Posts by wanderingbadger44

It feels like everyone is just pretending he’s actually good
Tolkien! 🤦

The truth is, he’s essentially literary junk, which is why you won't find him getting any serious attention in American English departments or literature programs. Honestly, most people wouldn't have even heard his name if it weren't for those massive movie franchises, because his work just doesn't hold much weight on its own.

And even if we set that aside, let's be real: nobody is picking up his books unless they're looking to catch up on the films.

feralharbor8 said:Wasn't Mark Twain excluded?

Of course he wasn't. It would be just as unthinkable as banning E. A. Poe, J. D. Salinger, William Faulkner, Walt Whitman, or Ernest Hemingway...

Linda Price5 said:And if you haven't felt like reading since you were a kid, then frankly, nobody gives a damn about your opinion.

Look, urbantinker8, someone who has been a reader since childhood will likely end up well-educated regardless of whether they ever step foot in a classroom. In my view, the true purpose of school should be to serve those who didn't grow up with a book in their hands—to act as a bridge that introduces them to literature and helps them develop a genuine love for reading.

A parent simply cannot be held entirely responsible for everything that goes wrong. It’s an impossible standard to meet, and frankly, it's an unfair one. To suggest that a child's every failure or stumble is a direct reflection of parental inadequacy is to ignore the sheer complexity of human development. Think of it like trying to steer a ship through a massive storm in the middle of the Atlantic. A captain can have the best training, the most reliable vessel, and the clearest charts from the Coast Guard, but they still can't control the gale winds or the rogue waves. They can manage the rudder, sure, but once those elements hit, the outcome is no longer solely in their hands. Children are individuals with their own temperaments, peer influences, and increasingly, their own agency. You can provide the best foundation possible—steady guidance, a stable home, and solid values—but you aren't building a robot programmed to follow instructions. You are raising a person. Once they step out into the world, there are a thousand variables at play that no amount of parenting can account for. Blaming a parent for every deviation from the expected path isn't just reductive; it's logically flawed.

If that's the case, what is even the point of sending kids to school? What purpose does it actually serve if there's absolutely no support or recourse once a parent has either failed them or done their job poorly in the first place?

I’m still reading today, too. My Kindle has become such an indispensable companion that I honestly feel naked without it—it’s practically a daily essential, right up there with my wallet.

I’ll admit it: there were times when required reading actually managed to sour my entire relationship with books.

There’s a mountain of classics sitting on my shelf that I probably would have actually enjoyed, but I haven't touched a single one. If a book makes the mandatory reading list for high school, it’s clearly garbage.

I am referring back to my own previous post from a little while ago.

Linda Price5 As specified by:
If the entire point of education is to drill children into becoming compliant adults—people who will clock in and perform mindless, tedious tasks they find utterly pointless just so they can scrape together enough to pay their electric bills—then I fail to see why we bother them with mandatory literature and a bloated curriculum. Instead, we should just have them sewing garments or sanding down table legs for seven or ten bucks an hour. That would teach them the exact same lesson: how to sit still and mind their own business. At least then, there would be a controlled environment where they’re kept under lock and key while their parents are at work, preventing them from forming street gangs and terrorizing neighborhoods. At any rate, it would actually be productive.

Seven bucks times five hours times one hundred seventy-five school days a year adds up to $2042, and over eight years, we're looking at $49,000.

If we let them listen to audiobooks or podcasts while they're sanding or sewing, they might actually finish those eight years without being completely brainless and uneducated.

The only real headache is figuring out where to lock the teachers up during work hours so they don't start forming gangs and terrorizing local neighborhoods, though I suppose even that could probably be solved.

It is actually because it isn't true that "nobody cares" about reading that schools curate such valuable literature in the first place.
That is exactly why you get something like Pinocchio instead of just some random list of famous titles.

Yeah, yeah, I get it—you’ve already decided that Dostoevsky is garbage, and we’ve all heard that song before.
It’s like if your grandmother cooked a terrible meal once and you decided you hated that food forever. You hold onto that grudge so proudly that you refuse to ever try it again, and you act like that decision hasn't cost you anything. But maybe, just maybe, you could have actually enjoyed it if you hadn't let that one bad experience define your entire palate.

