English Should not be Compulsory in High School

[theprestige]

Well that was a long time ago. I believe that I got only the most basic grammar prior to 6th grade. Past, present, future. How to make a plural.

Subject, object verb. Adverb, adjective. The importance of ordering the parts of speech in conveying meaning. All of this was likely covered in grade school.

But the thing about native language is that most grammar rules get intuited through regular usage. ISTR it's been noted that young children will even intuit grammar rules that don't exist, from the grammar rules they do experience every day. Mis-conjugating non-standard verbs, for example.

But studying a foreign language from scratch requires studying all the grammar and syntax through conscious effort, from the ground up. So I would not expect you to get the same in-depth "remedial" instruction in English, that you would need for Latin.

 

[Leftus]

I am pretty sure that those of us who will never be able to write an essay on what TS Eliot meant by his poems have a great deal to contribute to society and should not have this built in disadvantage at the most important year of our schooling.

I think you have conflated a specific skill with a general one. Yes, not being able to write an essay on TS Eliot, is one thing. Not being able to write an essay at all, is another. Not being able to take someone else's ideas and thoughts (TS Eliot) and express them in your own words is yet another. Even if you aren't going into the arts, and will be largely a scientific field, you still need the ability to put the pen to paper and express ideas that the common person will be able to understand.

Carl Sagan may not have been the greatest astronomer in the world. But his work Cosmos, was world changing. And not because of the science in it, but because of his ability to explain it.

 

[Modified]

I think you have conflated a specific skill with a general one. Yes, not being able to write an essay on TS Eliot, is one thing. Not being able to write an essay at all, is another.

At my high school, at least, they didn't spend any time teaching you how to write essays. They just told you to write one, and graded you on the results.

 

[smartcooky]

Ha! Maybe it was me (Oh wait! Maybe I should have written "Maybe it was I", or should it be "Perhaps you were referring to I" hmmm...).



In this post, I was more specifically referring to people who have somehow made a career writing books about how English should be wrote. People such as Simon Heffer whose book cites his sources of "correct" English as books written in the 19th century, the 1920s all the way up to the 1940s! I believe he admonishes his readers that an adverb should always be followed by a verb, which is a ridiculous assertion, particularly when his book is called "Strictly English"! Ermmm...hello Simon, ya ***** in the bucket!

Here's a good take-down on the grammar prescriptivists such as Heffer and others:



But yeah, you are right about people often thinking they know a rule about English because their teacher told them, but then not being able to apply it (assuming they were even taught it correctly). For example, people will think they are correcting someone when they say, "You mean, 'Roger and I' not 'Roger and Me'"

No, it depends on whether we are talking about the subject (I) or object (Me).

It is a story about Roger and me.

*It is a story about Roger and I.

The latter sounds weird to everyone who hasn't been inculcated with the hypercorrection.

Yes, yes, yes, its all very well to talk about the extremes and imply that all people who insist on correct grammar are overbearing idiots, but there are times where grammar is important, especially if you want to ensure that the message you are sending is the one you intended to send.... unless of course, you really did intend to help your uncle jack off his horse.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

At my high school, at least, they didn't spend any time teaching you how to write essays. They just told you to write one, and graded you on the results.

Same here. Has that changed in the last 50 years?

I think you have conflated a specific skill with a general one. Yes, not being able to write an essay on TS Eliot, is one thing. Not being able to write an essay at all, is another. Not being able to take someone else's ideas and thoughts (TS Eliot) and express them in your own words is yet another. Even if you aren't going into the arts, and will be largely a scientific field, you still need the ability to put the pen to paper and express ideas that the common person will be able to understand.

I am perfectly capable of 'expressing ideas that the common person will be able to understand' on scientific subjects, but ask me to 'express ideas' about a poem and you won't get much. And why should you? A work of art shouldn't need to be explained - it should express itself.

Analyzing artistic works is useful to those who want to produce their own artwork, but for the rest of us it's largely a waste of time. Writing poems is a specific skill. If you think a specific skill is worth learning for general use then I propose students be given the option of analyzing scientific writing instead, which might be a better skill for budding scientists to learn (and I bet a lot easier for them).

