What's the point of required reading?

Elizabeth Fowler46 said:I’d bet my life savings that my professor hadn't even cracked half the books she was lecturing about, especially when it came to the world classics. 😁

So, what's the logic here? Just because someone likes a book, it means it deserves a permanent spot on the syllabus? 😁

It isn't just about personal taste, though. Books like Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary dive deep into themes of infidelity and morality, and somehow, they still manage to win over the reader by the end.

plus Madame Bovary is an absolute masterclass in writing. The author actually bet that any subject matter, no matter how trivial, could be elevated through excellent form, so he chose a topic he found personally "revolting"—the tedious life of a small-town woman and her endless craving for luxury.

One more thing...
Apparently, 62% of Britons lie about having read the great classics...
It might be even worse here in America.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/b...ic-novels.html

Larry Walker24 said:What’s even the point of reading the death of a historical figure?! That book is straight-up disgusting.

Look, the whole point is to actually pay attention to the language itself—it gets students thinking about how much a language can evolve over time.
Plus, there's the moral of the story, which basically hammers home that every single crime will eventually be caught and punished.
And don't forget the heavy-hitting characters in the poem; they're incredibly well-drawn.
You've also got all the technical literary stuff to dig into—meter, verse, epic structure, those big-picture themes...
There's plenty more where that came from, but honestly, that’s enough for now.
If you can pull just one meaningful insight out of this "disgusting" book, then Mažuranić didn't go through all that struggle for nothing.

I absolutely loathed Proust and his damn *In Search of Lost Time*. Back when I had to read him for school, I remember thinking, "Is this guy seriously just obsessing over toast and jam?" Honestly, those little madeleines were pure torture to me. I also couldn't stand *Germinal* or *Crime and Punishment*. They were just way too dark for my taste at the time. ☕

Larry Walker24 said:What’s even the point of reading the death of a historical figure?! That book is straight-up disgusting.

Back when I was in high school, my professor told me that Mazuranic basically ripped off that epic from Njegos and just did a little bit of "editing" on it—which is a totally proven fact (not going into details here)—but everyone stayed quiet about it because of the need for national unity and social cohesion 😁 regarding the matter.

Regardless, based on what my professor said, I actually found the death of Samil aga Čengić to be an interesting read, and I certainly didn't regret spending my time on it.

Personal preferences aside, I think elementary school reading lists should focus on helping kids actually fall in love with reading—making it accessible while gradually broadening their horizons. By high school, the goal should be tackling the classics and truly significant works. Whether we personally enjoy them or not, you can't really argue a position on something you haven't actually read 😁
. Unfortunately, for most people, assigned school readings will likely be the only books they ever finish, especially if you don't count the stuff picked up at a drugstore or airport kiosk.

rowdypanther12 said:Personal preferences aside, I think elementary school reading lists should focus on helping kids actually fall in love with reading—making it accessible while gradually broadening their horizons. By high school, the goal should be tackling the classics and truly significant works. Whether we personally enjoy them or not, you can't really argue a position on something you haven't actually read 😁
. Unfortunately, for most people, assigned school readings will likely be the only books they ever finish, especially if you don't count the stuff picked up at a drugstore or airport kiosk.

True, but you have to admit that part of the blame lies with the reading lists themselves 😁
.

Elizabeth Fowler46 said:True, but you have to admit that part of the blame lies with the reading lists themselves 😁
.

Unfortunately, that's exactly right.

A significant portion of the blame lies with incompetent professors who simply lack the ability—or the desire—to make classic literature resonate with their students...

James Perez54 said:Unfortunately, that's exactly right.

A significant portion of the blame lies with incompetent professors who simply lack the ability—or the desire—to make classic literature resonate with their students...

Exactly—it’s just like how people who struggle with math often face the brunt of the blame when their teachers failed to properly introduce them to basic intervals.
Honestly, I don't understand where this obsession comes from regarding whether children "must" love reading; some kids will enjoy it, and others won't, and that's just life.
Children who already possess an affinity for reading will naturally find the curriculum easier to navigate than those who don't, but you can't force that spark.
The required reading list isn't to blame for a lack of interest in books.
When I talk about high school reading lists, I'm referring to a curated collection of the finest literary works ever produced, organized chronologically so that any true lover of literature can always find something profound and engaging.
In elementary school, the selections are age-appropriate—some might be dull and others fun—but I find it utterly baffling that people think school holds more influence over a child's interest in books than, say, their own parents do.
At its core, required reading is just a monthly assignment to be completed, and there is no logical way it could serve as the primary or most decisive driver for a lifelong passion for reading; I hope it's clear to everyone just how absurd it is to expect such a thing.

p.s. I should also mention that the death of Smail aga Cengica is an exceptionally well-written epic.

