|
On October 08 2013 12:49 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:46 Slusher wrote:
to be fair I can't actually argue against it without getting equally anecdotal but it does not match my life experience at all. Your life experience is dudes really liking Romeo and Juliet while chicks hate it?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=426393&user=cLutZ
Scroll down and see your own descent into madness.
On October 08 2013 12:42 caelym wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:29 Requizen wrote:
Speaking of which Hearthstone is really fun. I know OT is for shitposting, but holy crap Req you take it to a whole new level. When you're not image spamming, you're bitching about something in your life, when you're not doing that, you're shamelessly promoting your stream, and when you're not doing that, you're going "look at it me! look at me! I got into Hearthstone beta! look at me!". Please return to GD and QQ about how bad you are at LoL.
This was a totally random drive-by. I like it.
|
On October 08 2013 12:49 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:46 Slusher wrote:
to be fair I can't actually argue against it without getting equally anecdotal but it does not match my life experience at all. Your life experience is dudes really liking Romeo and Juliet while chicks hate it?
most chicks I knew were really exited to read it, hated the first couple of chapters due to olde English, rented the Leonardo Di'Caprio movie and based their homework off of that.
so the one book that you assume they all liked, no, they did not like.
As for shit like Of Mice and men and To kill a Mocking Bird, yea guys tended to get more into it in my personal experience but the company I kept, spoiled white chicks, probly has more to do with that than the literature itself.
|
United States23745 Posts
On October 08 2013 12:47 WaveofShadow wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:42 caelym wrote:On October 08 2013 12:29 Requizen wrote:
Speaking of which Hearthstone is really fun. I know OT is for shitposting, but holy crap Req you take it to a whole new level. When you're not image spamming, you're bitching about something in your life, when you're not doing that, you're shamelessly promoting your stream, and when you're not doing that, you're going "look at it me! look at me! I got into Hearthstone beta! look at me!". Please return to GD and QQ about how bad you are at LoL. Damn caelym.
Jesus man.
|
On October 08 2013 12:51 onlywonderboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:47 WaveofShadow wrote:On October 08 2013 12:42 caelym wrote:On October 08 2013 12:29 Requizen wrote:
Speaking of which Hearthstone is really fun. I know OT is for shitposting, but holy crap Req you take it to a whole new level. When you're not image spamming, you're bitching about something in your life, when you're not doing that, you're shamelessly promoting your stream, and when you're not doing that, you're going "look at it me! look at me! I got into Hearthstone beta! look at me!". Please return to GD and QQ about how bad you are at LoL. Damn caelym. Jesus man.
I don't really know what happened there
|
Duh
On September 26 2013 02:28 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2013 02:27 UniversalSnip wrote:On September 26 2013 02:08 kainzero wrote:On September 26 2013 02:02 jcarlsoniv wrote:
I like you Req. I was on the fence because I thought he was a little overdefensive but holy shit did he just bury Osmoses. I don't wanna look like I'm sitting here keeping score on people's posts, not a particularly good poster myself, but I keep noticing how good req's have gotten lately. Like this last argument, he just crushed, then when he posts in GD half the time I'm like "damn good point" and the rest of the time he's usually pretty funny. Lies i'm shitposter
Edit: also I haven't image spammed in this thread. You've not seen me image spam.
|
On October 08 2013 12:50 Dark_Chill wrote:
If we're talking about Shakespeare, can we at least agree on one thing? Reading plays if fucking terrible. You could argue as much as you want about Shakespeare being a good playwright or whatever, but god is reading any of his plays (not going to say all plays, haven't read everything) just not good for teaching children.
Now, about the whole classics/teaching stuff:
I agree and disagree. Having books spanning all ages gives students a chance to learn about all sorts of different styles, different settings, and numerous examples of multiple literary techniques. Comparing and contrasting texts from different time periods really helps to get an understanding of the evolution of literature, as well as how things stayed the same.
I JUST WISH SCHOOLS WOULD FOCUS MORE ON THE BOLDED PART. Clutz is right about this (unless I missed the point of his argument), in that teachers hammer shit that some don't want to read A SHIT TON OF TIMES.