I personally struggled with English literature - partly due to lack of familiarity, partly from poor education (teachers were useless at actually teaching), and partly due to lack of social knowledge. But mostly it was because I have a scientific mind that can't handle the BS. And I am not alone.

There is a clear divide between 'scientists' (people with logical minds) and 'artists' (whose minds are guided by emotion), which is why students who do well in science subjects often do poorly in 'arty' subjects such as English literature, and why 'arty' students struggle with science. That's not to say that scientists can't also be artists (I was top of my class in art) just that they don't 'understand' it the same.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, yes, yes, its all very well to talk about the extremes and imply that all people who insist on correct grammar are overbearing idiots,

I think it depends on what you mean by "insist" and "correct".

Should the mother be insisting in this (allegedly true) instance, or should she be listening to what her child is actually saying?

Child: Nobody don’t like me.
Mother: No, say ‘nobody likes me’.
Child: Nobody don’t like me.
(Eight repetitions of this exchange)
Mother: No, now listen carefully; say ‘nobody likes me’.
Child: Oh! Nobody don’t likes me.

I think I have also made it pretty clear in the examples I have given that many of those who insist on correct grammar are simply incorrect (insisting on the use of "I" even in the object place, for example).

but there are times where grammar is important, especially if you want to ensure that the message you are sending is the one you intended to send.... unless of course, you really did intend to help your uncle jack off his horse.

Is that a matter of grammar? As far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with the grammar "I need to help my Uncle Jack off his horse.", but it just happens to be hilariously ambiguous, just as it is in Thomas Hardy's Mayor of Casterbridge when the Mayor "beheld the unattractive exterior of Farfrae's erection". It's only the dual meaning of the word "erection" that made our English literature class literally pee themselves laughing, not Hardy's ineptness with grammar.

 

[angrysoba]

There is a clear divide between 'scientists' (people with logical minds) and 'artists' (whose minds are guided by emotion), which is why students who do well in science subjects often do poorly in 'arty' subjects such as English literature, and why 'arty' students struggle with science. That's not to say that scientists can't also be artists (I was top of my class in art) just that they don't 'understand' it the same.

Um...evidence?

 

[smartcooky]

Is that a matter of grammar? As far as I can see, there is nothing wrong with the grammar "I need to help my Uncle Jack off his horse.", but it just happens to be hilariously ambiguous.

Seriously? You do realize that correct capitalisation of proper nouns is part of grammar rules, right?

If you apply the aforementioned correct grammar to this phrase, your so-called 'hilarious ambiguity' disappears.

 

[smartcooky]

Um...evidence?

How about 50+ years of personal observations of family, friends and acquaintances, some of whom are artists and some of whom are technicians and engineers.

Generally speaking, those who excel in art and those who excel in science are wired differently. This is thought to be because the nature of the subjects are so radically different. Art is subjective, it expresses the artist's knowledge and feeling in the form of subjective representation. Science, on the other hand, is objective; it is a system of acquiring knowledge and truth.

Of course, I expect you will reject this... so here is some evidence

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26925271

"Artists have structurally different brains compared with non-artists, a study has found.

... brain scans revealed that artists had increased neural matter in areas relating to fine motor movements and visual imagery."

"The people who are better at drawing really seem to have more developed structures in regions of the brain that control for fine motor performance and what we call procedural memory,"

These detailed scans revealed that the artist group had significantly more grey matter in an area of the brain called the precuneus in the parietal lobe.

"This region is involved in a range of functions but potentially in things that could be linked to creativity, like visual imagery - being able to manipulate visual images in your brain, combine them and deconstruct them,"

All this simply confirms what many have known for years.

 

[angrysoba]

Seriously? You do realize that correct capitalisation of proper nouns is part of grammar rules, right?

Well, then it depends on what you mean by "grammar" as well, then. What you are referring to is a convention of writing. Linguists don't consider that to be grammar, but your school teacher may have done.

If you apply the aforementioned correct grammar to this phrase, your so-called 'hilarious ambiguity' disappears.

