In the 19th century, schoolchildren literally had Greek and Roman literature and writings flogged into them. As so in the beginning of the twentieth. After the second world war, it has gone a marked reduction to the point that I would not be surprised that many school systems eschew them altogether. What were the reasons for this?
IDK but my perception is that technology has advanced to such an extent that it has crowded out at least portions of a more genteel curriculum, even for liberal arts folks. Maybe ‘crowded out’ isn’t the right expression. Maybe I should say that it has increased the number and volume of other disciplines exponentially and so the classics for example have been left with less and less of the total pie.
I think there might also be some socioeconomic aspects to it as well. As wealth becomes more concentrated in a small percentage of the population, you don’t have many people who really qualify as “gentry” any more. If one pursues higher education at all, the focus naturally is on acquiring skills that an employer will value.
I suspect that the cutoff point was WW1.
Make of this what you will.
Even in the 19th century, schools were introducing science subjects into the curriculum that in some cases competed with traditional Latin and Greek studies, leading to the designation of a “classics side” versus a “modern side”.
In the 20th century, as colleges stopped requiring Latin knowledge for entering students, high schools were under less pressure to teach it. And in the 1960s, a wave of demands for greater “relevance” in education increased the importance of modern languages versus classical ones, as well as other practically-oriented subjects.
That said, the study of Latin in US secondary education is actually going through a growth phase at the moment, or at least it was a few years ago:
I imagine that students looking for something to give them an edge in medical school may have something to do with it too. Still a lot of classical-language technical vocabulary hanging around in anatomy.
True, but the difference between modern education and the classical one was that the former was heavily based upon the sciences. Today even schools which don’t offer sciences don’t go for classical education instead.
I’d argue that it’s the complete opposite. Presumably quite a few of the written accounts from the nineteenth century were from people that could write. According to wikianswers, literacy rates during that period were around 50% for males and 33% for females, judging by how many signed marriage certificates as opposed to those that just marked an “x”. The proportion of individuals studying classical languages may remain the same and even have increased absolutely over historical periods, but the proportion of literate people that have studied classical languages will decrease.
What about Greek? Is any high school teaching that?
I think it’s a mix of a few things:
[ul]
[li]New ideas in national identity leads people to identify more as their own individual nationalities. Europe stopped thinking of itself as the scattered remains of the Roman Empire, and rather as modern states. [/li][li]The opening of education lead to a demand for education that is more useful and relevent to working people.[/li][li]Education has always moved slowly towards the vernacular. Look at how long it took to get American literature in the canon.[/li][/ul]
Quite a few, apparently, although this survey is pretty unscientific and the results aren’t usefully summarized. The impression I get is that classical Greek, when taught, is generally a sort of unofficial appendage to Latin teaching.
Precisely. How is this any different than the Nazi book burnings? At least a bonfire has some aesthetic appeal. I have no idea even what point is being made by shooting books out of cannon. :rolleyes:
A classical education is the hallmark of aristocracy. It is primarily useful in allowing a gentleman to relate to his peers and to distinguish him from the lower orders. I would guess that it fell from favor as higher education became more common. As education becomes more oriented towards teaching skills the workforce becomes more skilled and the economy expands and there is more demand for skilled workers making education more oriented towards teaching skills.
Exactly. As a source of anecdotes and allusions a classical education is fine. But as education shifted towards providing students with knowledge that would help them have productive careers, dead languages and poetry about defunct religions just weren’t cutting it any more.
In addition, people started to realize that a lot of great literature/art/ideas have come about in the past 2000 years or so, from places other than Greece and Rome :eek:
Um, what?
I haven’t ever suspected you of trolling, so I have the feeling that you may have massively misunderstood the post you seem to be responding to with a series of nonsequiters, or perhaps are just rather drunk…
Mind telling us what you think even sven meant by her comment? I ask, as I would bet money you misinterpreted it, based on the nonsensical reply.
I think that the percentage of literate vs. multiliterate is what caused the change, with the more relevant courses adding fuel to the flames of change.
I wish I had been forced into Latin, myself, as it would have solidified my English and made all of the romance languages easier…
I’m sorry. It was meant to be a painfully bad pun on canon and cannon. That’s why I was so careful to spell the latter correctly and distinguish it from the former.
I do have to make more of an effort to make it clear when I’m trying to make a barely perceptible “joke.”
One of the things I like about SDMB is there are so many people known for having a very dry, and perhaps somewhat twisted sense of humor. I guess I’m just not in the big boy league yet. 
FWIW, I got the joke. It probably would have worked better without the rolleyes smiley, though.
Hey, I giggled. Took me a second, but that just makes it better.
Took me longer than a second. But yeah, funny.
My father had a “classic” education in high school, including learning Latin, studying the Greek philosophers, reading Pliny, etc. But his high school didn’t offer any modern language. Hell, it was an immigrant neighborhood – they were busy trying to get everyone speaking English!
By the time my sisters and I got to high school, Latin was still offered, but we all took Spanish. Why, we asked, should we learn a dead language instead of one spoken by a half-billion people?
But learning Latin will help you learn English, he insisted. Except that our advanced English courses were telling us that English was a Germanic, not a romance language. So wouldn’t we have gotten at least as much out of learning German?
As for the writers and philosophers, I studied not only Homer and Shakespeare, but also O’Neill and Salinger and Sartre. They came along too late to be included in my father’s curriculum.
Time marches on.
I don’t have a cite in front of me, but from what I have read, it seems to be that, at least in the English speaking world, at one point in the past, most people could not read or write any language at all, even their native one. If you could read and write at all, you could read and write Latin and possibly Greek as well. Nowadays, most people can read and write their native language, but that doesn’t necessarily correlate with what percentage of people today read and write classical languages.
IMHO the advent of the industrial age placed more focus on the need to be able to work and have practical skills as opposed to just knowing stuff and conversing with the genteel elite.
That said, I think minimal Latin is of use to school-age kids (and adults) these days. Maybe not a full-blown course, but at least learn those Latin roots. It helps understanding what words actually mean. Knowing this stuff can help you at least appear as a genteel elite.