Computer Technology vs Shakespeare literature

[Voltar]

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.

/cry.


I'll be back with a lengthy rant at this rate.

Each to their own, but not teaching Shakespeare is simply wrong.


Next thing is that we'll have Harry Potter being taught instead.

 

[Andelusion]

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..

Nice to see you're not biased or anything; 'art and crap' :/

School has to provide a rounded focus on different topics, there are many different subjects at school, it's a shame you didn't find Shakespeare 'useful', I'm sure however that some students in your class got some worth from the lessons, you can't please everyone.

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'

I love that book I also like American Psycho though so go figure

IMO English Lit should be as optional as Music, it just isn't a key skill.

You may never have music as a hobby, but students of any age can benefit from the vast array of skills and practices that are inherent of studying music. Analysis, interpretation, critique, creativity, team work, evaluation, these are all activities and skills that can be applied to any one's day or working life. I was personally never a fan of sport at school, mostly because our lessons were centered around football (I'm not a fan), but in hindsight I appreciate that many students at school benefited greatly from it (sharing several similar skills quoted above), and looking back I wish I hadn't taken such a negative view on the subject, I preferred music, which reinforces the importance of choice in the education system, at least from a certain age. I think it is right that music (and PE) is compulsory up until GCSE's, as without these weekly lessons I feel that many students would not have any kind of opportunity (or desire) to focus on creativity and team work.

To put things into perspective I'm 22 so aren't that long out of high school, it certainly seems like yesterday

 

[LizardKing]

/cry.


I'll be back with a lengthy rant at this rate.

Each to their own, but not teaching Shakespeare is simply wrong.


Next thing is that we'll have Harry Potter being taught instead.

Your entitled to your opinion personally i believe there should be a broader range of writing styles taught and less emphasis on Shakespeare.
To many great authors are over shadowed by a literature giant that is outdated in today's society

 

[Mr^B]

Your entitled to your opinion personally i believe there should be a broader range of writing styles taught and less emphasis on Shakespeare.
To many great authors are over shadowed by a literature giant that is outdated in today's society

That's just the trouble - the great authors you pick will be different to the ones that I pick.

Shakespeare is just about the only universally acclaimed author there is, so it makes sense to study his works.

...if you think the language is out-dated, try listening to someone speaking it properly, complete with correct inflections, pauses, volume, pace and timing. It makes a great deal of difference to having it delivered by a barely literate 15 year old. The actual words and phrases used are only half the story - probably less. You can infer the meaning of many of the words you don't understand from their context and how they are delivered.

Besides all that, Star Trek II would have had a really weak bad guy if he was quoting Jane Austen at Kirk, no?

 

[Stretch]

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.

The teaching of many of the skills you mention are just as well served in other subjects such as history, geography, biology, economics etc which also require interpreting information and drawing conclusions. For me it also happens to significantly more interesting than reading Shakespeare or any of the other creative literature found in schools.

I got very little benefit from English lit. Despite this I've achieved a lot since both academically and professionally. It's not something I miss or something I'd think about taking up again. I finished school 15 years ago.

 

[Killerkebab]

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?

Again, school isn't about giving people skills they'll need to use in later life, it is about giving everybody a common cultural base and most importantly about teaching kids how to learn.

Skills picked up whilst learning Eng Lit are invaluable. Essay writing, reading comprehension, analysis, just to name a few. Why on Earth do people think that the only skills you need to know are how to read, write, count and a "rudimentary grasp of scientific principals" [sic]?

The teaching of many of the skills you mention are just as well served in other subjects such as history, geography, biology, economics etc which also require interpreting information and drawing conclusions. For me it also happens to significantly more interesting than reading Shakespeare or any of the other creative literature found in schools.

Maybe it is, but school isn't about doing interesting things - that is what university is for, when you're finally ready to choose what your education should be.

School is no place for options in my opinion, the idea that students must pick options in GCSE - and worse yet - only have options in A level is wrong. More subjects need to be made compulsory at A-level and I strongly believe English (be it Lit or Lang, or a mesh of both) should be one of them.

All subjects at school teach you how to take in information and draw conclusions from it. English literature teaches you how to make your point in a more eloquent fashion and in my opinion, no other subject does this. It would be a huge shame to make it optional.

 

[LizardKing]

That's just the trouble - the great authors you pick will be different to the ones that I pick.

Of course, and that's what's so good about diversity, it invokes discussions

Shakespeare causes negativity towards learning English, i would argue forcing Shakespeare upon people who cannot understand it, don't want to understand it or cant relate to it pushes them away from wanting to learn the subject. Half of my school shunned Shakespeare because of that and as such ignored the lesson.
And that is why i would say for the greater good it would be far more beneficiary to bring in authors that are more in-focus with today age.