Not if someone is speaking out loud.

 

[angrysoba]

How about 50+ years of personal observations of family, friends and acquaintances, some of whom are artists and some of whom are technicians and engineers.

You mean "personal anecdotes"? Sorry, that doesn't fly around here. Or rather it shouldn't.

Of course, I expect you will reject this... so here is some evidence

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26925271

"Artists have structurally different brains compared with non-artists, a study has found.

... brain scans revealed that artists had increased neural matter in areas relating to fine motor movements and visual imagery."

"The people who are better at drawing really seem to have more developed structures in regions of the brain that control for fine motor performance and what we call procedural memory,"

These detailed scans revealed that the artist group had significantly more grey matter in an area of the brain called the precuneus in the parietal lobe.

"This region is involved in a range of functions but potentially in things that could be linked to creativity, like visual imagery - being able to manipulate visual images in your brain, combine them and deconstruct them,"

All this simply confirms what many have known for years.

This is just silly!

Procedural knowledge only relates to the ability to perform certain skills. If someone practices something a lot, then they will get better at it.

It only demonstrates that developing certain skills which require physical movement of some kind leads to the brain becoming better at performing those movements. It does NOT demonstrate a "clear divide between 'scientists' (people with logical minds) and 'artists' (whose minds are guided by emotion)".

It does NOT demonstrate that "students who do well in science subjects often do poorly in 'arty' subjects such as English literature, and why 'arty' students struggle with science"

It does NOT demonstrate that "[scientists] don't 'understand' [art] the same"

 

[smartcooky]

You mean "personal anecdotes"? Sorry, that doesn't fly around here. Or rather it shouldn't.



This is just silly!

Procedural knowledge only relates to the ability to perform certain skills. If someone practices something a lot, then they will get better at it.

It only demonstrates that developing certain skills which require physical movement of some kind leads to the brain becoming better at performing those movements. It does NOT demonstrate a "clear divide between 'scientists' (people with logical minds) and 'artists' (whose minds are guided by emotion)".

It does NOT demonstrate that "students who do well in science subjects often do poorly in 'arty' subjects such as English literature, and why 'arty' students struggle with science"

It does NOT demonstrate that "[scientists] don't 'understand' [art] the same"

Hmmm. Scientist says something, some anonymous guy on the internet disagrees

Who to believe?

 

[angrysoba]

Hmmm. Scientist says something, some anonymous guy on the internet disagrees

Who to believe?

Actually, you are confused about what the scientists were saying. I assume you just Googled "science and art brains different" or something like that, found a BBC article, yelled "Eureka!" and posted it without even bothering to check the science paper it was based on.

The claims I am disputing, which were in the quotes I was responding to, and which I tried to help you out by putting them in bold, are these:

There is a "clear divide between 'scientists' (people with logical minds) and 'artists' (whose minds are guided by emotion)"

Does the science journal show this?

SPOILER: No, it does not!

What does it show?

Ready for this....

It shows that people who spend a lot of time drawing develop fine motor-skills!

That's not the same thing at all as saying that humans are divided into people with logical brains and people with emotional brains, is it?

But guess what? There are all kinds of jobs that are scientifically related that depend on fine motor skills such as surgery or piloting aircraft. Do you think these people have "emotional brains"?

Do you actually know what "procedural knowledge" is?

 

[arthwollipot]

Subject, object verb. Adverb, adjective. The importance of ordering the parts of speech in conveying meaning. All of this was likely covered in grade school.

But the thing about native language is that most grammar rules get intuited through regular usage. ISTR it's been noted that young children will even intuit grammar rules that don't exist, from the grammar rules they do experience every day. Mis-conjugating non-standard verbs, for example.

But studying a foreign language from scratch requires studying all the grammar and syntax through conscious effort, from the ground up. So I would not expect you to get the same in-depth "remedial" instruction in English, that you would need for Latin.

Right. In the most part, it doesn't matter too much. Unless you want to be a writer, which I did. I still make a fair chunk of my living writing for comprehension. So I consider the additional education in grammar to have been valuable.

