English Should not be Compulsory in High School

[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.