<p>it seems that at every high school, 4 years of english is necessary to graduate, while only 2 years for science and math are required. why is that? isnt math and science the two most important subjects because now-a-days most work in a technology-oriented field.?</p>
<p>Really? We have a 4X4 plan.</p>
<p>in all honesty. who knows?
i have the same system at my school ripcurl and it's always baffled me.</p>
<p>i've always felt the first two years of english (freshman and sophmore) is a complete waste of time. the latter two years usually consist of AP literature and language, which is actually really good preparation for college english.</p>
<p>we have 4 math, english, and science, 3 history and foreign lang as our 'core" courses required. 2 of art and pe are also a must, a year of tech, etc (2 = 2 years, or 4 semester-long courses)</p>
<p>its just standard stuff, why not i guess?</p>
<p>Yeah, it's not like you need to actually be able to read and write to be a decent scientist...:rolleyes:</p>
<p>english is required for 4 years because it is considered the most important skill for everyday living. while math or science skills beyond the first 2 years are not necessarily required to work some jobs, literacy in english is considered necessary. ability to communicate effectively is an integral part of independent living, thus, english for all 4 years.</p>
<p>if my english classes are any indication, the required 4 years of english fails to accomplish all those points.</p>
<p>most people are quite literate by the time they reach high school.
most people can read and write just fine by 9th grade.</p>
<p>in 9th grade, we focused on poetry and creative writing (haiku, sonnets, couplets, etc) and in 10th grade we focused on reading short stories and acting out shakesphearean plays.
total waste of time IMO.</p>
<p>i'm not saying you're wrong, those may well be the purpose of having 4 years.
im just saying they aren't doing a good job.</p>
<p>"isnt math and science the two most important subjects because now-a-days most work in a technology-oriented field.?"</p>
<p>aren't, not isn't...thats why you need 4 yrs.</p>
<p>
[quote]
in 9th grade, we focused on poetry and creative writing (haiku, sonnets, couplets, etc) and in 10th grade we focused on reading short stories and acting out shakesphearean plays.
total waste of time IMO.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If only you realized how poorly the average high school freshman reads and writes...</p>
<p>We have 4 all the way down: 4 Eng (including 1/2 unit of American Lit), 4 Sci (Including a physical sci [chem, physics] and a life science), 4 Math (with alg I, alg II, geometry, and Precalc/trig), 4 Social Sciences (including US history, PoliSci/Gov/Civics, and Econ). And, coming next year, instead of 2 units of foriegn language, we must take 4 (though, I'm sure there will be an increase in level 5 enrollment for the AP tests).</p>
<p>
[quote]
If only you realized how poorly the average high school freshman reads and writes...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>i fail to see how acting out shakesphearean plays or learning how to write haiku effectively supplements a student's understanding of the english language.</p>
<p>a much more effective method would be to required reading of more literary works including both classics and contemporaries, including books such as Catcher in the Rye, 1984, and the Orson Scott Card series.</p>
<p>because we live in America, and when you're out in the real world people don't want to hear you talk like an uneducated redneck.</p>
<p>^*speak [not "talk"] like an uneducated redneck. </p>
<p>Seems like you're an uneducated redneck...</p>
<p>
[quote]
i fail to see how acting out shakesphearean plays or learning how to write haiku effectively supplements a student's understanding of the english language.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Shakespeare is an easy answer: because his writings make you work hard. They require that the reader engage with the text on a level to which most high schoolers are unaccustomed. Plus, it gives you an incredible foundation for reading later literature.</p>
<p>There's also the historical element to it. We don't just teach these things so you can go and do a profession. We teach it in the hopes that students will appreciate the rich history of the English language. </p>
<p>
[quote]
a much more effective method would be to required reading of more literary works including both classics and contemporaries, including books such as Catcher in the Rye, 1984, and the Orson Scott Card series.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Catcher in the Rye and 1984 are both taught in most schools. Card is questionable. Many high schoolers enjoy his works because they speak to a lot of them and their angst while growing up, but his work is probably not on the level of Faulkner or others of the previous generation.</p>
<p>If I recall my high school English education correctly, we went through all literature from the Puritan era all the way until Steinbeck.</p>
<p>yeah, they want us all to speak and write gooder</p>
<p>And the average high school freshman (so not anyone on CC) is typically really bad at grammar and can barely write a page long paper. It always baffles me how these people got through elementary and junior high without learning how to write complete sentences...</p>
<p>^Then, perhaps they should actually teach the basic structure of the language while we're young and still "absorbing" basic communication skill. Same with foreign language! We learn this crap extremely easily in our young years, yet they like to cram it in high schools now. Makes me a sad panda :(</p>
<p>Sexual harassment...panda!</p>
<p>Well, I think we get taught basic structure when we're young, but most of us are too old to remember it. </p>
<p>And yeah, the foreign language thing while young is a good idea.</p>
<p>I think it's not remembered because we get lenient on it. We need to mark our children's papers until there's ink coming through the other end.</p>
<p>All I know is that I'm glad I remembered it (makes me a few steps ahead of others when trying to get a job, haha).</p>
<p>oh really? so how did you guess that i come from redneck ville, beverly hills, in los angeles, california?</p>
<p>So you're rich?</p>
<p>I expected better English.</p>