 

[smartcooky]

Well, then it depends on what you mean by "grammar" as well, then. What you are referring to is a convention of writing. Linguists don't consider that to be grammar, but your school teacher may have done.

Strictly speaking, capitalisation is orthography. Nonetheless, like grammar and characteristics, it is still part of correct writing.

Not if someone is speaking out loud.

Nice goalpost move, very slick, but we were talking about the written word here, not the spoken word.

 

[smartcooky]

Never mind

 

[smartcooky]

Actually, you are confused about what the scientists were saying. I assume you just Googled "science and art brains different" or something like that, found a BBC article, yelled "Eureka!" and posted it without even bothering to check the science paper it was based on.

Not at all like that. I have linked to that article before

But if you are still in doubt, here is some more catch-up reading for you

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19356836/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23460800/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23988273/

Enjoy!

Do you actually know what "procedural knowledge" is?

Yes, I do... and no, I didn't have to google it.

 

[angrysoba]

Strictly speaking, capitalisation is orthography. Nonetheless, like grammar and characteristics, it is still part of correct writing.

Yes, I was telling you that it wasn't grammar! Now you agree with me. That's great. Of course, I did also point out that it depends on what we mean by "insist" and "correct", right smartcooky? Should I insist that you capitalize your handle?

Nice goalpost move, very slick, but we were talking about the written word here, not the spoken word.

We were talking about grammar. As I pointed out, capitalization relates to conventions of writing, not grammar. That was my point. It seems you now agree with me. Good!

 

[angrysoba]

Not at all like that. I have linked to that article before

But if you are still in doubt, here is some more catch-up reading for you

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19356836/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23460800/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23988273/

Okay, lots of links to scientific papers. Care to summarize for me what they say? It is not my job to read them for you.

Yes, I do... and no, I didn't have to google it.

Good, then you will know that procedural knowledge has nothing to do with whether or not someone has a logical brain or an emotional brain does it?

 

[Modified]

Seriously? You do realize that correct capitalisation of proper nouns is part of grammar rules, right?

If you apply the aforementioned correct grammar to this phrase, your so-called 'hilarious ambiguity' disappears.

But then it's still ambiguous though not as hilarious, since "off" can mean "kill".

 

[smartcooky]

Okay, lots of links to scientific papers. Care to summarize for me what they say? It is not my job to read them for you.

Oh yes, it is your job to read them...you asked for evidence, there it is. I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.

If you want to figuratively stick your fingers in your ears and scream "I can't hear you" that's your problem.

Good, then you will know that procedural knowledge has nothing to do with whether or not someone has a logical brain or an emotional brain does it?

Do you know what "cherry picking" means?

 

[angrysoba]

Oh yes, it is your job to read them.

You asked for evidence, there it is. If you want to figuratively stick your fingers in your ears and scream "I can't hear you" that's your problem.

Nope! You can't just post a bunch of links and say, "This supports my idea!" You have so explain how.

Do you know what "cherry picking" means?

I know what it is, and it is not relevant here. I disputed the claim that there is a "clear divide between 'scientists' (people with logical minds) and 'artists' (whose minds are guided by emotion)" and you keep claiming that there is, and have yet to substantiate it.

 

[Roboramma]

At my high school, at least, they didn't spend any time teaching you how to write essays. They just told you to write one, and graded you on the results.

That may not be the best way to teach someone to write an essay, but it's not a useless method. A lot of learning works this way: attempt a task, assess the outcome, attempt the task again. Repeat.

As long as you have some metric for success or failure (grading you on the results, in this case), simple trial and error can result in learning and improvement.

Some instruction on the theory of how to write an essay may improve the results or speed up that learning process, particularly in the beginning, but the methodology you describe will still result in people learning to write essays.

All that said, I recall that when I was in high school we were taught a framework for essay writing, and further when our work was returned it was given more than just a grade, but also positive and negative critiques about the effectiveness of the writing.

 

[arthwollipot]

All that said, I recall that when I was in high school we were taught a framework for essay writing, and further when our work was returned it was given more than just a grade, but also positive and negative critiques about the effectiveness of the writing.

