Why make kids read Shakespeare?

[hmkpoker]

Let me tell you all about an activity that I enjoy doing. It is called poi spinning.. It is a form of dance/juggling activity that began in New Zealand, and later became popular in America with the advent of rave culture, and is often done with glowsticks or torches. I have been doing it for five years now, and am quite good at it. It is a lot of fun, a great form of exercise, a wonderful social activity. It also helps develop coordination and ambidexterity. It's an all-around fun thing to do. My life is much better because of it.

Does this justify forcing every teenager in America to learn how to spin poi? Of course not. What I enjoy doing is not what everyone else enjoys doing.

All of the responses in this thread have been about the merits of learning Shakespeare. That's not the point. There are merits to reading Tolstoy too. Would you like it if a court decision suddently required you to read <u>War and Peace</u> and write a ten page paper on it? No, you wouldn't. Because there are a lot of other things you would prefer to do with your time. And there are a lot of other things that teenagers would rather do with their time rather than be forced to read 400 year old manuscripts that have nothing to do with the world today.

And lastly, reading Shakespeare is not an enjoyable activity. It's not even how Shakespeare is supposed to be experienced! The man wrote plays, not books. You're supposed to watch Shakespeare performed live. Reading Shakespeare is like printing out the script for <u>The Godfather</u>, telling someone to read this, and then wondering why they didn't enjoy spending a week of their time being bored with lines that Al Pacino was supposed to deliver. Schools force kids to read Shakespeare because, frankly, it wastes a lot of time. Watching a Shakespearean play is quick (2-3 hours), and often quite enjoyable. Yet for some reason schools insist on having the kids sit down and pick apart every piece of this old English nonsense for weeks on end, and don't even get to experience the damn play.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it---what would you rather be reading? Anyone who doesn't enjoy reading WS doesn't enjoy great literature, so what does it matter if it's Shakespeare or Phillip Roth that's assigned?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious, as long as we're on the subject, as to how OP thinks high school English time is best spent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have either of you considered that maybe having a high school english literature requirement is ridiculously pointless waste?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
And lastly, reading Shakespeare is not an enjoyable activity. It's not even how Shakespeare is supposed to be experienced! The man wrote plays, not books. You're supposed to watch Shakespeare performed live. Reading Shakespeare is like printing out the script for The Godfather, telling someone to read this, and then wondering why they didn't enjoy spending a week of their time being bored with lines that Al Pacino was supposed to deliver. Schools force kids to read Shakespeare because, frankly, it wastes a lot of time. Watching a Shakespearean play is quick (2-3 hours), and often quite enjoyable. Yet for some reason schools insist on having the kids sit down and pick apart every piece of this old English nonsense for weeks on end, [b]and don't even get to experience the damn play.[/B}

[/ QUOTE ]

Too true! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Subfallen]

I don't know, reading Lear is almost a religious experience for me, maybe I'm just weird.

almostbusto &amp; hmk both make good points though, I definitely see the alternate perspective.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
So what ya'll think, does reading Shakespeare really help prepare our kids to be successful in today's world?

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that really the only point of education? To train people to power our factories and offices?

I would argue that literature helps us understand common themes of life and humanity; hard literature forces the mind to improve linguistic and comprehension skills, and to think in novel ways. Someone who's mastered Shakespeare can understand a complex legal document, and appreciate all its nuances. Their mind has been trained to a level of difficulty exceeding everyday life, and this mastery makes general reading comprehension that much easier.

What are you suggesting as an alternative to Shakespeare? Wu Tang Clan?

I've always thought the point of education is to make the mind agile and thoughtful. Teaching the bare minimum, or teaching only things that are directly useful for life, would be a disservice IMO.

[SNOWBALL]

Shakesspeare probably won't help your kid make more money, but that's not the point. Or is it?

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it---what would you rather be reading? Anyone who doesn't enjoy reading WS doesn't enjoy great literature, so what does it matter if it's Shakespeare or Phillip Roth that's assigned?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious, as long as we're on the subject, as to how OP thinks high school English time is best spent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has either of you considered that maybe having a high school english literature requirement is ridiculously pointless waste?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. The irony of it all. Questioning the validity of English/lit education while being unable to form proper subject-verb agreements.

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
And there are a lot of other things that teenagers would rather do with their time rather than be forced to read 400 year old manuscripts that have nothing to do with the world today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would surmise your argument about what many teenagers would "rather do with their time" basically militates against ALL forms of education. Furthermore, the last part of your sentence is clearly and literally false.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get it---what would you rather be reading? Anyone who doesn't enjoy reading WS doesn't enjoy great literature, so what does it matter if it's Shakespeare or Phillip Roth that's assigned?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious, as long as we're on the subject, as to how OP thinks high school English time is best spent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Has either of you considered that maybe having a high school english literature requirement is ridiculously pointless waste?

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. The irony of it all. Questioning the validity of English/lit education while being unable to form proper subject-verb agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn it. I am pwned [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And there are a lot of other things that teenagers would rather do with their time rather than be forced to read 400 year old manuscripts that have nothing to do with the world today.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would surmise your argument about what many teenagers would "rather do with their time" basically militates against ALL forms of education.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. Human beings are in a constant state of learning, and teenagers are no exception. They usually end up with a greater mastery of power chords, skateboard tricks and ways of getting their parents to lend them the car/money than they do with academics. It's very similar to how a young, underqualified twenty-something who's new to the real world will quickly become educated in home economics, job interviewing and employee skills; they learn skills that are appropriate to their positions in life.

The reason that one would be quick to claim that teenagers would not learn anything valuable absent compulsory education is because, in the world they live in today, teenagers have very little freedom and very little responsibility (a lifestyle that is largely created by compulsory schooling). So naturally, they spend their time learning how to do things that are fun and cheap, like pulling ollies and rolling joints.

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, the last part of your sentence is clearly and literally false.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you take it that literally, then yes. The mere fact that we know of Shakespeare's existence means that there is a connection between his work and the modern world. That being said, my statement was meant to be qualitative, not axiomatic. I think it is very safe to say that Shakespeare is less relevent today than Eminem. Take away Shakespeare as an academic requirement, and not many kids are going to be interested in his works. Nor would they have any reason to be. They would probably be more interested in Nine Inch Nails, Stephen King, and M. Night Shyamalan, and by virtue of their interests in these artists, they would go on to "master" them, just like a seventeenth century theatergoer "mastered" Shakespeare. Is this bad? I don't see why.