You know what? It feels incredibly childish to act like every teacher and Dostoevsky himself should be personally offended just because you branded Dostoevsky's work as trash simply because it was on a required reading list.

And yet, everyone seems to jump to defend literature in a way they would never dream of defending math.
Why deal with those grueling algebra problems, those messy fractions, or complex equations, when there are "easier" tasks that kids actually enjoy and wouldn't mind solving, which might prevent them from hating math altogether?

Instead of reconsidering your stance—that the classics are junk just because an inexperienced kid decided they were—you keep doubling down as if that opinion is some universal truth.

And what about the fact that not every kid can finish Pinocchio? (And I’m not talking to you specifically here. 😁 )
Not every kid can ace every single math problem, not everyone can sing a song perfectly in tune, and not everyone can jump rope without tripping. Does that mean we shouldn't offer those skills to the rest of the children?

Look at this blunt academic truth: not every student is an honors student, regardless of what their grades might suggest.

Linda Price5 said:Back in my day, the librarian practically had to drag me out of the library by my ear; she was more like a surrogate grandmother to me given how much time I spent there. By seventh grade, I had already started copying assigned readings from older students who had different teachers, and later on, I became a regular fixture at the local bookstore picking up those titles.

There are certain things that seemed utterly moronic and uninteresting to me as a child, even if I did end up reading them, yet I find myself appreciating them quite deeply today.

That’s just... how should I put this?... perfectly natural.
Someone is always going to find something stupid or dull. It's inevitable. Required reading lists are designed with a specific purpose in mind. Sure, you'll run into teachers who don't handle the curriculum properly, but that's beside the point. The point is the list itself. Don't forget that names like Krleža are on there, and think about how lucky you were to eventually discover his work. You could have easily avoided him because of your resistance to the assigned reading.

A curriculum shouldn't be built based on the whims of children or the tastes of the general public, just like you wouldn't let a crowd decide which classical pieces are played during a music appreciation class.

And help me understand why you're pushing back against the reading list so hard when you aren't even one of those kids whose only exposure to literature is what's assigned in class. It seems like you're protesting the selection specifically because you're someone who would have found their way to books anyway, even if you never stepped foot in a library. In a way, you're living proof that anyone who truly wants to read will find a way, regardless of whatever list they're handed.

Larry Walker24 said:What's even the point of using all that archaic, old-school language in school reading assignments?

I mean, seriously, why force a 15-year-old to deal with it?

I mean, what's the actual utility of learning new—or old—words that feel totally foreign and out of place? By the time a kid hits five, they’ve essentially mastered the language as a functional system; they have more than enough vocabulary to express every single one of their vital needs. Why push them beyond that?

Think about it: why does a term like "maritime" need to exist in a geography textbook? Seriously, what's the purpose? What about "solmization"? Or "watercolor"? Why should an eleven-year-old be expected to know "photosynthesis," let alone "cryptogams"? Aside from a biology major, who actually uses those terms in real life? And don't even get me started on terms like "republic" or "aristocracy"—those are just more historical headaches. Then there's all that technical jargon; who cares about it unless they’re planning to go into that specific field? And if they do choose that career path, they'll learn it then.

Besides, why do we even bother with words at all when we have emojis, hand gestures, and facial expressions to do the heavy lifting?

You really have to watch out so you don't accidentally stumble upon an unfamiliar word, whether it's ancient or modern. It might seriously damage your ignorance.

Kenneth Wood3 said:And why should they? Maybe people are interested in other things? Robotics? Video games? Sports? Learning a new language? Binging high-quality shows and movies?
I will never understand this obsession with glorifying books.

If you want to talk about glorifying books, you should ask the people here who claim to be readers—which is most of them—how much more enthusiastically they would dive into a book if the school reading list actually offered titles they liked. It's because those mandatory assignments feel tedious and uninspiring.

The honest advice for them would be to just head to the local library and read whatever catches their eye.

It would be much fairer to just say, "I don't read, I'm not interested, it's exhausting, and frankly, it's boring." But then, we wouldn't even have this conversation.

Everyone here acts like a literary scholar while simultaneously hating on required reading.

Those people you mentioned, the ones who have other hobbies and aren't really into reading, aren't even part of this group. Everyone here swears by the importance of literature and their love for books, provided the book isn't something assigned by a teacher.