I don't recall getting any of that. It was just hand in an essay, get a C.

 

[Roboramma]

It does NOT demonstrate that "students who do well in science subjects often do poorly in 'arty' subjects such as English literature, and why 'arty' students struggle with science"

My understanding is that the data shows the opposite is true: there is a positive correlation between children's scores in science subjects and their scores in arts subjects. So those who do well in science do better (on average) in arts than those who do poorly in science, and vice versa.

 

[angrysoba]

My understanding is that the data shows the opposite is true: there is a positive correlation between children's scores in science subjects and their scores in arts subjects. So those who do well in science do better (on average) in arts than those who do poorly in science, and vice versa.

Yes, that is my understanding too. If you look at people who go to top universities, it isn't usually the case that they got top marks in maths and science and failed anything to do with the arts, while people who did really well in the arts did very poorly in the sciences. While there may be some variation across grades (and it would be truly remarkable if there were none), it is more likely that some people do well academically, in general (and have some particular strengths in some subjects), and then there are people who do okay in most subjects, then there people who get terrible grades in everything.

 

[smartcooky]

Nope! You can't just post a bunch of links and say, "This supports my idea!" You have so explain how.

Yes, yes I can, and I did. Your deliberate ignorance of the evidence laid before you is not my problem - its yours.

I know what it is, and it is not relevant here.

And yet you haven't read them. Are you claiming ESP now?

I disputed the claim that there is a "clear divide between 'scientists' (people with logical minds) and 'artists' (whose minds are guided by emotion)" and you keep claiming that there is, and have yet to substantiate it.

Read the links.

I have little patience with people who play this game of pretending they haven't been given evidence when they clearly have. That is just moon hoax conspiracy theory level BS.

 

[smartcooky]

My understanding is that the data shows the opposite is true: there is a positive correlation between children's scores in science subjects and their scores in arts subjects. So those who do well in science do better (on average) in arts than those who do poorly in science, and vice versa.

My understanding is that the opposite of what you say is closer to the truth.

 

[angrysoba]

Yes, yes I can, and I did. Your deliberate ignorance of the evidence laid before you is not my problem - its yours.

No, this is just silly. Posting a bunch of links isn't making an argument.

And yet you haven't read them. Are you claiming ESP now?

Oh Jesus! You are getting really confused now. You asked me if I knew what "cherry-picking" is, and I said yes, and that is not relevant. I didn't say I knew what was in the papers.

Read the links.

I have little patience with people who play this game of pretending they haven't been given evidence when they clearly have. That is just moon hoax conspiracy theory level BS.

Are you saying the links demonstrate "clear divide between 'scientists' (people with logical minds) and 'artists' (whose minds are guided by emotion)" or "students who do well in science subjects often do poorly in 'arty' subjects such as English literature, and why 'arty' students struggle with science"?

Well, I had a glance through the papers, and I fail to see how they support the claims. This getting off-topic so I will just post some conclusions to the papers and other people may be able to argue whether or not any of what smartcooky is posting here supports the view. I contend it does not.

The conclusion to one of the papers is...

Although these results were not predicted, perhaps, as suggested by Bogen and Bogen (1988), decreased callosal connectivity enhances hemispheric specialization, which benefits the incubation of ideas that are critical for the divergent-thinking component of creativity, and it is the momentary inhibition of this hemispheric independence that accounts for the illumination that is part of the innovative stage of creativity. Alternatively, decreased CC size may reflect more selective developmental pruning, thereby facilitating efficient functional connectivity.

Another is...

Here we report the results of the first genome wide CNV survey for music related phenotypes; musical aptitude and creative functions in music using both a family-based approach and case-control study. The advantages of this study are the use of both family-based and sporadic data. Moreover, all samples were genotyped at the same time using the same platform, increasing the reliability of the analyses. However, there are several limitations in our study. Definition of the phenotype here covers only a small portion of the multifaceted phenotype of music perception and practice. Being aware of the quantitative nature of musical aptitude, division of the phenotype to high COMB and low COMB groups is somewhat artificial. Also, the sample size is relatively small and the participants have not been screened for neurocognitive deficits. Consequently, the identified CNVs cannot be excluded here as being potentially predisposing for neuropsychiatric conditions. Because of the small sample size only suggestive associations were detected. The result, although interesting, is preliminary and replication with a larger sample set is needed.