The problem I see, is that there are few, if any, high school teachers who even try to do what I underlined. Instead they will have you Read Act III/Scene 1 of Hamlet and then say something like, "Look at this tremendous foreshadowing." Then ask nebulous questions without real answers (and of dubious importance) like, "do you think Shakespeare was suicidal when he wrote this?" because that is what they wrote their college thesis on.
edit:
On October 08 2013 12:51 Slusher wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:49 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2013 12:46 Slusher wrote:
to be fair I can't actually argue against it without getting equally anecdotal but it does not match my life experience at all. Your life experience is dudes really liking Romeo and Juliet while chicks hate it? most chicks I knew were really exited to read it, hated the first couple of chapters due to olde English, rented the Leonardo Di'Caprio movie and based their homework off of that. so the one book that you assume they all liked, no, they did not like. As for shit like Of Mice and men and To kill a Mocking Bird, yea guys tended to get more into it in my personal experience but the company I kept, spoiled white chicks, probly has more to do with that than the literature itself.
Adjusted for guys participating more in almost every single classroom discussion?
|
I understand Csheep's concern that "classic" lit is such a "broad" term, that it's easy to find stuff that everyone can identify with. But then there are huge chunks of literature that are pretty ignored in English classes in curriculum. Rarely do we actually read essays, or scientific journals, or review articles, or historical articles, or debate transcripts etc etc. We are constantly being stuck with the same ol' reading assignments. Shakepeare plays, Frost poems, etc etc.
EDIT: science fiction/fantasy, short stories, children's lit, and plenty of others.
|
well, this is a way better argument than anything happening in GD at least
also, functional languages are so wonderful
|
On October 08 2013 12:54 Nos- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:51 onlywonderboy wrote:On October 08 2013 12:47 WaveofShadow wrote:On October 08 2013 12:42 caelym wrote:On October 08 2013 12:29 Requizen wrote:
Speaking of which Hearthstone is really fun. I know OT is for shitposting, but holy crap Req you take it to a whole new level. When you're not image spamming, you're bitching about something in your life, when you're not doing that, you're shamelessly promoting your stream, and when you're not doing that, you're going "look at it me! look at me! I got into Hearthstone beta! look at me!". Please return to GD and QQ about how bad you are at LoL. Damn caelym. Jesus man. I don't really know what happened there
generally people shitpost but also add something to the discussion. I honestly dont recall a single post from Req that is of quality. Arguing with some random dude about personal taste in manga or kpop or whatever is not quality. I haven't check his history but I'm pretty sure 90% of his posts in the past week was some form of image macro or one-liner about Hearthstone/his stream. Just annoys the heck out of me whenever I see his username take a dump in this thread.
On October 08 2013 12:54 Requizen wrote:
Edit: also I haven't image spammed in this thread. You've not seen me image spam.
please do, so you get banned. thanks.
|
On October 08 2013 12:58 wei2coolman wrote:
I understand Csheep's concern that "classic" lit is such a "broad" term, that it's easy to find stuff that everyone can identify with. But then there are huge chunks of literature that are pretty ignored in English classes in curriculum. Rarely do we actually read essays, or scientific journals, or review articles, or historical articles, or debate transcripts etc etc. We are constantly being stuck with the same ol' reading assignments. Shakepeare plays, Frost poems, etc etc.
You also have to realize that, under most school systems, you have basically 5 x ~1 hour give or take a week of English. It's kind of hard to cram in everything you listed in that tiny time slot. It's barely enough (and often isn't enough) for those Shakeseare plays and Frost poems.
Though there has been a trend of reading scientific journals and articles in science classes, as well as relevant articles/essays in other classes. English is genreally meant for, well, literature.
On October 08 2013 12:58 wei2coolman wrote:
EDIT: science fiction/fantasy, short stories, children's lit, and plenty of others.
It depends on the teacher. Plenty of teachers incorporate one or more of those genres in their courses. Again, it comes down to the very basic constraint of time.
|
On October 08 2013 12:58 wei2coolman wrote:
I understand Csheep's concern that "classic" lit is such a "broad" term, that it's easy to find stuff that everyone can identify with. But then there are huge chunks of literature that are pretty ignored in English classes in curriculum. Rarely do we actually read essays, or scientific journals, or review articles, or historical articles, or debate transcripts etc etc. We are constantly being stuck with the same ol' reading assignments. Shakepeare plays, Frost poems, etc etc.
EDIT: science fiction/fantasy, short stories, children's lit, and plenty of others.
I read short stories, essays, the occasional review. I read scientific journals in science class and historical articles in....history. I guess it really is based on individual experience but a lot of these complaints I just can't relate with at all.
And I mean, maybe you don't like them but....anything by Ray Bradbury, 1984, Brave New World.....those are pretty sci-fi.
