<p>For me, English is fine until we get to overanalyzing the text. That’s when it starts to get awful/painful/terrible.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would be interested in what chemistry class you took in which 90% of the coursework involves analyzing ancient science books and learning the “history” of the field. The “history” part of any class other than History comprises of <0.1% of the actual class. But in English, your grade depends on it, and this somehow helps us “communicate”.</p>
<p>Some posters have correctly pointed out that knowing how to write is very important, and that English classes should focus on grammer, vocabulary, paragraph construction and practical reading comprehension, not understanding how Fitzgerald uses extended metaphor to contrast the inherent temperaments and outlooks of Nick and Gatsby.</p>
<p>Give it up, man. You’re not going to be satisfied with any answer that opposes yours.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m assuming you meant inefficient. Let me understand what you’re saying first cause I’m slightly confused. From what I understand, you’re saying that what most English classes do is encourage students to come up with their own convulated meanings of texts through analysis which is in reality mostly fluff? Correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t want to reply until I understand what you’re saying.</p>
<p>@Niquii thank you muchly :D</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is this always your response whenever someone presents logical contentions to your point? Or did you expect me to just nod my head and say “yep, yep, you’re right”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. And that this exercise isn’t as important as the sciences, but is more emphasized in most education districts.</p>
<p>@stresed No problemo!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would I expect you to say, “You’re right.” when you said, “You’re wrong,” to every who has brought up an counter-argument. </p>
<p>Why do you think that science should be focused on more than English?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Analogy:</p>
<p>History:English :: Science:Math</p>
<p>In other words, English and history class go together and math and science go together. In Chemistry, how much do you use math? Considerable, at least at my school. Same goes for other science classes, especially AP. History and English go together too. </p>
<p>How often will you speak English and read and write? And unless you<code>re planning on a medical or scientific career, how often will you be using science? A lot for English, almost none for science. Now, science is all well and good, and so is history, but for the majority of you life, all you</code>ll really be using is math and English. I hate math and will even admit that we DO use it in life. English is equally important, because as other posters have pointed out (Great posts stressed & swizzle, as well as Niquii) it does help. A day or so ago, you said I was confusing English class with English in general, but I<code>m not. While analyzing Shakespeare</code>s plays might be extremely tedious and boring, it also helps strengthen some other skills that don`t necessarily have to do with English…writing an analysis will help you think deeper an more critically.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You couldn’t possibly have failed to detect the sarcasm.</p>
<p>And you seem to think that it’s in poor taste for me to disagree with a counter-argument and explain WHY I think it is wrong in a logical format. Then I’d expect you to defend your points. You know, this is Debating 101, and it does not involve complaining that I “say you’re wrong”.</p>
<p>I don’t mean to sound like an ass, but you’re coming off as whining that I don’t agree with you, and that you don’t feel obligated to actually defend what you say. It isn’t wrong to point out that you haven’t established any relationship between analyzing Shakespeare and “communication skills”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because Science has practical value, while studying Romeo and Juliet does not?</p>
<p>I hope you aren’t going to ask me why science has practical value, and Romeo and Juliet does not.</p>
<hr>
<p>
</p>
<p>This analogy implies that I need to understand Scott Fitzgerald’s work to comprehend the history of WW2. …what?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that being able to read and write well isn’t important (that would be rather stupid of me). It’s just that English classes don’t actually focus on this. Maybe 10% of instruction centers on paragraph construction and grammar, and the rest is understanding the use of extended metaphor in the Odyssey. Plenty of students don’t understand basic grammar rules, because teachers stopped teaching them after middle school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A plethora of jobs require a science background. How many jobs require an English background (and by English, I mean the literature studies emphasized in English class, not actually being able to write and read in it)? …not many.</p>
<p>Besides, a scientifically literate populace is more beneficial to society as a whole than a Shakespeare-literate populace.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re right. I didn’t fail to notice the sarcasm. You couldn’t have possibly failed to detect my sarcasm? </p>
<p>Debate 101? Hahha okay. If this is debate then I request for a topic that’s not from someone whining over being required to more English classes than science.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, guess I should<code>ve written English:History. I meant that you need history for English. When analyzing the texts, it usually helps to have a background of the era. And actually, for what it</code>s worth, you do need English for history…my history class has focus on famous literature…All Quiet on the Western Front, WWI, etc. Helps get a deeper meaning of both subjects.</p>
<p>And I beg to differ about jobs requiring science. I`d say more jobs require math than science. There are plenty of fields in which only basic science, if any is required (And by basic, I mean 6th grade stuff). </p>
<p>I don<code>t know how your school works, but in my English class, we do PLENTY of actual grammar, syntax, etc. My English teacher was quite surprised to find out we hadn</code>t learned much past 7th grade, but we are learning, not just reading. Of course, AP and dual-enrollment students probably have more reading and analysis<code>s , since it</code>s AP. Are you in AP?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ad hominem. Are you going to bother to actually defend your argument that analyzing Romeo and Juliet is more important than physics? I see accusations of “whining” and “not agreeing” with you mixed in with a remarkable lack of actual arguments.</p>
<p>The fact is that >90% of English class involves reading and discussing ancient texts to decode “meaning” from them. Nobody has explained how this directly helps your ability to communicate, and why English classes should focus on this subject area over, say, actually being able to read and write well. Furthermore, you can’t possibly argue that knowing the format of Greek tragedies is more conductive to modern society than understanding how motors and radar systems function.</p>
<hr>
<p>
Sorry, but I don't understand your point here. But how does needing History for English class make English class important? Needing X for Y makes X more important, it doesn't establish the relevance of Y...
