future jobs to be able to compose an effective piece than to know the themes of a book. -_-</p>
<p>PS Sparknotes can get you through high school. Take that as you will…</p>
<p>It is just sad when people use Sparknotes to get themselves through their classes. That is just laziness, and they might be missing out on something.</p>
<p>The skills you learn in english class - critical thinking, speaking, and writing - are infinitly more useful than those you learn in math or science on a day-to-day basis. I do, however, agree with those who say that more emphasis needs to be put on grammar and writing skills, beause the average high school student is shamefully inept in these areas.</p>
<p>Honestly, the problem I had with my former high school’s English curriculum was that it put far too much emphasis on analyzing literature. I don’t even remember having any serious grammar or writing instruction in my four years. Unfortunately, not everyone enjoys straggling through readings that are sometimes boring and dull. Thus, I think a good English class should emphasize writing and language before progressing to literature instruction and reading.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yet math and science are more likely to get one into a good field. Not to undermine the purpose of school or the usefulness of language, but I’d hardly call what one learns in an (likely flawed) English class “infinitly more useful” than anything else.</p>
<p>^^^ Couldn’t agree more. You literally took evertyhing out of my mouth.</p>
<p>And I wasn’t saything that I replace reading with Sparknotes -_- I’m just saying that it goes to show that you can’t simply look up science or math answers online when book themes and symbols are at the fingertips of every highschooler. So, since the majority of students at my school aren’t super duper AP scholars, I’m sure all they care about is passing and that’s what they do. Which just goes to show how little people value literature classes, and thus, English should be more writing based.</p>
<p>Just a case of supply creating demand. You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think people would copy science/math answers if they were freely available on the Internet.</p>
<p>It’s true that the majority of students have little short-term interest in what they’re learning. That doesn’t mean you let the inmates run the asylum.</p>
I feel that the majority of what is taught in English classes is unnecessary. The things I believe should still be taught are grammar, reading comprehension, and writing skills. I have learnt more English grammar in my Spanish classes then I ever did in my English classes, just by seeing the differences between Spanish grammar/sentence structure and English grammar/sentence structure. Reading Comprehension is most easily learned by reading books or other media that personally interests the individual. Reading Comprehension should focus on memorizing the Plot and the order of the events, not miscellaneous trivia. Writing skills are also important because you need to be able to communicate both clearly and effectively. Teachers constantly force you to write essays using 5 8-sentence paragraphs, which generally aren’t an effective way of communication. The most effective way is to write what you want directly and to the point. They often teach you to write only on one side of a topic. I disagree, I find it more effective to do a Compare and Contrast which shows you have more knowledge of the subject then if you just stayed on one side.