I’m not saying that literature is devoid of value and should be dumped; but if there’s a choice between literature vs. science/math, I personally believe that literature has less value. Knowing Shakespeare quotes isn’t going to feed hungry people.
BTW goboy, sorry about the “snobbery” comment. Even though this is a pit thread, I think it’s turned into more of a rational debate, and my comment seems out of line.
I’m cracking up here, thinking about how ironic the spelling of “depth” is in this post. A mere typo, but still…
stoid
At this site, an international survey found in science, U.S. eighth-grade students outperformed their peers in 18 nations, performed similarly to their peers in 5 nations, and performed lower than their peers in 14 nations in 1999; and in mathematics, U.S. eighth-grade students outperformed their peers in 17 nations, performed similarly to their peers in 6 nations, and performed lower than their peers in 14 nations in 1999.
Unfortunately, the countries we beat are all third-world nations (Take that, Morocco!,)but Northeast Asia and Europe kicked our butts.
RevTim, apology accepted. I opened this thread in the Pit rather than GD so I and others could have a little more freedom in the tenor of comments than GD allows.
There is no competition between literature and math/science; you need both to be fully rounded people.
Sorry I missed out on the early part of this debate; I was over at Stick Death Theatre. The ironies abound.
Really? Then why are there more universities giving out more college degrees than ever before? Even if one were to make the argument (a possible, but not airtight argument) that a modern college degree is only worth what a high school degree was decades ago, the aggregate level of knowledge in American society isn’t that much different from that of fifty years ago when most people were high school dropouts.
I really don’t want to answer that, even here in the Pit.
But let me raise several points you seem to be blithely whistling by. While ignorance has not been eradicated, your statement that it still exists in no way proves that it is somehow larger than it used to be. The Theory of Evolution is better understood and more generally accepted than when the Scopes Trial occurred. The fact that a few extremists refuse to buckle under and accept real evidence in the face of overwhelming religion does not indicate that we have become more ignorant as a nation; in fact, the general scientific knowledge of the average modern American is astounding even compared to the relative scientific knowledge of the average American in the middle of the 19th Century.
Compared to? Go on. Explain to me that coming in fourth in the world is somehow evidence that we’re idiots. Explain to me how our average student underperforming Korea’s best and brightest is somehow a sign of our ignorance. Read over the criteria by which students are selected to take these tests, and you’ll be amazed by how well Americans actually do. The modern media hang-wringing over the lamentable state of American education is misinformed, if not direct lies, in order to sell papers and for politicians to promise things “for the children”.
Please, prove to me we don’t. Anecdotal examples, such as the morons who show up on the Leno show, don’t count. Given me concrete proof that, as a nation, we don’t have a scientifically literate society. Hell, even the creationists who show up here understand technology enough to turn on a computer and log on to this site.
Now, I do find the error in the WP article appaling (now that you’ve pointed out to me that it’s an error; I’ll be the first to admit that I wouldn’t have known), it’s appaling because the movie being reviewed was promoted as a “modern-day Ulysses”, ergo, a movie critic (who is supposed to be knowledgable regarding the classics) should at least do some basic fact-checking to compare the tale being told to the original.
But I think Dinsdale said it right, if maybe a little too aimed at the PC crowd- we no longer agree upon what the “classics” are. In fact, there are a fucking bunch of them. While I appreciate your disappointment that modern America doesn’t know Homer very well, consider how much larger a font of “classics” modern America has to draw from that the Victorian ideal of a “classical education” would never touch (Dickens, for example. Faulkner and Michner. Morrison. Twain.) While it is with regret that Dante has fallen by the roadside, perhaps it’s because his points and graces are too esoteric by modern comprehension for us to relate to, and therefore we turn to those who better regard our modern experience. Is Inferno somehow more important, or better, than Ellison’s “Invisible Man”? Why is “Romeo and Juliet”- a play designed to entertain the 16th Cenutry audiences- a sublime masterpiece to be heralded to the stars; but “Some Like It Hot” a piece of “pop” culture to be sneered at?
If you folk get a chance, we might have some fun here:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=53125
Also from that site: "In interpreting these results, it is important to consider the mathematics content areas and topics that students have likely encountered in the years leading up to and including the eight grade…
…As with mathematics, the international performance of nations differs when examining science by the six science content areas… Only two nations scored higher than the United States in [life science, environmental and resource issues, and scientific inquiry and the nature of science]… Physics was the science content area that the United States performed lowest in… but the U.S. average wa similar to the national average."
