BF2S Forums Why we're working our young people too hard

Uzique wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique wrote:

you have classes where people get to sit on beanbags and play gameboy?

/america

david beckham studies

at one university in the 100-something rank, launched solely to get publicity for said university? yeah i'm sure no single college in america has ever launched a gimmick course or a joke taught masters in anything to attract attention or niche $$$. you make it sound as if there's a whole bunch of people applying to universities across the board in this discipline. lol.

i don't care, i was simply refuting your /america sigh

degree in star trek at georgetown university, washington
degree in queer musicology, ucla

that last one sounds like an ideal career transition for you, galt

Uzique wrote:

degree in star trek at georgetown university, washington
degree in queer musicology, ucla

that last one sounds like an ideal career transition for you, galt

innit?

cool

Well...apparently American students need to be reminded what they are at the beginning of each year.

Drove me nuts.

/washington

Chardee MacDennis wrote:

zeek if you are taking everything newbie says as america then i feel bad for you

A good part of what I say about America's education is subjective to the types of schools I've attended (I've done public, private and home and seen a number of advantages and disadvantages to each). Another part comes from experience in speaking with other Americans and trying not to facepalm at the radiant ignorance. Another is due to scathing articles about it that I don't find all that hard to believe given what I have seen.

It's not the worst in the world, but there's a ton of room for improvement. The bloody 1-2 week basic refreshers I had to sit through at the beginning of each high school year made me stir crazy.

If you didn't have to go through any of that, then your school must've had the midas touch.

Year: 1997. History book: 1971. Administration office storage room: two crates full of rubber chickens and Frisbees for an experimental anger management course for students.

that's not what english is about, though... poor you to have such a bad education

Uzique wrote:

that's not what english is about, though... poor you to have such a bad education

principals wife was a grammar cunt and she was head of the english department... to quote her "the lack of grammar is the root cause of global instability" lolwat

There's nothing wrong with focusing on the mechanics of English as long as it's going to be applied to something other than Great Expectations. But I suppose the one thing my second (sans-beanbag, non-Gameboy-playing) AP English class did do was technical writing, even if the literary selection was dry as rat poop in a Nevada basement.

What still strikes me as funny is that I've never gotten a straight answer out of any of them about what made a classic book classic. I could pick alternatives nearly as ancient as the ones on the list and they'd be rejected as inadequate.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

What still strikes me as funny is that I've never gotten a straight answer out of any of them about what made a classic book classic. I could pick alternatives nearly as ancient as the ones on the list and they'd be rejected as inadequate.

What made them classics was the fact that they are not offensive or controversial and the local board of education thought they were the safest choice. They also tend to be really easy or have a lot already written about them so there isn't any worries about kids just not getting it and failing out. Add to the fact the older teacher are comfortable teaching what they have been teaching for 20 years.

My senior year English teacher explained this us when we complained about how boring Beowulf was. It turns into one giant positive feed back loop. Books become classics because of how much they get pushed and they get pushed because they are classics.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

There's nothing wrong with focusing on the mechanics of English as long as it's going to be applied to something other than Great Expectations. But I suppose the one thing my second (sans-beanbag, non-Gameboy-playing) AP English class did do was technical writing, even if the literary selection was dry as rat poop in a Nevada basement.

What still strikes me as funny is that I've never gotten a straight answer out of any of them about what made a classic book classic. I could pick alternatives nearly as ancient as the ones on the list and they'd be rejected as inadequate.

In some cases it's because it's a foundational book for all of western literature a la Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. In other cases it's simply because it's a book that the teacher learned about in the past, or it is a book that was able to pass through the school board curriculum committee, or it's the 'well, they're doing it, so it must be good, let's copy'. Personally, I hated most of the classics I was forced to read. Jane Austen? omgkillmenow Same for Dickens, and Hardy or any 18th century American writer. Basically the entire era where authors were paid by the word should be flushed from history imo.

What it comes down to is literature being subjective, teachers being inherently lazy, and there being a plethora of commentary on the books taught in schools. Want to know where your english teachers opinion on certain passages of "Childe Roland to the Dark Tower Came" came from? The fucking teachers edition of Norton's Anthology