Why, oh why, do the schools still ask students to read so much fiction?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument against literature is about as intellectual as the argument against math because we all won't go into STEM fields.

Yes. Most math is not relevant. I have never, in my life, had to solve a quadratic equation outside of math class. Also, biology. I don't need to know the parts of the cell! And chemistry -- balancing an equation? I mean, really. And don't even get me started on physics, especially electromagnetism. Totally ridiculous.

(However, I do, in all seriousness, support anybody's efforts to get The Catcher in the Rye off the mandatory reading list. It's only on there because somebody 40 years ago thought it was relevant to teenagers. It's not.)

The Catcher in the Rye is still valuable for its themes and as an exercise in a particular kind of narrative voice. Someone told me the Hunger Games series was on her kid's middle school reading list. That, I think, is not a good use of kids' educational time and effort.

I can't believe the parents who have no fiction in the house. I find that bizarre, really.

[Anonymous]

It's fine to argue whether a book is important enough to warrant being on a reading list. One person may get more out a book than another based on their experiences and preferences. What is strange, is not understanding the importance of fiction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here, I am a scientist, so is DH. I just think that fiction being a "model" of true life is crazy, why not just use real life? One Shakespeare play per year in HS should be adequate. The rest should be about history, industry, economics, medicine, law, finances and so on. These would make excellent topics for and "English" teacher to work with.
In the old days, they knew less about these topics and we did not include them in a classical education, but times have changed. A child can learn to be a great writer by reading history books instead of Greek Mythology.

BTW, we have tons of books in our house, but no fiction.

I am always amazed, in a bad way, when educated people put down fiction. How do you feel about art? What about music? If you don't believe in literature, there is no reason you should value those either.

You're doing your kids a major disservice by not having fiction in the house. On top of being educational (in terms of information and facts as well as empathy and the human condition), reading fiction is FUN!

It is not that I don't believe that fiction has a role. I just feel that other things have an even more important role. It takes seconds to look at a painting, and if you love it, you stare at it for 10 minutes. It takes a long time to read a book, with all that work the book should at least be educational.

Hmm...but that is like saying that chugging down your lunch is better than eating a nice pleasurable meal because that takes too long.
I read fiction (and non-fiction) for pleasure, so the longer, the better.

[Anonymous]

So many insufferably smug and self-righteous responses in this thread...

[Anonymous]

Literature teaches us about human nature, and if you read enough 'old' fiction, you'll see that human nature has not changed one bit, despite all the technological changes. What made "the Greeks" happy and sad, or dejected or hopeful is the same as what happens to us today.

So if you want to make a utilitarian argument, you might say that you are better off learning about something rather long-lasting (i.e. human nature as described in novels and myths) rather than the science of the day, which will be revised soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument against literature is about as intellectual as the argument against math because we all won't go into STEM fields.

Yes. Most math is not relevant. I have never, in my life, had to solve a quadratic equation outside of math class. Also, biology. I don't need to know the parts of the cell! And chemistry -- balancing an equation? I mean, really. And don't even get me started on physics, especially electromagnetism. Totally ridiculous.

(However, I do, in all seriousness, support anybody's efforts to get The Catcher in the Rye off the mandatory reading list. It's only on there because somebody 40 years ago thought it was relevant to teenagers. It's not.)

Yes. I believe we should go back to the Middle Ages, and establish guilds. A child will learn the history and fundamentals of his/her discipline. S/he will apprentice with a master builder/cooper/blacksmith/cobbler and will not waste time learning about those things that will not be useful to his/her trade.

[Anonymous]

I think it's fair to ask whether the specific books being assigned are the best choices. I, for one, would be happy to see the Catcher in the Rye and the Scarlet Letter off the lists and replaced with other great books. But I think teaching children to effectively read literature is valuable--in terms of vocabulary, writing skills, comprehension, imagination and empathy, critical thinking skills, cultural literacy, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's fair to ask whether the specific books being assigned are the best choices. I, for one, would be happy to see the Catcher in the Rye and the Scarlet Letter off the lists and replaced with other great books. But I think teaching children to effectively read literature is valuable--in terms of vocabulary, writing skills, comprehension, imagination and empathy, critical thinking skills, cultural literacy, etc.