Like Israel. And Italy. Fuck you and the elitist high horse you rode in on.
More rebutals to come as I mine more info out of this report.
I loved Hamlet. I hated the Scarlet Letter
I loved Beowulf. Never even picked up the Odyssey.
I loved Antigone.
I loved Of Mice and Men. I thought Grapes of Wrath was quite boring.
I loved Animal Farm and hated 1984.
I think 12 Angry Men is absolutely wonderful film but I fell asleep during Citizen Kane.
I like the Beatles and Pink Floyd and Ben Folds Five and The Why Store (ever heard of them? Well why not? What’s wrong with YOU?) and guess what? I think Pyotrilyich Tchaikovsky is an absoultely wonderful composer. Probably even more so than Bach or Mozart.
So, goboy, where do I fit into your scale? Can you narrow me down? What shade of gray am I? Maybe, just maybe, people as a whole can’t be so narrowly defined like that. Maybe, you can’t take one example of one person and generalize into the entire friggin US and how it was so much better in the olden days. I’ve got news for you. The only difference between the 1950 and today is that it was 50 years closer to the books that were written 2000 years ago.
Are you quite sure about that? The National Science Foundation found that “Science literacy in the United States (and in other countries) is fairly low. That is, the majority of the general public knows a little, but not a lot, about science and technology. For example, most Americans know that the Earth goes around the Sun and that light travels faster than sound. However, not many can successfully define a molecule, and few have a good understanding of what the Internet is despite the fact that the Information Superhighway has occupied front page headlines throughout the late 1990s—and usage has skyrocketed.”
I taught in Korea for six years, and you do not know what you are talking about. Korean kids can kick our kids’ butts in any standardized test. Check my previous cite from the TIMSS. Korean eight graders beat ours in both math and science.
Actually, I think they’re both sensational. Billy Wilder is a genius. But are you going to defend Eminem, too?
And again- fairly low compared to what? Japanese science literacy? What the National Science Foundation wants our science literacy to be? Or what our literacy was fifty years ago?
You keep throwing out these claims that we’re bad, but you never turn around and point to what existing comparison is good. If you’re just saying “Well, we’re not what we could be,” then it’s just whining.
[quote]
I taught in Korea for six years, and you do not know what you are talking about. Korean kids can kick our kids’ butts in any standardized test. Check my previous cite from the TIMSS. Korean eight graders beat ours in both math and science.
[quote]
I do know what I’m talking about, because many of these “tests” are flawed and misleading. The TIMSS is not one of them; however, in the early '90’s, Newsweek revealed that one standardized test by which we had been decrying our performance had its information seriously biased- the U.S. was attempting to conduct a standard survey, while Japan and Korea were sending their best and brightest to take the test. Needless to say, American performance upon that test (4th behind Germany, Japan, and Korea) seemed amazingly well after that little hidden tidbit was revealed.
It depends. Are you going to defend any 17th Century English playwrights other than Shakespeare, Marlowe, or Johnson?
My point isn’t “modern culture is all good and no dreck!”, because that’s patently untrue. But then, 17th Century English culture had plenty of dreck in it, even with Shakespeare. My point is the library of material that we can call “classic” has increased exponentially in volume with the advent of common literacy and new media types. Therefore, bemoaning that certain pieces of “classic” literature have fallen by the wayside is pointless and pathetic- what has replaced it is generally better.
See, your argument seems to be that we’ve gotten rid of the good stuff and let in all the dreck. My counter-argument is that there’s always been dreck in then-modern literature and society, and Eminem isn’t any more a sign of modern cultural illiteracy or philistine values than the penny dreadfuls of the 19th century were of that society. And while what to you are great pieces of literature are gone by the wayside, in my mind that’s because the “classics” have expanded, and there are no longer a set ten books that everyone must absolutely know. The field- by virtue of good writers, and people willing to look to other cultures for classics- has expanded.
I would not expect a newspaper to be an authority on classical mythology any more than I would expect the opening line of an SD post to avoid English usage problems.
Some might say that it never existed, but I would suggest that the American literacy rate is something of which to be tremendously proud. More people today are devouring more literature of all periods than ever before.
Let’s have a quick look at the authors to whom you allude.
Dubliners was nixed by Joyce’s editor for being inappropriate. Joyce could not find an English printer for Portrait of the Artist. In the US Joyce found a periodical to serialize Ulysses, but his work was banned after a few episodes.
Austin’s father tried to get Pride and Prejudice published, but was ignored. A deal was cut to publish Northanger Abbey, but the publisher reneged. Eventually Austin managed to get Sense and Sensibility published, but only anonymously. Similarly, Mansfield Park had to be published anonymously.
