I didn't go to the best of schools and none of us were that bothered about English let alone Shakespeare. But we had a new teacher start who gave each of us a part and we all read Twelfth Night together. I never read before that but I did after so did my two best mates. That reading started me on a path of fruitful education. If instead I had of had lessons on building PC's I'd have built them then spent all day playing games on them. So it does benefit some if not all.
Computer Technology vs Shakespeare literature
- Thread starter WingZero30
- Start date
Before you start talking about scraping Shakespeare, you might want to look at the quality of the ICT GCSE and A-Level, its appalling. I remember going into a A-level class when they were 'learning' about how to make websites, and correcting him several times on the use of HTML, which in the end they forgoed entirely and used frontpage. Now the sort of thing I'd call teaching ICT A-level, just what sort of job does that set you up for?
The one point I agree with is teachers(not on their own, but with the backing of loads of other teachers and analysts) trying to add meaning to something after the act, trying to say this is obviously meant to symbolise this and this is obviously showing the authors inner torment about that.
However that's not justification for not reading any classic literature at all... Reading comprehension skills are some of the most useful you can gain, being able to translate a body of text, even one written in unfamiliar language, into an understanding of what's written, is useful in any walk of life.
For a very limited number of people it's a skill that just won't sit with them, I know there are bits of the autistic spectrum that make it very difficult for people with that trait to take things any way other than literally, or to build up an image in their head of what the text is saying. It's still a fundamental skill to teach though, the OP sounds just like a linguistic version of the fat kid who didn't want to do PE so thinks it should be optional.
However that's not justification for not reading any classic literature at all... Reading comprehension skills are some of the most useful you can gain, being able to translate a body of text, even one written in unfamiliar language, into an understanding of what's written, is useful in any walk of life.
For a very limited number of people it's a skill that just won't sit with them, I know there are bits of the autistic spectrum that make it very difficult for people with that trait to take things any way other than literally, or to build up an image in their head of what the text is saying. It's still a fundamental skill to teach though, the OP sounds just like a linguistic version of the fat kid who didn't want to do PE so thinks it should be optional.
Probably because despite all our technological advances, our scientific breakthroughs, our political advances, our inventions, despite the fact that we have left our atmosphere, despite our mastery of machinery, the division of labour, the engine, irrigation, cures for countless life threatening diseases, we are still a race that is moved by something so simple, it's beauty is expressed in mere words, and yet cannot be explained.
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate;
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date;
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature's changing course untrimm'd;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st:
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
I completely agree with this and have been saying it for a long time. Much of the teaching methods/material at secondary schools better suited to girls.
I used to argue the point with my English teachers at secondary school and their standard reply was.
Them: “if you look a bit closer the Shakespeare storylines aren't so different to modern day soap operas like Eastenders etc”
Me: “I have no interest in those either you stupid bint.”
Them: *Tries to laugh it off because they know they're speaking rubbish, and starts moaning about it being the fault of the Conservative government*
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
Isn't that exactly the point? Kids don’t have a basic grasp of the English language because schools waste their time trying to teach them things like Shakespeare which they have no interest in.
Shakespeare != Basic English
Basic English is about being able to convey information via written or verbal means using the English language. It doesn’t really matter what the information is, it could even be about overclocking laptops if that's what floats your boat. Most children won’t grow up to write literature.
IMO English Lit should be as optional as Music, it just isn't a key skill.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 7,058
- Location
- Bedford
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 8,436
- Location
- Kent
Pray tell, how is literature not a key skill? This is baffling to say the least.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 1,520
Fear not, a compromise is at hand.
I'm wondering what the age split is in this thread between people who are for or against this teaching of literature. I'm guessing somewhere along the lines of:
- at/just finished school.
- old enough to appreciate their chance to learn these things.
At the time I was equally of the mind that it was boring and pointless (much like trigonometry, algebra, etc).
Now, a few years down the line, I'm very appreciative, as I feel that experience has expanded my vocabulary and allows me to write more expressively, e.g. in emails, reports, etc. all of which I use in my daily job (along with the trigonometry and algebra =P)
- at/just finished school.
- old enough to appreciate their chance to learn these things.
At the time I was equally of the mind that it was boring and pointless (much like trigonometry, algebra, etc).