The problem I see, is that there are few, if any, high school teachers who even try to do what I underlined. Instead they will have you Read Act III/Scene 1 of Hamlet and then say something like, "Look at this tremendous foreshadowing." Then ask nebulous questions without real answers (and of dubious importance) like, "do you think Shakespeare was suicidal when he wrote this?" because that is what they wrote their college thesis on.
Yeah so I never got my teachers asking about the state of Shakespeare's mental health while reading Shakespeare but that was just me I guess.
|
Caelym I love you and Req in entirely different but equally entertaining ways.
I just want to say that a lot of the sketchier English teachers I've had are not willing to deviate from the standard "classics." The classes I get the most out of are the ones where the teachers teach what got THEM to really think, because they teach from their heart rather than from a word document. Teachers giving a shit adds about 9000x as much effect.
For example, one teacher had "Great Expectations" on the curriculum but as we just started it he literally said "Fuck it" in the middle of class, picked up Speaker of the Dead, and started us on that.
Best English class ever.
|
On October 08 2013 12:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:51 Slusher wrote:On October 08 2013 12:49 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2013 12:46 Slusher wrote:
to be fair I can't actually argue against it without getting equally anecdotal but it does not match my life experience at all. Your life experience is dudes really liking Romeo and Juliet while chicks hate it? most chicks I knew were really exited to read it, hated the first couple of chapters due to olde English, rented the Leonardo Di'Caprio movie and based their homework off of that. so the one book that you assume they all liked, no, they did not like. As for shit like Of Mice and men and To kill a Mocking Bird, yea guys tended to get more into it in my personal experience but the company I kept, spoiled white chicks, probly has more to do with that than the literature itself. Adjusted for guys participating more in almost every single classroom discussion?
are you honestly going to tell me that when you were in high school (this is much different than college where you barely know a lot of your classmates) you didn't know who was and who was not doing the homework/ paying attention etc?
Had I not warned you that my reply would be anecdotal?
|
I want to be as shitty a poster as Requizen.
Teach me the ways, captain Teemo.
|
On October 08 2013 13:00 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Yeah so I never got my teachers asking about the state of Shakespeare's mental health while reading Shakespeare but that was just me I guess.
You missed out 
On a related note, I had a professor who enjoyed diagnosing Shakespeare characters with mental illnesses. He recently revised his diagnosis of Hamlet from depression to ADD~
|
On October 08 2013 13:00 Zergneedsfood wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:58 wei2coolman wrote:
I understand Csheep's concern that "classic" lit is such a "broad" term, that it's easy to find stuff that everyone can identify with. But then there are huge chunks of literature that are pretty ignored in English classes in curriculum. Rarely do we actually read essays, or scientific journals, or review articles, or historical articles, or debate transcripts etc etc. We are constantly being stuck with the same ol' reading assignments. Shakepeare plays, Frost poems, etc etc.
EDIT: science fiction/fantasy, short stories, children's lit, and plenty of others. I read short stories, essays, the occasional review. I read scientific journals in science class and historical articles in....history. I guess it really is based on individual experience but a lot of these complaints I just can't relate with at all.
Reading historical articles in a English class context is VASTLY different than reading for a History class. In history class, you're looking to pull key points/plot/etc/pov/contextualizing it with other historical events, in English class you'd be looking at comparing writing structure, word choices, formatting etc. Why is it different than other type of articles written. Same applies to scientific journal. As far as science and history curriculum goes in high school, we didn't read that many hardcore science journals or historical articles.
And I mean, maybe you don't like them but....anything by Ray Bradbury, 1984, Brave New World.....those are pretty sci-fi.
I wouldn't rate them as hardcore sci-fi, as I would dystopian future.
|
On October 08 2013 13:04 Slusher wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:56 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2013 12:51 Slusher wrote:On October 08 2013 12:49 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2013 12:46 Slusher wrote:
to be fair I can't actually argue against it without getting equally anecdotal but it does not match my life experience at all. Your life experience is dudes really liking Romeo and Juliet while chicks hate it? most chicks I knew were really exited to read it, hated the first couple of chapters due to olde English, rented the Leonardo Di'Caprio movie and based their homework off of that. so the one book that you assume they all liked, no, they did not like. As for shit like Of Mice and men and To kill a Mocking Bird, yea guys tended to get more into it in my personal experience but the company I kept, spoiled white chicks, probly has more to do with that than the literature itself. Adjusted for guys participating more in almost every single classroom discussion? are you honestly going to tell me that when you were in high school (this is much different than college where you barely know a lot of your classmates) you didn't know who was and who was not doing the homework/ paying attention etc? Had I not warned you that my reply would be anecdotal?