If past generations were so erudite when compared with today’s, then one would not expect such repeated rejection.
What it comes down to is that most people of most eras are not interested in literature, and those few who are are stretched by the sheer mass of what is out there to the degree that proportionately very few could be said to be widely read, let alone widely read to any great depth.
So rather than complain about a culture in which newspapers make errors concerning the minutiae of Greek mythology, how about celebrating a culture where more people have more access to literature than ever before in history.
ender - if I may, your post proves goboy’s point. The fact is, not only are you familiar with these various and varied works, but you have formed opinions of them. You and I could have a converstaion on the relative merits of classics vs. modern art/literature/music. Someone who has never been exposed to the classics, could not join in that conversation.
Is this necessarily bad? I find well-rounded individuals to be much more interesting people than one-trick ponies.
Yeah, but these are really the exception and not the rule. If major universities start dumping Chaucer in favor of Seinfeld across the board, then I’ll start worrying.
Let’s assume that’s true. How many of those kids do you think could identify Circe? They probably get a lot less Milton than we do over here. Again, I’d rather have a nation full of children with a wide base of knowledge than a nation full of memorization drones who score high on standardized tests.
Why do I get the feeling that Einstein would have performed rather poorly on a standardized test?
If you say the TIMSS is not flawed and misleading, then why are you dismissing its results and dragging up irrelevant tests I never cited? Korea scored a 582 average scorein mathematics, while the US scored 502. Korea scored 549 in science, we scored 515. In addition, I taught in Korean schools and saw what the kids were studying. Heck, I had midle school kids studying matrix algebra and trigonometry.
Where is your cite saying we scored fourth in the world?
Again, you’re criticizing points I never made. I agree with you that the classics have expanded, but you miss my point–the same people who don’t know Shakespeare also don’t read Toni Morrison, or Maya Angelou or Richard Wright. They do watch a lot of TV and listen to rap. Perhaps you would like Jackass and Eminem to be the new touchstones of our culture? It’s sure heading that way.
Good point, but to quote Dorothy Parker when challenged to use the word “horticulture” in a sentence, “You can lead a horticulture, but you can’t make her think.”
Oh, my leap from Circe to Milton in my last post was meant to indicate two separate thoughts. I know Circe isn’t from Milton. Well, I do now, anyways…
So some one believes in Creation means they are under educated? Why does a belief in religon automatically get someone stamped as ignorant in certain circles?
Circe is a character form Homer, not milton. Second I taught for six years in South Korea. But, apparently, you all know more about the South Korean educational system than I.<sigh>
But did I Dinsdale? I made no mention of my opinions of Eminem or Brittney Spears. Maybe I like them. Maybe I don’t.
Can you be so certain which I believe? Does my love of classic literature ban me from enjoying modern works as well? On the flip side, must I be chastised for enjoying science fiction magazines with stories from newly published authors while completely ignoring the works of the ancient Greeks?
Where is the balance? When do I get to the point where I can broaden my horizons without worrying about what others perceive as things I should be studying? I mentioned I’ve never read the Odyssey. Should I be put in the stockade for that?
I also happened to enjoy the fine works of DJ Jazzy Jeff and the Fresh Prince. If goboy had his way I’d burn in hell over that one.
For every book I read, I know there are a thousand more I will never even get to. The same goes for every play I attend, every show I watch, and every movie I view. You know what? The same is true for every thread on the board. We can’t read them all. What choices do we make?
Should we then have a pit thread lambasting those who only post in MPSIMS’s thread parties? We are fighting ignorance, after all.
gobot, I’m guessing you posted before my explanation appeared. A poor selection of sequential sentences is to blame for that apparent error. Mea culpa. Hey, I’m not a literature guy but I did catch on that Circe was from Homer. It’s right in your OP, fercryinoutloud.
I’m not presuming to know the educational strucuture in Korea, gobot. All I’m saying is that the idea of having a nation of kids who can score really high on specific standardized tests seems antithetical to the notion of a nation of well-rounded children who obtain a wide base of knowledge from Homer to Hawking.
Minor point
Yeah, that is an extreme example. But more on point is the introduction of specific specialized areas of learning at colleges. For example, curricula and courses focusing on the interests and achievements of women, blacks, hispanics, etc. And a gen ed degree may require only 2 “English” courses. It is becoming more likely that someone can graduate from college witout having been exposed to to what many consider “classics.” Which, again, has it’s good and bad points.