Also, writing is required in many classes, not just English and Lit. And…writing well is necessary in a number of job fields.
I suspect that the students who plagiarize in English are probably doing it in other classes too, because they cannot write well enough on their own in any situation.
Hmmm, let’s see:
– Contract law: Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice is about a bond (a guarantee), the legality of which is the major plot point.
– Criminal law: To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee concers itself with the defense of a man wrongly accused of a crime.
– Political law: Kafka’s The Trial is about authority and the Rule of Law.
– Legal careers: Albert Camus’ The Fall is about a lawyer describing how his career has fallen.
– Equity: Charles Dickens’ Bleak House is about a complicated case in the Court of Chancery in England.
There are many other works of literature that contribute to the education required to become a lawyer. Perhaps you should reconsider your position.
I’m not sure whether you should feel horrified. Writing essays is something that is taught in high school over here too. In fact I’ve been told many a time that putting so much stress on essay-writing skill (not only in high school, but more importantly in college/uni) was a french peculiarity, and I heard it being very criticized, in fact, because it puts too much weight on the form (typically : introduction/presentation - thesis-antithesis-synthesis/conclusion) at the expense of the actual content.
I remember quite well for instance how much time it was taking during exams to figure out how to organize arguments or how to “calibrate” them (“hmm…this is too long…how could I break down that?” “Where the hell am I going to introduce this argument?” “will this first paragraph let the reader understand what is the issue at hand and how I intend to disscuss it?”), which of course meant much less time to think about said issue and gather arguments.
I must admit that despite having read my share of debates about the american education system, I’m still quite clueless about what it entails exactly. But anyway, rote learning (say China), being able of independant thinking (say USA), being able to present your thesis in an understandable way (say Fance) are all necessary skills. A culture might put more weight on one of them, but it doesn’t mean that its education system is blatantly worse for this reason.
Also : I don’t know where you are from but the poster previously asking basically “how comes they don’t teach essay writing in american high schools?” is apparently german (he’s refering to the abitur). And AFAIK, in Germany like in France, there’s a significant selection going on well before the end of high school. And (again AFAIK) this isn’t the case in the USA. I don’t know how the system works in Germany, but over here, by the 10th grade, many students have been oriented towards a more technical or professional education, and those still following a general cursus were already specializing (in my case, in physics and mathematics, for instance. And upon entering college, there wasn’t anything like “minors” or “majors”. Only mathematics, physics and chemistry, period.)
So, I somehow doubt that the expectations regarding high school education could be the same when you’re teaching to a set of students selected for their aptitudes (doesn’t mean they’re all geniuses, of course, but still assumed to be more or less able and willing) and specialized in say, litterature and philosophy, and where you’re supposed to give a basic general education to everybody (as, again, I believe it is the case in the USA)
However, the argument presented by some posters is valid : it’s quite clear to me that employers are now often expecting abnormally high levels of formal education for jobs that really don’t require them.
I’m all for a broad liberal arts education but I don’t find this convincing. It’s implausible to think that any lawyer ever suffered in his practice for lack of having read any of the above works. The lawyer might not understand as much as he could have about cultural conceptions of the law, but a lawyer doesn’t need to know this in order to engage well in legal practice.
I don’t know how you can think about those things without at the same time thinking about the issue.
I don’t buy that there’s a dichotomy between form and content. You can’t form the essay well without a thorough understanding of the content–and one way to thoroughly understand the content is to work through the formal issues.
Thinking about where paragraphs should break requires thinking about what you’re saying. And that’s thinking about the issue.
There is absolutely no made up fictional piece of work that can train anyone to do anything except to be a literature teacher.
I could watch the TV program, Star Trek: DS9. On DS9, I could learn about fictional politics, government, relationships between different species and war. But, I doubt that if I went to a real University of government studies or a military institution that Star Trek DS9 would be of help.
Don’t get me started about Shakespeare. I really resent the number of hours I had to read and study that dead bastard’s works. The Merchant of Venice is clearly anti-semetic. Romeo and Juliet is basically about two young teens who ran away from their parents when they did not get their way and killed himself. I much rather read about the real Julius Caesar (I love history) than (having to) read a play about him.
Having to read “To Kill a Mockingbird” to learn about the law? Again, why not watch several episodes of Law and Order?
The well rounded education bit is tiring, and it does nothing but force students to take classes where they have no interest in that does nothing for their training for the careers that they will get into.
So if you’re pro-ignorance, why are you on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance?
