undefined | Better HN

0 pointsabdullahkhalids3y ago0 comments

I think most educators and teachers know that students won't get the classics. The goal is to at least make the students comfortable with the difficult language of the classics, and make them realize that analysis of these books yields deep insights.

If they instead taught students easier books in schools, student would never develop the reading skills to tackle the classics, and a much smaller percentage of adults would ever bother rereading the classics or even acknowledge their power.

Of course, the teaching has to be improved so that students never hate it.

0 comments

4 comments · 2 top-level

satvikpendem3y ago· 2 in thread

That's also true. To be honest, I don't know what the midpoint should be. For Shakespeare, we watched movie adaptations which made a lot more sense than just reading a somewhat dry play.

bobthepanda3y ago

For plays, performance is an important part of what they are, so a theater program is also good.

The issue is that performance arts, or the arts in general, usually are the first on the chopping block at schools that are either facing budgetary pressures or need to improve standardized test scores.

satvikpendem3y ago

Well they were movie adaptations, not plays themselves, so cutting performance arts didn't make much of a difference for those in English class. But I agree, it's a shame that they're cut in many schools.

Firmwarrior3y ago

Man, my literature classes in high school were a complete joke. The "deep insights" were all just arbitrary memes that had little to no correlation with reality

Stuff like: "What was the meaning of the yellow curtains?"

They pretty much ruined my enjoyment of every book I had to read, even though I did and still do love reading. For books required by classes, I just read the cliff's notes.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse