Computer Technology vs Shakespeare literature

[WingZero30]

Hi guys

I have been thinking about this issue for quite a while now. I remember studying shakespeare back in school and also during GCSE English. Oh boy the old english was hard to understand although it was interesting to note how people 3/4 centuries ago used the old english to communicate. However now we are in 21st century where average teenager is more familiar with computers/games/ipods etc than shakespeare; I personally feel that shakespeare should be ditched in favour of technology lessons where pupils are taught about pc components and pc building.
I may sound sexist here by saying that teenage boys are more put off by shakespeare than teenage girls. Or make shakespeare optional. It is like forcing 16th century pupils to learn about i7/i5 and amd systems along with concepts like hyperthreading, memory bandwith, shaders technology etc which I am sure would lead them pretty clueless.. So my point is why schools still insist on teaching old literature including boring poetry which has no relevance to today's technological era? I would really like ur opinions please?

 

[Monkeynut]

I suppose it is because it is classic literature and gives students a chance to understand an earlier time, which may help them with their writing?

 

[BloodyL]

Lets not teach about Archimedes screw, instead we should be teaching people how to read a water meter.

 

[soundb0y]

I bet some people find "1337" computer speak just as perplexing as ye olde english.

 

[Andelusion]

There's a time and a place for learning about technology, and I agree it's very useful. However the work of Shakespeare is art, although it may not be as useful to some, I think it's valuable to give students an insight into some of his work to understand why he will go down in history.

 

[ralv585]

Why do people go to see the pyramids?
Why do people have an interest in history?
Why are there museums?

Not everybody is interested in technology.

If people want to learn and study this stuff, they'll take the appropriate course in Uni.

For secondary education, having a broad range of subjects is necessary for students who have interest in maths, science, english, geography, art etc

 

[BloodyL]

It is also worth studying an earlier example of something in order to better understand the newer version of.
I would much rather have your hypothetical shakesperean students learn about the analytical engine before they delved into the workings of the i5/i7.

 

[OriginalJonty]

Why stop teaching Shakespeare? You can't teach people about technology all day, everyday (unless they're doing a course in it). Millions of people enjoy reading, watching plays or listening to a good story. Shakespeare covers all 3 of those aspects.

Just because you like technology and wish it to be taught all the time doesn't mean everyone else does.

 

[WingZero30]

Why do people go to see the pyramids?
Why do people have an interest in history?
Why are there museums?

Not everybody is interested in technology.

If people want to learn and study this stuff, they'll take the appropriate course in Uni.

For secondary education, having a broad range of subjects is necessary for students who have interest in maths, science, english, geography, art etc

I don't know how much curriculum has changed since I did my GCSEs 10 years ago but I remember me and my class fellows struggling to understand shakespeare and also trying to find metaphors and similes in old poetry which we had to do in abundance in order to pass english. However I am not saying that it is bad thing to learn classic literature hence I mentioned in my first post that shakespeare should be made optional or any other old literature for that matter.
At the end of the day if school pupils can't pass gcse english (which is very important) based on their failure to come to grip with old literature then it is not fair on school or students. If old literature is optional then its up to students to decide whether to study it or not. Obviously some will choose it and some won't, but forcing every student to learn alienating stuff in abundance will not benefit any party.

 

[OriginalJonty]

I don't know how much curriculum has changed since I did my GCSEs 10 years ago but I remember me and my class fellows struggling to understand shakespeare and also trying to find metaphors and similes in old poetry which we had to do in abundance in order to pass english. However I am not saying that it is bad thing to learn classic literature hence I mentioned in my first post that shakespeare should be made optional or any other old literature for that matter.
At the end of the day if school pupils can't pass gcse english (which is very important) based on their failure to come to grip with old literature then it is not fair on school or students. If old literature is optional then its up to students to decide whether to study it or not. Obviously some will choose it and some won't, but forcing every student to learn alienating stuff in abundance will not benefit any party.

It's not just about teaching old literature. It's about sharpening people's analysis skills, a skill many employers look for. Yes it's hard but so is life. People need to deal with it. The optional stage comes at university.

 

[Rich_L]

If teenage boys are finding Shakespeare dull, that's the teacher at fault IMHO - there is plenty of Shakespeare which if explained properly fits squarely into teen boy humour

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

Hi guys

I have been thinking about this issue for quite a while now. I remember studying shakespeare back in school and also during GCSE English. Oh boy the old english was hard to understand although it was interesting to note how people 3/4 centuries ago used the old english to communicate. However now we are in 21st century where average teenager is more familiar with computers/games/ipods etc than shakespeare; I personally feel that shakespeare should be ditched in favour of technology lessons where pupils are taught about pc components and pc building.
I may sound sexist here by saying that teenage boys are more put off by shakespeare than teenage girls. Or make shakespeare optional. It is like forcing 16th century pupils to learn about i7/i5 and amd systems along with concepts like hyperthreading, memory bandwith, shaders technology etc which I am sure would lead them pretty clueless.. So my point is why schools still insist on teaching old literature including boring poetry which has no relevance to today's technological era? I would really like ur opinions please?