Is anyone actually following what Richard Perez3 is posting here?

Look, if you can't be bothered to slog through the required reading, then don't—it’s your life. Just pick through every second or third book, scrape together enough points to pass the assignment, and call it a day. You still have five other grading components in your American literature class to make up for, so as long as you nail those, you'll be fine. Honestly, skipping a few books isn't going to stop you from winning a Nobel Prize if you're truly destined for greatness.

Besides, who really cares if the material feels dull? It's just like how some people find math or history incredibly tedious. You either put in the work to master those subjects and get the grades, or you don't and you fail. It’s the exact same deal with these classics. They aren't included in the curriculum just to keep you entertained, for heaven's sake.

"Give the kids this, give them that..."

We’re back at it again, arguing over required reading as if there were armed guards stationed at the entrance of every local library, ready to haul away any kid who dares to check out something other than the assigned classics.

Since when did anyone start banning people from reading whatever they want?

Apparently, I’m supposed to be reading through those mindless Twilight sagas or vampire diaries just so I can "relate" to my students and make them actually enjoy reading, given what I teach.

Honestly, please just stop with this constant idea that students are somehow forbidden from reading anything that isn't on a syllabus.

In school, you’ll be exposed to great literature. Or maybe you won't. It makes no difference to me. No one is going to stop you—nor would they want to—from picking up a Twilight book, Fifty Shades of Grey, or any other nonsense.

Let's be real: the general public has never preferred Proust, Hemingway, Grieg, Beethoven, Picasso, or Gauguin over vampire novels, pop songs, or catchy summer hits played at a beach boardwalk.

Literature is an art form, much like music or painting.

If some people don't see the point and are perfectly happy identifying as fans of literary kitsch, that doesn't change the value of literature itself.

If you want to love pop culture—whether it's books, music, or art—go right ahead.
The job of a school is simply to offer students a chance to encounter meaningful works of art, whether they are written, composed, or painted.

Aren't you a little embarrassed to keep insisting on this, especially when it feels like you're admitting you never had that kind of connection to art yourself?

Here’s another one for you.

The idea that you have to wrap up a school year by September feels like something straight out of an old textbook from a different era. 😬

rowdypanther12 said:You know what hits me hardest about all this? It’s seeing a kid who clearly needs help, and feeling like we're reaching that breaking point where it might be too late to prevent a total tragedy.
It’s just heavy knowing there’s a child right there in the system—someone you're aware of, someone you can see spiraling—and yet, nothing is being done.

What hits me the hardest is seeing a child being targeted with something as violent as a chair being thrown, because that kid is crying out for help—not just them, but every other student in that classroom who could easily become the next target tomorrow. And frankly, the teacher needs support too.

Go ahead and be shocked if you want, but personally, I've lost all interest in debating the nuances of bullying.

There’s more to the story.
He actually threw a chair at a classmate, but the kid ducked, and the chair ended up hitting another student instead. As a result, he was given a formal reprimand.
However, the school board stepped in and overturned the reprimand, then sent the homeroom teacher to a communication workshop.😵

It’s actually quite telling that his parents are both teachers; they understand better than anyone that if an inspector decides to strike a grade, there isn't much anyone can do to stop it.

It is true that you rarely see an educator actually lose their job over something like this.

But don't mistake that for immunity, because there are still consequences. If someone thinks this kind of lifestyle is a dream, they should probably just switch careers to teaching—you'll get three months of vacation a year and spend maybe five hours a day working in the sun.

Given what the pay is—and honestly, feel free to push back on me here—you might as well just write down a grade and call it a day. Or a five. Whatever keeps the peace.

I suppose we ought to introduce a new metric to the grading system: parental expectations.

I’m honestly not sure if this belongs here, so if the moderators think it’s in the wrong section, please feel free to move it.

Besides, does anyone actually have a clue how much they're charging us for this??!!11 🐔

It’s such a perfect little snapshot of how our entire education system operates.

Nicholas King said:You’re falling straight into the classic trap of flawed statistical reasoning.

The mere fact that the scenario you're describing exists makes it just one single example, much like how one random old lady who smoked and drank her way to living two hundred and fifty years doesn't make that anecdote a basis for anything. You certainly wouldn't want to calibrate the entire American educational system based on an outlier like that, would you?

