<p>Is there anything more valueless in education than the random emphasis put on reading literature, particularly in high school?</p>
<p>Literature is just...worthless. You read it, and nothing happens. You can analyze it, but who exactly cares? It literally means nothing. You could read and fully understand every fiction book ever written, and you would have no special knowledge or understanding of the world. My question is: how did it get to be considered an integral part of education? What makes it superior to comic books, television, movies, and video games? It's all just time-wasting entertainment, at the end of the day.</p>
<p>It absolutely drives me crazy when I'm sitting around trying to BS my way through some absolutely pointless, meaningless essay about how the social climate of the 1920's influenced F. Scott Fitzgerald or something and I think about how I could be taking another math or science class instead of English and actually...learn things.</p>
<p>I don't hate literature or have anything against it; I'm just simply bored by it. But why exactly am I forced to go through it every year of high school? I genuinely can't think of something that I actually, you know, learned in any english class. And I'm not dealing with sour grapes because I suck at english- I got an 800 on CR and a 780 on W-I just find it completely boring and unnecessary. Am I wrong?</p>
<p>Literature is just one of those things that makes your mind work. The exact thing that might seem useless to you is giving you immense amounts of knowledge without you even realizing it.</p>
<p>I agree to an extent. I think that there are MUCH better pieces of literature that we could read in class. I find that reading books such as The Great Gatsby is kind of pointless. There are some books, such as The Kite Runner, that I love to read in class, though! Even though knowledge of classic books can be useful, I think English classes should focus on contemporary readings that relate to life today ;D.</p>
<p>English or literature is put on a pedestal? Are you serious? All you hear are people claiming that any major that’s not a STEM major is only going to get you a job at Starbucks, lol.</p>
<p>I disagree that literature is just entertainment, but I do agree when you say other forms of artistic expression can be just as intellectually valuable as books. I’ve seen plenty of movies, television series, music lyrics, and even video games that are just as, if not more stimulating than many pieces of literature. </p>
<p>I would even argue that rap music is more intellectually stimulating than lots of literature that are considered “classic” - because at least most rap music is focused on the now and is more applicable to the modern day as opposed to many pieces of 200 year-old literature that teachers drool over.</p>
<p>It’s ridiculous that we have to “interpret” literature “correctly” and grammar is almost completely ignored. It really annoys me when teachers mark students off for grammatical mistakes that they never teach. Having to analyze literature ruins the reading experience. Most people that disdain reading probably had bad experiences with literature in school. The reason why the United States is so stupid is because we a put a higher emphasis on literature (4 years) than science (2 years). That’s the case for me in California and is probably similar throughout the nation.</p>
<p>The ability to analyze a work of art, an essay, or any kind of writing, is an immensely valuable skill. While the particular exercise in that skill that has been adopted by most high schools may seem pointless to you, the skills you must cultivate in order to do well in the subject certainly aren’t [analysis, forming an argument or counterargument that uses evidence from the work, and arguing that opinion in a clear, effective, convincing manner that is at once concise and pleasurable to read]. These are skills that are valuable in other disciplines, other fields, and in the workplace. English is a tool.</p>
<p>I hate to read classics too. Somehow my mom wants me to read them, thinking that they can improve a person’s writing. I told her that classics use grammar and sentence structures that are not suitable for modern use. She wouldn’t believe me (she doesn’t understand English very well, so explaining it to her is futile.)