Now, a few years down the line, I'm very appreciative, as I feel that experience has expanded my vocabulary and allows me to write more expressively, e.g. in emails, reports, etc. all of which I use in my daily job (along with the trigonometry and algebra =P)
I think that the problem with literature at GCSE is that it's not really representative of what it is as a subject at AS/A2 and at degree level. I remember being incredibly frustrated at GCSE when it came to English Lit - you were expected to simply tick the boxes in terms of analysing texts. I'm finishing my A-levels this year, and the subject is drastically different now (in fact, I love it so much I'll be doing it at uni): in my coursework this year I covered everything from ethics, politics, history and science. At GCSE they teach you what to think, not how to think, and as a result of that many people are put off by it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
How about you explain to us why the majority of people in this country require knowledge of literature on a day to day basis in the same way that people need to read, write, perform basic arithmetic and have a rudimentary grasp of scientific principals?
Just because you know how to write doesn't mean you have the ability and knowledge of how to write effectively, and more importantly, how to convey your thoughts/concepts/subjects in a concise and effective way.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I'd probably fit into your second category given that I finished school almost 10 years ago now but I was in favour of learning literature then (with the caveat that it should be well taught and chosen) and I'm still firmly in favour of it now.
If those are your primary requirements from a educational system then surely all those could be taught within a couple of years, let's even be generous and say five years - what is the rest of the time to be used for?
Just because something does not have an instant application or even a regular application doesn't mean that it shouldn't be taught. If anything more people need a more comprehensive knowledge of literature so that they can express themselves with greater erudition. While it is of primary importance for the message to be conveyed it is easier for the reader/listener if the message is expressed without ambiguity and without errors, this is not something unique to language scholars but it certainly doesn't hurt.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
Agreed, but what you describe is not English literature.
There should be options, one of which should be English literature. Besides, many children do not achieve competence in basic skills in two years.
I'm not saying it shouldn't be taught or it's not worth learning. I'm saying it should be option like other subjects such as art, music, history, business studies, PE, drama etc. For some people it’s not appropriate or necessary so why force them?
Last edited:
I won't disagree that most of what you study in English is more focused on the female of the species, for instance, in A level we would study horrificly boring and terribly written love stories 'The Time Travelers wife', although this did almost balance out with the amazing 'The Time Machine' by H.G. Wells.
Shakespeare is very interesting, I understand that NOW, but back in school during GCSE's it didn't make sense, it was long winded and very uninspiring. This puts people off from doing the work in GCSE and from taking A level English later on.
Iago is possibly the best character from literature, but through the whole play (Othello) the other characters were very...dull and 2 dimensional.
Shakespeare is very interesting, I understand that NOW, but back in school during GCSE's it didn't make sense, it was long winded and very uninspiring. This puts people off from doing the work in GCSE and from taking A level English later on.
Iago is possibly the best character from literature, but through the whole play (Othello) the other characters were very...dull and 2 dimensional.
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.
I'd rather not live in a country full of chimps. We are dumbed down enough. I can't fully express my disdain for such a motion so I will leave it here and perhaps come back and post something longer.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,315
- Location
- The Land of Roundabouts
Literature is important, Shakespearian literature is so far away from our current language now that it is somewhat antiquated.
As people have said it has a negative impact on learning, learning should be inspiring not a chore.
Shakespeare has a historic value, but i personally feel that it should be left out of English lessons.
As people have said it has a negative impact on learning, learning should be inspiring not a chore.
Shakespeare has a historic value, but i personally feel that it should be left out of English lessons.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2005
- Posts
- 8,706
- Location
- Nottingham
The skills you learn in English Lit by analysing various books or plays are certainly useful in a wide range of jobs. What it's teaching you is (a) how to analyse document content and draw conclusions from it and (b) how to interpret the author's thought process towards the document.
Out in the real world large numbers of non-entry level jobs require you to be able to do these things to documents you come across, one of the requirements of my job for instance is to look at technical solution documents and analyse them for technical correctness and supportability ... yes this requires technical skills and knowledge as well but it also requires me to be able to interpret the documents content and to be able to establish where the author knows what they are talking about or is just making it up.
What you are being taught is, yes, some stuff about plays which makes you a more rounded member of society ... but also the basics of being able to critically analyse things. Looking at a story to do this makes it easier to explain and understand.
Don't get me started though on how Music should be given more emphasis as well as playing in groups encourages team work ...
I also think I agree with Haggisman above on the probable split of posters in this thread. For those who have had a while since they did English Lit and thus can see the benefits are for it .... those who are doing, or have just done it, don't understand yet what those benefits are ... not so much.