Sometimes a rose is just a rose. Actually, more often than not...

A rose is a rose, and Google is Google. If smart only looks at one single example, Google has access to countless others. When you type "adult education" into the search bar, what you see is merely one of many results sitting at the top.

Susan James said:How did you go from being a history teacher to focusing on language studies? 🤔
From what I've been reading, they aren't planning on cutting those programs anytime soon. 🥳

I know you can finish a four-year program and move from retail to commerce, or go from a cook to a tourism technician, or a baker to a food tech specialist—there are all sorts of combinations. But that still doesn't justify keeping subjects around that could easily be covered within the standard middle school curriculum.

By the way, I hear very clear and unmistakable chatter from various circles regarding the different working conditions between three-year vocational schools and four-year ones, not to mention traditional high schools. Specifically, regarding the quality of instruction and what the kids "actually learn."
Let’s not kid ourselves; do you really think someone who visits houses twice a year to inspect chimneys cares about history? What would a chimney sweep or a glazier need to discuss with a homeowner about Napoleon or Matthias Corvinus while they're doing their job? 😕

Did it ever cross your mind that kids in those vocational schools are actually working at ages 14 or 15? Their training happens in the real world with real people, clocking in actual hours. The goal is to teach them how to work with their hands and earn a living through honest labor, not to sit around debating the past or memorizing piles of useless trivia. Or are we supposed to keep churning out contrarians who will argue about civil wars and political movements just because someone from a three-year program might decide to go to college one day?

We should be making these jobs accessible and interesting to these kids by focusing on practical skills, rather than forcing them to cram heaps of useless data at the end of the school year—especially when most tradespeople are already swamped with actual work.

And did you consider that most of these kids didn't actually choose these career paths—except for a rare few—but rather ended up there because, much like what you said about history professors, they didn't have many other options. It’s hard to imagine how much they actually enjoy the work.

If a boss wants to actually get some value out of them instead of just causing more headaches, he might just send them over to Žnidaršić to grab a coffee or run an errand.

Does anyone honestly believe these kids are putting in real hours when they should be studying history? Just hand them a broom or have them fetch drinks.

If you talk to any vocational instructors at those three-year high schools, they'll tell you the truth: students end up making things up in their internship logs just to list tasks they never actually performed, simply because they weren't doing anything related to their trade. Some don't even show up for the internship; the boss just signs off on the paperwork and stamps it. Why would he bother complaining?

But hey, if you want to keep believing that these students are eager workers and these tradespeople are eager mentors while they're all too busy avoiding biology homework, go right ahead.

analogseal18 said:perzefona, it might strike you as a harsh assessment at first glance, yet one cannot ignore the reality that many history professors—and indeed most humanities faculty members—simply lack the innate aptitude or even the fundamental desire to engage with STEM disciplines, certainly not to the degree required to be considered competent instructors in those fields.

As for these "salespeople," if one looks closely at the enrollment metrics, the pattern becomes quite clear; we are largely talking about students who have struggled to find their footing in the academic system or perhaps those who simply find the traditional curriculum uninspiring, often possessing only a rudimentary grasp of the material taught during their middle school years. It isn't necessarily a question of raw intelligence, you see, but rather a profound deficiency in both foundational preparation and a genuine thirst for learning. However, if these individuals possess a sincere willingness to work, then life will surely provide them with opportunities; after all, what is the point in forcing rigorous academic standards upon someone when it only serves to drive them to drop out of high school entirely? Is it not far more pragmatic to encourage a three-year vocational program than to leave them with nothing beyond a basic diploma?

Do you really know enough history professors and humanities experts to make such a sweeping claim?
Even if that were true, would we then say that most chemists lack any sense of rhythm, or that most mathematicians struggle to pick up a second language?

From what I've seen in my own classroom, intelligence doesn't really divide itself into neat little boxes; gifted kids are just gifted, and you often find that those who excel at math are equally sharp with linguistics or possess a deep intuition for the cause-and-effect patterns found in history, much like how a student in a music program might grasp complex fractions almost instinctively during their first theory lesson.

Susan James said:I'm generally on the same page as the Secretary
Quincy:

When asked about what happens to the history, geography, and biology teachers at those specific schools, the Secretary pointed out that school schedules shouldn't be bent to accommodate individual teachers; instead, they have to prioritize what the students actually need.