Since he seems to value Harry Potter over Shakespeare, I gues sI'll descend to his level and explain the situation in terms he'll understand.
To quote McGonagall when she was addressing Umbridge: "You're raving."
And rest assured that I am just as disdainful as McGonagall was in that scene 
+ Show Spoiler +'Aha!' shrieked Professor Umbridge, pointing a stubby finger at McGonagall. 'Yes! Yes, yes, yes! Of course! That's what you want, isn't it, Minerva McGonagall? You want Cornelius Fudge replace by Albus Dumbledore! You think you'll be where I am, don't you: Senior Undersecretary to the Minister and Headmistress to boot!'
'You are raving,' said Professor McGonagall, superbly disdainful.
|
On October 08 2013 13:05 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 13:00 Zergneedsfood wrote:
Yeah so I never got my teachers asking about the state of Shakespeare's mental health while reading Shakespeare but that was just me I guess. You missed out On a related note, I had a professor who enjoyed diagnosing Shakespeare characters with mental illnesses. He recently revised his diagnosis of Hamlet from depression to ADD~
gimme the low down on MacBeth why couldn't he just wait?
|
I'll just echo what CSheep said...just in the constraints of time historical articles are just in the backburner of priorities and honestly what you described in pulling key points/plots/pov/contextualizing is way more important than looking at the writing structure of a historical paper. *shrug*
On October 08 2013 13:08 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 13:04 Slusher wrote:On October 08 2013 12:56 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2013 12:51 Slusher wrote:On October 08 2013 12:49 cLutZ wrote:On October 08 2013 12:46 Slusher wrote:
to be fair I can't actually argue against it without getting equally anecdotal but it does not match my life experience at all. Your life experience is dudes really liking Romeo and Juliet while chicks hate it? most chicks I knew were really exited to read it, hated the first couple of chapters due to olde English, rented the Leonardo Di'Caprio movie and based their homework off of that. so the one book that you assume they all liked, no, they did not like. As for shit like Of Mice and men and To kill a Mocking Bird, yea guys tended to get more into it in my personal experience but the company I kept, spoiled white chicks, probly has more to do with that than the literature itself. Adjusted for guys participating more in almost every single classroom discussion? are you honestly going to tell me that when you were in high school (this is much different than college where you barely know a lot of your classmates) you didn't know who was and who was not doing the homework/ paying attention etc? Had I not warned you that my reply would be anecdotal? Since he seems to value Harry Potter over Shakespeare, I gues sI'll descend to his level and explain the situation in terms he'll understand. To quote McGonagall when she was addressing Umbridge: "You're raving." And rest assured that I am just as disdainful as McGonagall was in that scene + Show Spoiler +'Aha!' shrieked Professor Umbridge, pointing a stubby finger at McGonagall. 'Yes! Yes, yes, yes! Of course! That's what you want, isn't it, Minerva McGonagall? You want Cornelius Fudge replace by Albus Dumbledore! You think you'll be where I am, don't you: Senior Undersecretary to the Minister and Headmistress to boot!'
'You are raving,' said Professor McGonagall, superbly disdainful.
.....did you actually remember that scene?
|
On October 08 2013 13:00 Vegetarian Wolf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:58 wei2coolman wrote:
I understand Csheep's concern that "classic" lit is such a "broad" term, that it's easy to find stuff that everyone can identify with. But then there are huge chunks of literature that are pretty ignored in English classes in curriculum. Rarely do we actually read essays, or scientific journals, or review articles, or historical articles, or debate transcripts etc etc. We are constantly being stuck with the same ol' reading assignments. Shakepeare plays, Frost poems, etc etc. You also have to realize that, under most school systems, you have basically 5 x ~1 hour give or take a week of English. It's kind of hard to cram in everything you listed in that tiny time slot. It's barely enough (and often isn't enough) for those Shakeseare plays and Frost poems. Though there has been a trend of reading scientific journals and articles in science classes, as well as relevant articles/essays in other classes. English is genreally meant for, well, literature. Show nested quote +On October 08 2013 12:58 wei2coolman wrote:
EDIT: science fiction/fantasy, short stories, children's lit, and plenty of others. It depends on the teacher. Plenty of teachers incorporate one or more of those genres in their courses. Again, it comes down to the very basic constraint of time.
I would say, as far as high school AP/IB English courses went, I'd say 70% was classic lit, 20% poetry, 10% etc.
It would work to a lot of kids favors if it was more skewed to like 50% 20% 30% imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