[quote]
And I beg to differ about jobs requiring science. I`d say more jobs require math than science. There are plenty of fields in which only basic science, if any is required (And by basic, I mean 6th grade stuff).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I never argued that math is more or less important than Science. I’m comparing English class to Science (and I math as well, I guess).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m in IB. We did do a brief segment on grammar, and receive tips on how to write effectively. But most of my grammar knowledge still came from SAT prep classes. XD</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this isn’t…?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Let me try to get past these double standards…
…How am I complaining that you don’t agree with me…? Tell me word by word. You’re complaining about how “the sciences” aren’t as required as English. And if I do sound as if I am complaining (if I did I was surely not trying to come off that way)…and you’re complaining…and you’re sayin I can’t complain…is that another double standard?</p>
<hr>
<p>
</p>
<p>People have and haven’t answered your questions. You asked a question off an exaggerated claim. >90%? OK. Greek tradegies vs radar systems. They are both beneficial to society. Society has many parts. Literature, language, history, media, communications…I could go on and on. Of course Greek tradegies are less important than radar systems if you’re talking technology wise, but, culturally, Greek tradegies are more important than radar systems.</p>
<p>Well, I meant that history and English are relevant to one another, and you`ll use bothfor the other because you said:
Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say.
[quote] I'm in IB. We did do a brief segment on grammar, and receive tips on how to write effectively. But most of my grammar knowledge still came from SAT prep classes.
[/quote]
Wow, I`d think you all would do more with it. I guess every school/teacher is different. </p>
<hr>
<p>I<code>d think this topic</code>s been about beaten to death. Let<code>s just agree to disagree and say it</code>s important because if you want to graduate, you have to take it, and it`s just a English class tradition to read Julius Caesar, Lord of the Flies, Faulkner, etc. and then analyze them all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Second this notion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Justify this assertion. Because this sounds like a very overt, textbook definition of a black and white fallacy.</p>
<p>Radar systems have saved lives. Radar systems were a crucial component of the UK’s line of defense in the Battle of Britain. Greek tragedies have done what in a comparable magnitude again?</p>
<p>And I have no idea where you got the notion that Greek tragedies are more culturally important than radar systems. You probably just assumed that anything to do with literature had the culture thing down in spades. Not. Radar has had a massive impact on modern society, dare I say human history, as it has contributed to commercial flight, climatology, etc. </p>
<p>Really, the ridiculousness of the assertion that greek tragedies are comparable to radar in importance should be self evident.</p>
<p>I think everyone just needs to chill out.</p>
<p>@RMIBstudent Dude, just stop. You’re beginning to make yourself look like a jerk by bolding words and whatever. Also, you mentioned the words “ad hominem” in an above response. Would you have known what an ad hominem was if you didn’t take English class? The point is, this isn’t an argument anymore. This is you trying to say that your argument is far superior than those who believe that English classes are an extremely important part of a high school education. As I said in a previous post, no one here can give you the answer you’re looking for, so just quit. This isn’t a discussion, as you keep saying it is. This is you not even giving the other side a closer look. You’re a math/science person. We get it. Good for you. I understand that you probably won’t use the word “ad hominem” in daily life (even though you just used it…oh…), but you’d probably use more complex math or chemistry or whatever formulas depending on what you do when you grow up.</p>
<p>But it is true. English classes help us understand how to communicate with others and how others have communicated with one another in the past. Language isn’t beautiful to all, but math and science aren’t everyone’s personal favorites.</p>
<p>There’s nothing we can do about any of that, so just let it go. The “fight” isn’t worth it anymore on anyone’s end. This isn’t an intellectual conversation anymore.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wiser words have not been said.</p>
<p>How about: “Good bread, good meat, thank God lets eat”?</p>
<p>^true dat.</p>
<p>I’ll try to keep my reply nice and calm 
OK RMIBstudent, I think I get what you’re saying. but construing your own slightly askew interpretations can be a good imaginative excercise 
in all seriousness though, <em>that</em> sort of English class most definitely shouldn’t be nearly as emphasized as science or maths. I think that, while finding your own interpretations should be a small part of English class, but that learning to communicate (and understand) proper English and, of course, learning to analyze other texts without your own biases is most important. that’s what the English classes just as emphasized as other departments should be.
so, I think we agree?</p>
<p>There’s no need to reason with this kid. He turned this statement:
</p>
<p>Into this:
</p>
<p>Really? Did I say Greek tradegies are more important than radar systems? No. I said culturally, and I’ll get specific, in the greek culture/history, greek tradegies are far more important that radar systems. The failure to understand that society has multiple compenents other than science is quite evident. Perhap, more English classes to learn how to read texts with an unbiased mind?</p>
<p>Swizzle, props to you, girl! Preach it!</p>
<p>…This isn’t even adding to my post count…parting words:</p>
<p>RMIB, good luck. Hopefully, you’ll never have to encounter someone with different beliefs than you have to fight them to the death claiming yours is right no matter what.</p>