And another...

....oh, I can't read the full text because it is pay-walled. I may be able to look at it through my university if I log-in, but maybe you can tell me first how you managed to read it....

 

[smartcooky]

They are not paywalled for me

 

[angrysoba]

They are not paywalled for me

I clicked where it said "Full Text Article" on the third article and I was sent here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811913008987?via=ihub

How did you read this paper?

 

[Modified]

That may not be the best way to teach someone to write an essay, but it's not a useless method. A lot of learning works this way: attempt a task, assess the outcome, attempt the task again. Repeat.

As long as you have some metric for success or failure (grading you on the results, in this case), simple trial and error can result in learning and improvement.

That might be useful if you wrote a short essay every day or two. Ours were mainly giant three week projects, which you did on your own time in parallel with whatever completely unrelated thing was going on in class, maybe two or three times per semester, and only in certain English classes.

Actually reading essays of a similar form might have been helpful too, but we never did that. And it was pre-internet - I wouldn't have known where to find such a work.

I'm fairly good at writing technical research reports, conference papers, and journal articles, which I learned by reading thousands of them and collaborating with people experienced at writing them. Trying to gain that skill using the methods of high school would have been a waste of time.

 

[Roboramma]

My understanding is that the opposite of what you say is closer to the truth.

Could be. I'm basing what I say on interviews I've heard with scientists studying these sorts of things, but I could have misunderstood or misremembered. I'll try to find some hard data, but it'll have to wait about two weeks because I'm off to go trekking in Qinghai tomorrow morning and still have some things to prepare today.

 

[Roboramma]

That might be useful if you wrote a short essay every day or two. Ours were mainly giant three week projects, which you did on your own time in parallel with whatever completely unrelated thing was going on in class, maybe two or three times per semester, and only in certain English classes.

That's interesting. I remember my 12th grade social studies class had us write an essay with every test, which seemed to be about once a week but was probably more like once every two weeks. We also had to write more polished essays for homework projects.

Don't remember the other subjects as well.

I was always disappointed with my grade on those essays on the tests. I did okay but not as well as I expected, but my handwriting was atrocious and the teacher had a pretty hard time reading it, which probably contributed.

 

[smartcooky]

I clicked where it said "Full Text Article" on the third article and I was sent here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1053811913008987?via=ihub

How did you read this paper?

It just downloaded directly when I clicked on the PDF symbol. I see that didn't work on the computer I am on now, but it did on the one in my office. That could be because that computer is always logged in to AUT.

ETA: Actually, I just looked at it again. Looks like it came down via researchgate. Would you like a copy?

 

[angrysoba]

It just downloaded directly when I clicked on the PDF symbol. I see that didn't work on the computer I am on now, but it did on the one in my office. That could be because that computer is always logged in to AUT.

ETA: Actually, I just looked at it again. Looks like it came down via researchgate. Would you like a copy?

Thanks, but it won't be necessary. I don't see any discussion in those abstracts or the conclusions that support the claims about how there is a clear divide between artists and scientists and that those who do well one academic area do badly in another.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

I can't really speak for English in English speaking countries, but at least here in the Netherlands Dutch is compulsory for all levels at all times.
Not only are you taught how to correctly use the grammar of the language, but things like correctly write letters for formal use (like job applications), how to do presentations, how to recognize logical fallacies, literature, etc.

I'll honestly admit I loathed dutch literature when I was young, and I still don't like it, but reading it did allow me to understand at least partly how our politics works and how that is totally different from the politics in say the US.
Dutch literature for instance does not have heroes. And protagonist will mostly have misfortune befall him/her and things will often not work out in the end, whereas in the US literature that is not a given at all.
Dutch culture tends towards the don't flaunt your success, whereas US culture is the opposite.