No i'm not saying Harry Potter

 

[Stretch]

All subjects at school teach you how to take in information and draw conclusions from it. English literature teaches you how to make your point in a more eloquent fashion and in my opinion, no other subject does this. It would be a huge shame to make it optional.

That's fair enough but I don't agree

In my opinion many students would get more from other subjects, or Eng lit being focused away from classical creative literature to more factual topical writing.

 

[Mr^B]

Forcing kids to learn *anything* isn't going to work.

What authors would you pick to engage the majority of 14-15 year olds? How many 14-15 year olds actually read as a past-time, rather than play games, listen to music, infact everything the OP said that they would prefer to do?

If you're going to force them to do something, you might as well pick the best - in the vague hope that those few who are willing and able get the most benefit.

 

[semi-pro waster]

There should be options, one of which should be English literature. Besides, many children do not achieve competence in basic skills in two years.

Your suggestion appeared to be that only the very basics of reading, writing, mathematics and scientific principles needed to be taught. I did give you five years for teaching the basics - if it can't be picked up in that time then there's a strong possibility that it never will.

English in some form should not be an option until at least the age of 16, it should be compulsory. I've long thought that George Bernard Shaw was right when he said "The English have no respect for their language, and will not teach their children to speak it.".

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?

I hope I'm misinterpreting and you're not suggesting that that English (in some form or other) is not appropriate or necessary, even just to the level of Standard Grades/GCSEs. Everything you mention there is a subject that can be useful but none are core to actually getting on with life - communication is one of the most important things we can do and as humans are essentially social animals we're better able to do it if we understand more about it.

If after 16 children want to take subjects other than English then that is fair enough - I'd be happy to see it as obligatory beyond that but since at that age they are just about legally old enough to make binding contractual decisions they should probably have the right to decide a bit more about their education.

 

[Andelusion]

Forcing kids to learn *anything* isn't going to work.

What authors would you pick to engage the majority of 14-15 year olds? How many 14-15 year olds actually read as a past-time, rather than play games, listen to music, infact everything the OP said that they would prefer to do?

If you're going to force them to do something, you might as well pick the best - in the vague hope that those few who are willing and able get the most benefit.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any ideas as to what authors/books to use for English Literature?

It's incredibly hard to pick material for study which can please everyone, if not impossible, there will be always people who are unhappy with the subject matter whether they like the subject not.

 

[G|mp]

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.

Mmmm, you must have interpreted Shakespeare differently from me.

I always thought it was about the stories and the (wretch) moral implications of the stories that was the main learning curve, not whether it was in a funky language or not.

 

[Stretch]

I hope I'm misinterpreting and you're not suggesting that that English (in some form or other) is not appropriate or necessary, even just to the level of Standard Grades/GCSEs.

English should be taught at GCSE as part of the core curriculum. Just not English lit in anything like its current form.

 

[Mr^B]

Just out of curiosity, do you have any ideas as to what authors/books to use for English Literature?

It's incredibly hard to pick material for study which can please everyone, if not impossible, there will be always people who are unhappy with the subject matter whether they like the subject not.

Yes, Shakespeare.

 

["andy"]

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?

you get taught all that long before you move on to Shakespearean literature...

thick people just forget those basics easier

 

[Andelusion]

Oh I certainly didn't fully understand the meaning of that piece of text.

 

[WingZero30]

I would also find it very interesting to know that if shakespeare was alive today would he have been as successfull as he was during his time. Would he have been able to grasp computing technology which plays a vital role in our lives today. I say that based on the assumption that shakespeare must have been very in tune with the society of his time and the things that were considered important in driving that particular society.
Also things were much simpler during his lifetime than they are now. I haven't read many of his works apart from hamlet and romeo and juliet but he must have written on the condition of society during his lifetime. So if he were alive today would he have been able to produce a masterpiece reflecting his views on the condition of the current society such as the economic climate?

 

[Mr^B]

Mmmm, you must have interpreted Shakespeare differently from me.

I always thought it was about the stories and the (wretch) moral implications of the stories that was the main learning curve, not whether it was in a funky language or not.

This is, of course, the other problem.

People fail to see past the language to actually what they are meant to be studying, which is literature, the STORY, not the language - which is why literature and language are separate, and you don't study Shakespeare for language.

 

[Fenris]

So the next time I hear someone misquote Macbeth by saying "Lead on Macduff" I can come and slap you round the head instead of them?

God that ****es me right off.

 

[Deiwos]

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?

It's funny, I was thinking we needed a subject that people could study called Information & Communication Technology where the teachers would teach students useful skills using these things called computers. Alas, I fear that such a subject is but a pipedream