The only way out might be for some of them to retrain for different roles. If we're expected to pick up the tab for that, we’re looking at a massive headache. We already have plenty of unemployed historians out there, so why should taxpayers fund their retraining? Honestly, if people wanted to teach computer science or math, they probably would have gone into those fields from the start rather than picking history...

It’s nothing new to see such condescending and ugly commentary directed at teachers, but it still hits a nerve whenever I come across something like this.

It’s as if anyone who graduates with a degree in linguistics, fine arts, or the social sciences is just a failure who couldn't hack it in anything else. It's hard to wrap my head around the idea that someone might actually prefer the nuances of music over coding, or find languages more captivating than chemistry.

But setting that aside, there's another angle I want to touch upon.

Since we are discussing student welfare, has anyone considered how a kid might end up enrolled in a three-year culinary program simply because they were pressured into it, even if they have zero passion for it? Then, once they hit adulthood and finally gain some clarity, they try to pivot into a fourth year to become a hospitality technician because they previously took geography and languages. And maybe they pass their SATs and head off to college...

In the end, that three-year culinary stint remains their highest level of achievement.
Well, since religious studies are staying on the curriculum, I suppose they could always study theology. 🕺

nimblelynx7 said:It’s possible. Someone gets lucky and hits the Powerball jackpot (probability 1:15 x 10^-6)

Congrats. 👏 You basically shut down the whole conversation by comparing the likelihood of picking one correct answer out of four to the slim chance of winning the lottery.

Susan James said:I guess I just live in a fantasy world where people actually do their jobs honestly and provide the service they’re paid for.

I expect a surgeon to operate ethically,
that a dentist doesn't pull the wrong tooth,
that a mechanic fixes the car so it’s actually safe to drive on the highway,
that a chef at a restaurant serves edible food,
that a cashier gives me the correct change,
that a hairstylist tells me she won't dye my hair if it's too damaged, even if it means losing money right then,
that a plumber actually replaces the pipe instead of just charging for it,
and that a teacher actually teaches the child.

Now, I'm certainly no expert on surgery, plumbing, or pedagogy. I can't claim to be an authority on which literature is "best" (I can have a subjective opinion, but I'm not an expert), nor can I dictate what you all decide to feed your children.

If you think I'm naive or overly optimistic for believing that if I work honestly, the rest of the world should follow suit, then fine.
And I know that isn't how it works.
I see proof of that every single day.

I've heard all kinds of demands from parents.
I've heard teachers say, "I don't care, I know better than you," and I've also heard those who just hang their heads and give up—not just on teaching, but on life itself. They end up failing the kids too... like when a helicopter parent complains that their precious little one is "stressed," so the teacher decides to just stop trying altogether.

Parents aren't going to suddenly become more realistic or reasonable in ten years. Honestly, what are you thinking? 🤣
They might actually get worse, because they're being allowed to micromanage schools (just look at how pediatricians were allowed to bypass vaccinations, and now we're dealing with measles outbreaks).

I see disagreements even among literature professors regarding what reading material should be assigned, and I know that can lead to parental manipulation—where people exploit those academic debates to squeeze out better grades or even just to get their kid out of doing any work at all.
And I know there are teachers who simply check out, who welcome the helicopter parents because it's easier to say, "Oh, reading is just too traumatic for my child right now, can't we skip it?"—allowing the kids to just color during class instead of engaging with the book.
And of course, it opens the door for extra income through private tutoring (with a friend, naturally) or SAT prep later on. When you combine that with low salaries, this whole situation really feeds into the private tutoring market.
And let’s not forget how much the public gets fed misinformation just to serve whatever political agenda is currently in power.

I wouldn't say that; rather, I think you're being quite cynical, and honestly, your own arguments here are contributing to this whole culture of overbearing entitlement.

I expect a surgeon to operate on a person honestly.

Do you walk into a hospital and demand a surgeon treat your gallbladder because you’ve decided they actually need to look at your kidney instead? Or do you tell a professor exactly which book a student should read?
Do you expect an anesthesiologist to administer sedation when the patient hasn't even brought in the necessary lab results or completed the check-ups required for them to safely determine the dosage? Do you expect a doctor to cure someone who refuses to take their prescribed medication or follow a diet?
If the answer is no, then your comparison doesn't hold water.

that a dentist won't pull the wrong tooth.