Politically this translates to the fact that a politician bragging about how successful he/she is and/or how rich will never get a real following due to that way of thinking.

Language is about far more than just being able to give basic expression, so I'd say it should be compulsory for everyone at any school level.

 

[Vixen]

Same here. Has that changed in the last 50 years?

I am perfectly capable of 'expressing ideas that the common person will be able to understand' on scientific subjects, but ask me to 'express ideas' about a poem and you won't get much. And why should you? A work of art shouldn't need to be explained - it should express itself.

Analyzing artistic works is useful to those who want to produce their own artwork, but for the rest of us it's largely a waste of time. Writing poems is a specific skill. If you think a specific skill is worth learning for general use then I propose students be given the option of analyzing scientific writing instead, which might be a better skill for budding scientists to learn (and I bet a lot easier for them).

I personally struggled with English literature - partly due to lack of familiarity, partly from poor education (teachers were useless at actually teaching), and partly due to lack of social knowledge. But mostly it was because I have a scientific mind that can't handle the BS. And I am not alone.

There is a clear divide between 'scientists' (people with logical minds) and 'artists' (whose minds are guided by emotion), which is why students who do well in science subjects often do poorly in 'arty' subjects such as English literature, and why 'arty' students struggle with science. That's not to say that scientists can't also be artists (I was top of my class in art) just that they don't 'understand' it the same.

This is a variation of the old right brain/left brain theory. This myth has arisen, IMV, because students who are not good at science/maths - or simply are not interested in it - take up arty or artistic pursuits instead. The sheer number of posh girls and boys doing catering courses at uni, for example, or 'history of art'. They have the money but alas, not the academic brightness, so they go into agriculture or textile design.

Then on the other hand, you have the genuinely gifted artists, musicians, playwrights and poets, who actually tend to be rather good in all subjects.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Language is about far more than just being able to give basic expression, so I'd say it should be compulsory for everyone at any school level.

You are right. I took French at high school and a large part of that was learning French culture. Unfortunately when it came to English it was assumed that I knew and understood the culture - which I did not.

Ours were mainly giant three week projects, which you did on your own time in parallel with whatever completely unrelated thing was going on in class, maybe two or three times per semester, and only in certain English classes.

Same here. No textbooks, no instruction or guidance, not even analysis of good and bad essays - just do it and (hopefully) learn from your mistakes. In reality, after a few failures you realize that you will never be any good at this and completely lose confidence.

Imagine if other subjects were 'taught' the same way. Don't tell the students how how calculus works - just give them problems and suggest solving them by trial and error. Chemistry? Hide the periodic table and give them a bunch of unknown chemicals to analyze. Physics? If Newton and Einstein could figure it out by themselves, so can you!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

students who are not good at science/maths - or simply are not interested in it - take up arty or artistic pursuits instead. The sheer number of posh girls and boys doing catering courses at uni, for example, or 'history of art'. They have the money but alas, not the academic brightness, so they go into agriculture or textile design.

As someone who was top of the school in science, and at the bottom in English literature, I say you are wrong.

The students who excelled in English generally did poorly in science subjects, and the 'harder' the science the more they struggled. Yet for me it was the opposite. Anything that could be analyzed logically was easy for me, but if it required cultural or social understanding I was lost. This may be partly due to environment, but probably more due to innate personality. According to my mother I was borderline autistic as a child. Now I work with a bunch of scientists and they are the same.

You say students who are 'are not good at' or 'not interested' in science take up arty or artistic pursuits instead. There is a reason for that, and it's not that they don't have the 'academic brightness' to do well at their chosen subject.

Then on the other hand, you have the genuinely gifted artists, musicians, playwrights and poets, who actually tend to be rather good in all subjects.

This proves nothing. Some people excel in multiple areas, but most don't. And when they do, it isn't always the same way. I did very well in art class, but my art was quite different to that of other students - technically excellent, but lacking emotion. And my appreciation of art is abysmal - I think Thomas Kinkade's paintings are wonderful.