I'm the person who posted at the top of page 5 about wanting to dial down the "lesser great" works of fiction, and replace some of them with other non-fiction works. I agree with you about the value-add of all those skills -- "vocabulary, writing skills, comprehension, imagination and empathy, critical thinking skills, cultural literacy, etc" -- but I just think they could be accomplished just as well (or better!) if English classes expanded their reading lists beyond just the basic canon of fiction literature. I'm sure some teachers do this. I'm not suggesting all non-fiction, but rather a shifting from all-fiction to something more varied. How can it be wrong to acknowledge and teach great non-fiction writing? Whether the text is fiction or non-fiction, the students can still get the same valuable lessons. And with non-fiction, I feel there can be some additional lessons.

[Anonymous]

15:05 again. Let me be more concrete in my proposal: Instead of a typical high school education that includes four years of English classes with only fiction books, how about ensuring that one-fourth of the books taught each year are non-fiction. That leaves 3 total years of fiction English, and one year of non-fiction.

Perhaps I am off-base. I also think forcing all students to learn several years of foreign language is silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's fair to ask whether the specific books being assigned are the best choices. I, for one, would be happy to see the Catcher in the Rye and the Scarlet Letter off the lists and replaced with other great books. But I think teaching children to effectively read literature is valuable--in terms of vocabulary, writing skills, comprehension, imagination and empathy, critical thinking skills, cultural literacy, etc.

But getting back to The Six Wives of Henry the VII, don't you think it tells our kids about power, history, culture, and the wacky things people will do to get what they want? I would much rather have my child read that than about some imaginary thing called Zeus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's fair to ask whether the specific books being assigned are the best choices. I, for one, would be happy to see the Catcher in the Rye and the Scarlet Letter off the lists and replaced with other great books. But I think teaching children to effectively read literature is valuable--in terms of vocabulary, writing skills, comprehension, imagination and empathy, critical thinking skills, cultural literacy, etc.

But getting back to The Six Wives of Henry the VII, don't you think it tells our kids about power, history, culture, and the wacky things people will do to get what they want? I would much rather have my child read that than about some imaginary thing called Zeus.

Sorry, VIII

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's fair to ask whether the specific books being assigned are the best choices. I, for one, would be happy to see the Catcher in the Rye and the Scarlet Letter off the lists and replaced with other great books. But I think teaching children to effectively read literature is valuable--in terms of vocabulary, writing skills, comprehension, imagination and empathy, critical thinking skills, cultural literacy, etc.

I'm the person who posted at the top of page 5 about wanting to dial down the "lesser great" works of fiction, and replace some of them with other non-fiction works. I agree with you about the value-add of all those skills -- "vocabulary, writing skills, comprehension, imagination and empathy, critical thinking skills, cultural literacy, etc" -- but I just think they could be accomplished just as well (or better!) if English classes expanded their reading lists beyond just the basic canon of fiction literature. I'm sure some teachers do this. I'm not suggesting all non-fiction, but rather a shifting from all-fiction to something more varied. How can it be wrong to acknowledge and teach great non-fiction writing? Whether the text is fiction or non-fiction, the students can still get the same valuable lessons. And with non-fiction, I feel there can be some additional lessons.

I am actually okay with this. And I think growing up our language arts always included a fair amount of nonfiction sources. Philosophy, history, etc, even science. But the emphasis was on the language and not just reading them to learn those other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:15:05 again. Let me be more concrete in my proposal: Instead of a typical high school education that includes four years of English classes with only fiction books, how about ensuring that one-fourth of the books taught each year are non-fiction. That leaves 3 total years of fiction English, and one year of non-fiction.

Perhaps I am off-base. I also think forcing all students to learn several years of foreign language is silly.

Which public schools force all students to study a foreign language for several years?

[Anonymous]

The ones that want their students to go to college.

[Anonymous]

Because most kids don't understand nonfiction. It has to be taught to them.