Having a well-rounded education helps you in every aspect of life. If you don’t have the education you won’t be in a position to be able to judge whether it’s helpful or not. The last thing this world needs is more people who only study one field and are lacking even the basics in everything else. That’s how we have so many people rushing headlong into bad decisions all the time.
Science fiction is absolutely responsible for much of the current technology today, because it helped foster the imagination of would-be scientists and engineers. It’s useful for exploring different methods, different possibilities. Regarding law, a well-constructed fictional story can be as useful as any case study.
Does it train? No. But it rounds out one’s education, strengthens the mind and imagination, and can quite possibly give someone an edge that a non-reader wouldn’t have.
Regarding the more general notion of seemingly inapplicable general studies: as a piece of anecdotal data, my job is to edit and correct transcription for business customers. We don’t target a specific industry, so in a given day I might review transcripts of conferences regarding cardiovascular medicine, implications of new tax laws, the quarterly earnings and new product announcements for a technology company, and so on. If I had not paid attention in my classes or applied myself to a broad range of study, I would be hopelessly lost in trying to ensure that the transcripts are clean and correct in terminology spellings and the like. The lack of a rounded education is patently obvious in what my transcriptionists give me; one might do well on a medical transcript, but be hopelessly lost when a tech business starts discussing the need for petabytes of storage and such. Even when I don’t know something off the top of my head, a rounded education provides starting points that enable me to do research more quickly and thoroughly. If all that I had learned in school was English grammar rules and/or document publishing, I would not be nearly the effective editor that I am.
A well-rounded education is incredibly useful for white-collar life outside of college, and the boredom of students doesn’t change that. Of course, I’m completely open to the probability that many students enter university simply because it’s expected, when they could have better success in trade school or somewhere else.
You see, I was taught the opposite. The teacher that helped me the most was the one that explained that content was more important than form. That form can be tacked on later. As long as you thought up the thesis+supports. You can create the conclusion and motivator quite easily. The paragraph divisions are built in to the standard form, unless you’ve gone on to the professional level.
The thing I hate about timed essay tests is that I tend to brainstorm, then write, then correct. I generally don’t have time to do all three. Even after I started getting A’s on every full essay, I would get C’s on the timed ones. Heck, most of the time I turned in a half essay. If you get stuck, you can’t go on, as you only have one time to write. (I know some people write the essay and recopy it, but I don’t know how you have the time.) Having to be perfect the first time really, really slows you down.
You’re right. It’s entirely possible for a lawyer to be an excellent practitioner without ever having read those works.
However, the poster said he wanted to “study and do well in classes concerning laws and contracts, not literature.” I was merely tryng to point out that the study of literature can contain “laws and contracts.”
You’re also right, and I was wrong. You don’t learn about criminal law from To Kill a Mockingbird; instead, you learn legal ethics.
As for your assertion that you can learn about the law from watching several episodes of Law and Order; well, if your legal education comes from TV, good luck on the bar exam!
This is where I politely disagree.
If you’re practicing law (or medicine, or half a dozen other professions - how many politicians have a background in law?), you’re trusted with very real power to shape the lives of many of those you encounter professionally. Those entrusted with power should have a solid foundation of knowledge in what makes Western civilization tick, at least in my opinion.
A lot of art carries with it some pretty robust lessons in ethics, for instance. (Philosophy moreso - it was a sad day when my home country did away with the requirement for all college graduates to pass a basic philosophy exam.) Or it can put you outside commonplace situations, force you to see the world from another person’s point of view - all of it good practice for anyone trusted with a professional’s responsibilities.
Sure, DS9 may carry some of the same lessons and may become a tool in years to come - but the classics are classics for a reason, they have already withstood the test of time.
Of course, on a larger scale, I think universities’ primary purpose should be to carry on the torch of civilization - and if they turn out some qualified professionals along the way, well and good. But I realize that’s a minority point of view.
But at least it might, if they are interested, teach them how to write coherent, grammatically correct sentences. Something that is a bit of a stretch for you, if the quoted sections are any indication.
If you want to wallow in anti-intellectualism, knock yourself out. You certainly won’t be the Lone Ranger in modern America. But don’t mistake your willful ignorance for intellectual iconoclasm.
Neither do I. Every case I’ve had involved students copying and pasting entire chunks of essays–or sometimes even the whole damned thing–off of one website or another, or several sites. They didn’t change a single word.
I keep telling them that I am on the SAME internet that they are, and if they can find something, I can find it as well.
For all the good it does…
As far as I can tell, we don’t fundamentally disagree. But I think you’re conflating different norms.
A good citizen understands what makes Western civilization tick.
A good lawyer wins cases or gives accurate advice about what will win cases.