I wish reading and analyzing classical literature are optional, just like taking an art class is optional, since they are both arts.</p>
<p>part of it is that it has an enduring legacy i think.</p>
<p>i think it used to be that literature was one of the most accessible sources for deeper insights about life. science was around, but it was less accessible, more cryptic, and wasn’t saying that many impressive things, or moving very fast.</p>
<p>now it is though. and if you are aware of that and the history of science and where we are - and if that resonates with you - then, yeah, all the nice books that extremely intelligent people wrote might feel irrelevant and without meaning. </p>
<p>but back then before science was so big you would have thought they were more interesting probably.</p>
<p>i’m okay with reading/writing being put on a pedestal. it’s the particular worship of of analyzing fiction that seems outdated to me.</p>
<p>English is the only language we’re really required to learn in the U.S., so we might as well learn it well. Yes, we need to take two years of a language in high school, but that’s nowhere near enough to be functionally literate in it. I enjoy classics and in my opinion they add a lot to your general knowledge, as well as making you a more cultured individual. You might think, say, Anna Karenina is completely useless, but it gives a lot of insight into Russian culture during the 19th century. Some people will be interested in this and some people will scoff at it, thinking it’s something they’ll never have to know about so why bother learning it. I guess it’s the difference between those who want to learn for the sake of learning vs. those who want to learn something only when it has practical applications.</p>
<p>Literature education is just the mode by which they teach us the more fundamentally important English skills — Critical reading, complex grammar, writing and arguing a thesis, etc.</p>
<p>I really can’t think of a better or more interesting way to learn high-level reading skills than by studying literature.</p>
<p>I was with you until you dissed F.Scott. He’s my man. And I love literature, but you do have a point. We read it like we read history sometimes, to learn. Learn about other places, other people, other religions, other worlds, whether they exist or not. We read classic literature to better our own writing. We read Mark Twain (grudgingly) to learn how to employ dialect specific to your setting. We read Jane Eyre to learn how to spend several pages describing a single building and it’s grounds. But most importantly…we read F. Scott Fitzgerald…</p>
<p>“We don’t read and write poetry because it’s cute. We read and write poetry because we are members of the human race. And the human race is filled with passion. And medicine, law, business, engineering, these are noble pursuits and necessary to sustain life. But poetry, beauty, romance, love, these are what we stay alive for.” </p>
<p>Poetry isn’t quite “literature,” but I still have to write essays on it. And I love Dead Poet’s Society [from which I got that quote]</p>
<p>Well, everything Izzy Busy Bee said, but, I’d like to add that literature is one of the most engaging ways to understand a historical time period. </p>
<p>If you have something against history, well, you realize that you’ll soon enough be a voting adult and you could read and understand every physical law in the universe but not have an idea of who you should vote for and why, nor be able to associate yourself with a culture or identity, nor be able to well express or appreciate those human emotions that we all have.</p>
<p>I’m a STEM kid myself but nonetheless appreciate the contributions of the humanities (philosophy, political science, etc.) to modern society. The aesthetic humanities find ways to beautifully express the above. It’s those experiences, moreso than the sciences and their contributions to utility, that make us human in purpose.</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that the humanities and literature serve as a discipline for great ideas to be eloquently packaged, and passed on to the next generation to be unwrapped. Without that eloquence–that poise and style that captivates our minds (or at least the mind of someone who has enough influence to make the rest of the world care)–certain ideas lose their place in the world. They lose that factor that makes them stand out.</p>
<p>Literature, however, is the element of the mind that allows us to ascribe a certain power–the power of language–to some idea. And if that language is powerful enough, it, and the ideas it carries, will continue to inspire generations and generations to come…</p>
<p>The sciences are about taking and a mindset and knowledge and applying them towards improving the world.</p>
<p>The humanities are about passing on a mindset that will improve the work of the next generation of the world.</p>
<p>Both serve great importance. Although a high school literature class seems quite without utility in your day-to-day life, it is always the English teacher’s hope that you might just pick up on one of those great mindsets hidden in literature… and use it to do great things, wherever you may go…</p>
<p>I’ll start this off by saying that I don’t particularly like English, at least not as it’s taught in schools, and consider it a vastly overrated subject. To consider why it might have so much appeal in academia, though I’ll try playing devil’s advocate here.</p>
<p>Suppose English wasn’t required. We would be raising a generation of drones, capable perhaps of memorizing formulae and bland historical events and punching numbers into a calculator but not of truly thinking critically or being able to draw upon seemingly unrelated works or bodies of knowledge to devise and prove truths about the world we live in. They’d go straight into the workforce, to be sure, and then what? To say nothing of how outsourceable most of their careers would be, they would not be living for much. English expands the way we think and the insights it sharpens our minds to make are pervasive throughout our lives.</p>
<p>Back to real life: I think English has a purpose, but also that it’s put in place incorrectly. It’s as test-based now as any other subject; because of its fuzzy and subjective nature, this doesn’t suit it. I also think it’s taught for too long and emphasized too much cmopared to other subjects. I think the math curricula should teach students more quickly rather than keeping them in algebra for three years but regularly extend to calculus and beyond by the end of high school. The same goes for foreign languages; two years is not enough to gain any real knowledge of the language (in my state only one semester is required), particularly at the rate they’re taught. We should be preparing our students to interact with people in other parts of the world who do not share their culture or language, not fulfilling the stereotype that Americans are ignorant and can only speak English.</p>
<p>learning to write/express seems so important. and english teaches those things, though rather indirectly and often incompetently. so i think it’s not by any means completely worthless. that would be the bases of my argument for the value that it does have.</p>
<p>Anyone remember 1984? How the government intended to decrease the amount of words in common use and thus manipulate the masses through that? We need language in order to express our thoughts and ideas. What good is it if you have a brilliant mind but can’t convey your ideas to others. Yes, the English curriculum in the U.S. is not a perfect system; we spend way too much time worrying about standardized testing and teaching to the test, rather than actually teaching kids how to write, but this doesn’t mean English in of itself is by any means unimportant.</p>