Please tell me this is a troll post and/or you're under the age of 17.

Confirm/Deny?

 

[Angilion]

If teenage boys are finding Shakespeare dull, that's the teacher at fault IMHO - there is plenty of Shakespeare which if explained properly fits squarely into teen boy humour

I agree with this. Shakespeare's work is not the dry, highbrow stuff it's often misunderstood to be.

Also, it isn't in old English (several people in this thread have said it is, including the OP). It's in early modern English.

This is an example of old English, transliterated into a more modern alphabet. It's even less intelligible to a modern English speaker if it's written in an old English alphabet (which had letters that no longer exist and was missing some that now exist) and still less so if it's written in runic script (which it was, in the early days).

Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.
Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum

 

[Killerkebab]

Remember everyone, school is NOT there to teach you skills that you will use in your later life.

School is there to give you a cultural background, and most importantly to teach you how to learn. Learning how to work out the cosine of an angle in a triangle or analysing Romeo and Juliet probably sounded worthless to you at the time - however I bet the simple act of learning how to do it has geared your mind towards learning other, more advanced or more relevant (whichever word you wish to choose) concepts.

Learning is all about building blocks, and school is there to give you the bottom blocks, the foundation that you will base your life on. It would be a huge shame (and this is coming from someone who isn't all that good at English, and a maths student to boot ) to make English language and literature optional just because some of it doesn't seem currently relevant to some people.

 

[Evilsod]

If teenage boys are finding Shakespeare dull, that's the teacher at fault IMHO - there is plenty of Shakespeare which if explained properly fits squarely into teen boy humour

Not entirely. Everything is dumbed down so as not to offend anyone. But then there are always some teachers who are enthusiastic and some who aren't.

And really, Romeo n Juliet is nothing compared to the dodgy accents you get in Graphic Novels which unless you know the accent are nigh incomprehensible, or the excessive descriptive writings of H.P. Lovecraft. Could you imagine your English teacher trying to pronounce "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn"?

But seriously though its the poetry that always annoys me, at least in Shakespear there is something for everyone, death, betrayal, love, romance, comedy, whatever. The poetry you get in school is generally just dull for you to analyse whatever crap the teacher can make up about the writers intentions or delusions or hallucinations or whatever.

 

[memyselfandi]

It's not just about teaching old literature. It's about sharpening people's analysis skills, a skill many employers look for. Yes it's hard but so is life. People need to deal with it. The optional stage comes at university.

This was my first thought when I saw this thread too. Yes, with a poor teacher, the study of Shakespeare can be difficult and uninteresting but the skills you actually learn around analysis and understanding how to grasp things from the perspective of someone in a different position to yourself can be very valuable in your future careers.

Teaching PC hardware instead .... not that a good idea. the subject isn't really that large and, if this forum shows anything, you can teach it to yourself in a very short period with online resources. Also you have to remember this is enthusiast forum ... your average person doesn't want to know how their computer works ... it's just a box you buy from a shop which does something and if it breaks you either pay someone to fix it or replace it (or ask here what to do).

 

[edscdk]

There's a time and a place for learning about technology, and I agree it's very useful. However the work of Shakespeare is art, although it may not be as useful to some, I think it's valuable to give students an insight into some of his work to understand why he will go down in history.

I did that crap at school, never been of any use.... teach the kids something useful at school... later if they want to learn about art and crap fair enough they can pay uni fees for it..

 

[~>Dg<~]

i chose a very familar subject to this thread way back when started coming on here and nearly got raped tread carefully

 

[Mr^B]

If you don't understand why it's important to study and understand the works of arguably the greatest writer ever then I guess that's fair enough. However, a greater understanding of his works gives you a greater insight into the English language, and tends to show itself in the language you use whether you know it or not.

It is like forcing 16th century pupils to learn about i7/i5 and amd systems along with concepts like hyperthreading, memory bandwith, shaders technology etc which I am sure would lead them pretty clueless.

Well, not really no. Shakespeare was in the past, not the future. It would be like teaching 16th century pupils about 11th Century literature (literature of the time would have chronicled the Norman invasion - for example), which is (amazingly) what Shakespeare himself would have been taught about. He would also have read about the Romans (which influenced a great number of his plays).

However now we are in 21st century where average teenager is more familiar with computers/games/ipods etc than shakespeare

Yes, and it shows when doing interviews and reading through CVs. The standard of English is dropping rapidly.

 

[semi-pro waster]

I'm not the greatest fan of Shakespeare but I think he is entirely worth studying and to miss him out would be doing a great disservice to your knowledge of literature and the English language. I find some of the nuances that have been largely lost more fascinating than the plays themselves though e.g. when Hamlet famously tells Ophelia "get thee to a nunnery" it's even harsher than would be suspected today, in Shakespeares time a nunnery was common slang for a whorehouse or the misconceptions that people have about what it means to be "hoist by your own petard".