Do you demand that a dentist pulls your molar instead of your premolar?
Or do you expect them to perform the procedure while you're thrashing around and screaming that you won't open your mouth?
If not, your analogy is off the mark.

that an auto mechanic fixes the car so it can drive on the road just like any other vehicle.

Do you tell your mechanic to fix the clutch when you're certain about one thing, but he insists the brakes are actually the problem? If not, your comparison fails.

that my chef at a restaurant cooks an edible meal.

Do you argue with the chef that the beef is actually turkey? If not, your comparison falls apart.

that a cashier gives me the correct change.

Do you decide the price of the product you're buying while standing at the register? If not, your comparison is flawed.

that my hairstylist tells me she won't dye my hair right now if it looks too damaged, even though she'd be losing money by saying no.

Now, that is the one comparison you actually got right. But even then, if you push hard enough, she will probably end up coloring it anyway—and then you'll just find a way to blame her for it.

I I want my plumber to actually swap out the pipe instead of just sending me a bill for the visit.

Are you actually specifying which pipe they use, its size, or what it’s made of? If you aren't giving them those details, then your comparison doesn't really hold water.

It's like my child's teacher trying to educate them.

But does that teacher also go through the struggle of wrestling with you, trying to convince you, explaining their reasoning, pleading with you, and justifying every single request they make to your kid?

If not, then keep expecting that level of control.
Think of it like this: I'm a hair stylist who might tell you that you don't really need to dye your hair, but if you insist on it, you're going to get the color you asked for. ☕

nimblelynx7 said:A little bit of objectivity never killed anyone.

No. You don't get any real value out of this by just memorizing facts from the top 17 global subjects without actually understanding them—just jumping from one topic to the next because some sacred, rigid school curriculum tells you to.

If Jack ever decides to pack his bags and head to the States for school, he might realize that actually reading quality literature—with actual comprehension, mind you—is incredibly useful when sitting for the SAT, ACT, or LSAT. Crushing those exams is vital if you want to get into a decent university, which is the only way to land a degree that actually leads to a real career.

I've been working through some of these practice tests. Yeah, reading comprehension definitely helps, but honestly? It’s the critical thinking that does the heavy lifting. It matters way more than just memorizing a bunch of dry, useless facts. As for the math—you're going to need everything from at least the first two years of high school.
Compared to our national SATs, it’s a joke. And if you look at the Chinese gaokao? Both are nothing more than a complete comedy.

Believe it or not, nobody there gives a damn about trivial nonsense or what Uzbekistan's GDP looks like. Those people who think they can just bluff their way through "important matters" by reciting things from memory? They aren't going to fare well.

I've been working through some of these practice tests. Yeah, reading comprehension definitely helps, but honestly? It’s the critical thinking that does the heavy lifting. It matters way more than just memorizing a bunch of dry, useless facts. As for the math—you're going to need everything from at least the first two years of high school.
Compared to our national SATs, it’s a joke. And if you look at the Chinese gaokao? Both are nothing more than a complete comedy.

Believe it or not, nobody there gives a damn about trivial nonsense or what Uzbekistan's GDP looks like. Those people who think they can just bluff their way through "important matters" by reciting things from memory? They aren't going to fare well.

I've been working through some of these practice tests. Yeah, reading comprehension definitely helps, but honestly? It’s the critical thinking that does the heavy lifting. It matters way more than just memorizing a bunch of dry, useless facts. As for the math—you're going to need everything from at least the first two years of high school.
Compared to our national SATs, it’s a joke. And if you look at the Chinese gaokao? Both are nothing more than a complete comedy.

Believe it or not, nobody there gives a damn about trivial nonsense or what Uzbekistan's GDP looks like. Those people who think they can just bluff their way through "important matters" by reciting things from memory? They aren't going to fare well.
I honestly can't wrap my head around how you even begin a conversation with someone who truly believes that picking one out of four multiple-choice options is some kind of gold standard for measuring actual skill or expertise—and I don't even mean the tricky questions, just the basic ones.

I guess I'm just at a loss.