You don’t have to be a good citizen to be a good lawyer.
Wrong.
Wrong again.
No wonder you hate literature, if you put absolutely no effort into understanding anything. If you want, I’ll see if I can borrow some *Dora the Explorer *books from my young cousin. Those might be more your speed.
[quote=“Shot_From_Guns, post:296, topic:531903”]
Wrong.
Wrong again.
No wonder you hate literature, if you put absolutely no effort into understanding anything. If you want, I’ll see if I can borrow some *Dora the Explorer *books from my young cousin. Those might be more your speed.[/QUOTE
The Merchant of Venice is where the term “Shylock” derived. A shylock is a person who charges high interest on loans and is usually Jewish. This was an anti semetic work, written in the days of great persecution against Jews in Europe. The play of The Merchant of Venice was broadcasted over the radio in National Socialist Germany and their occupied territories.
Concerning that puke worthy “Romeo and Juliet”, the main points (correct me if I am wrong, but I did read this garbage when I was a kid, forced upon me by the school system.)
Romeo and Juliet were two teenagers around 15.
They were in love with each other. (lots of teen kids “fall in love with each other”)
The parents (who love the kids and are parents) disapprove of the relationship, yes, partially because for some reason they disliked the other family, and because the kids are only 14, 15 years old.
The teenagers, seeing that they are not going to get their way and be together, run away from home (great message for teens by the way.)
Desperate, they decide to kill themselves so they can be “together forever”.
Barf. How many teens have killed themselves the last 400 years because of this story? The only good thing that ever came out of that tale was that Blue Oyster Cult song “Don’t Fear the Reaper”.
I love reading. I have mentioned this before. School IS READING. Math, history, science, social studies. I had to take three years of English literature in High School and a year of the shit in college. These classes were not easy, they required the student to study and study hard over works of fiction. I remember one dingbat teacher forcing us to memorize Old English.
I remember my 10th grade year having to read and be tested on a story called “The Lottery”, written by Shirley Jackson. The Lottery was basically about a small town in New England who for some reason every year hold a lottery. The person who won the lottery was taken out back and stoned to death. That’s the story. The writer Shirley Jackson eventually committed suicide (her depressing works did not help.)
Cliff’s Notes were my friend in High School. I did not want to spend my time learning that worthless shit. I wanted to learn Science, Social Studies, Language, Economics and Math. You know, real classes that matter in the REAL WORLD.
English literature is a big waste of time for students who could be learning real skills. Some of the reason our high school students cannot find work is that they are not prepared to do anything to make them money, not to mention the high school’s noble but misguided attempts to give the students “a well rounded experience”.
Trust me, no boss cares one whit that you can speak Middle English. Unless that boss is the head of the Lit. department.
To quote the late, great Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School…
“I don’t have time to read. If the book is good enough, they will make a movie out of it and I will pay to see it.”
You are a complete fucking dunce. Knowing Middle English has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding and appreciating literature. The fact that you fail to grasp this concept suggests that it’s lucky you used Cliff Notes in school, because that’s probably all you could understand anyway.
The Merchant of Venice was a product of its time. Of course, Shylock the Jew was a moneylender. Christians were forbidden, by usury laws, from charging interest on loans. Since they could make no money at loaning money, they didn’t do it. Jews, not being bound by the laws of the Christian church, could. So they did. Think what you will of Shylock, or of today’s reaction to the events that affect him in the play, but I suggest that even today, the play must be studied within its historical context.
Regardless, the play turns on a legal question: a guarantee; the legality of which is in issue. You may be interested in knowing that The Merchant of Venice is part of the curriculum in certain courses at law schools for that reason.
“Puke”? “Garbage”? “Barf”? I would hope that the education you’re receiving (or have received) would allow you to express your displeasure in a more mature manner. Obviously, you have received a poor education. Maybe you should ask your instructors for help with rebutting points with words other than those that are synonymous with “vomit” or “effluvia.”
So, “puke,” “garbage,” “barf,” and now “shit”? Man, your instructors must have been impressed with your expression. No wonder you hate literature–your instructors just didn’t catch the incredibly insightful nuance of what you meant by “puke” and “shit” and so on.
There is little point in continuing. Enjoy your point of view. It really is taking longer than we thought.
Yeah, it’s depressing…it seems like, to me, that Advanced English classes never teach essay-writing skills because they assume you learned it somewhere else (or you wouldn’t be in the advanced class). But the Advanced class in High School isn’t exactly a high bar…and a lot of Advanced English students are still writing fairly rough essays. They could use some composition teaching. And not just in literature analysis, either!