Jamie Davis9 said:Exactly—it’s just like how people who struggle with math often face the brunt of the blame when their teachers failed to properly introduce them to basic intervals.
Honestly, I don't understand where this obsession comes from regarding whether children "must" love reading; some kids will enjoy it, and others won't, and that's just life.
Children who already possess an affinity for reading will naturally find the curriculum easier to navigate than those who don't, but you can't force that spark.
The required reading list isn't to blame for a lack of interest in books.
When I talk about high school reading lists, I'm referring to a curated collection of the finest literary works ever produced, organized chronologically so that any true lover of literature can always find something profound and engaging.
In elementary school, the selections are age-appropriate—some might be dull and others fun—but I find it utterly baffling that people think school holds more influence over a child's interest in books than, say, their own parents do.
At its core, required reading is just a monthly assignment to be completed, and there is no logical way it could serve as the primary or most decisive driver for a lifelong passion for reading; I hope it's clear to everyone just how absurd it is to expect such a thing.

p.s. I should also mention that the death of Smail aga Cengica is an exceptionally well-written epic.

Oh, come on... 😲 How can you pin the blame on educators just because some kids aren't interested or simply struggle to learn? 😁

.....

So, we're saying the required reading list is basically a perfect cross-section of everything great, based on what—exactly? Are we really claiming these specific books are the absolute best, and there isn't a single other piece of literature out there that's just as good, or even better, and actually more engaging for kids today?

And honestly, schools should be doing their part to get kids excited about reading. I mean, think about the kids who don't have parents at home who prioritize books or even have the chance to be well-educated themselves. If they don't grow up loving stories, what are we supposed to do? Just say "too bad" and leave them behind?

Jason Ortiz5 said:Oh, come on... 😲 How can you pin the blame on educators just because some kids aren't interested or simply struggle to learn? 😁

.....

So, we're saying the required reading list is basically a perfect cross-section of everything great, based on what—exactly? Are we really claiming these specific books are the absolute best, and there isn't a single other piece of literature out there that's just as good, or even better, and actually more engaging for kids today?

And honestly, schools should be doing their part to get kids excited about reading. I mean, think about the kids who don't have parents at home who prioritize books or even have the chance to be well-educated themselves. If they don't grow up loving stories, what are we supposed to do? Just say "too bad" and leave them behind?

Actually, I disagree.
The whole point of required reading is to give students a roadmap of literary movements, history, theory, language, and the specific styles that defined different eras.
We pick these specific works because they’re the clearest examples of those concepts in action. It's about teaching the fundamentals through representative classics.

In my opinion, required reading should be about sparking a love for books, not just forcing kids to study more stuff they already covered in class.
I’m talking about elementary schoolers here; high schoolers should probably just grit their teeth and finish what they don't feel like reading 😁

To be honest, I have no clue what the current reading list looks like, but from what I saw a few years back, they seem way better than they were when I was in school 😁

amberskipper3 said:Actually, I disagree.
The whole point of required reading is to give students a roadmap of literary movements, history, theory, language, and the specific styles that defined different eras.
We pick these specific works because they’re the clearest examples of those concepts in action. It's about teaching the fundamentals through representative classics.

And why shouldn't required reading give students a chance to see what's actually being published today?

Why couldn't one part of the curriculum be about the historical evolution of literature, while another massive chunk focuses on modern and contemporary works?

Right now, the reading lists basically stop at the start of the 20th century—I don't even think they touch anything from the interwar period... contemporary stuff is totally ignored.
When it comes to that level of depth, you barely even get it in college.

I'm really curious to hear your take on why things are stuck this way.
To me, it feels like everyone would much rather dive into books they can actually relate to—stories that tackle the issues we face right now or look at morality through a modern lens.

I don't see any good reason for this other than pure laziness from the people designing the curriculum, who just keep pushing this same old "historical overview" model even though plenty of experts in the field aren't on board with it at all.

I can't really say about the elementary school books, but they sound pretty solid to me. My daughter is always the one complaining that they're either way too short or just plain boring (she especially lost it back in first grade when we got The Goosebumps—she thought it was such a baby book). And then, when she saw Coco and Ghost in fifth grade, she actually made a huge scene about how she was NOT reading it! Honestly, she watched the movie and was absolutely terrified—it took her three nights of wandering into my bed because of the nightmares... 🤣 )

Jason Ortiz5 said:Oh, come on... 😲 How can you pin the blame on educators just because some kids aren't interested or simply struggle to learn? 😁

.....

So, we're saying the required reading list is basically a perfect cross-section of everything great, based on what—exactly? Are we really claiming these specific books are the absolute best, and there isn't a single other piece of literature out there that's just as good, or even better, and actually more engaging for kids today?

And honestly, schools should be doing their part to get kids excited about reading. I mean, think about the kids who don't have parents at home who prioritize books or even have the chance to be well-educated themselves. If they don't grow up loving stories, what are we supposed to do? Just say "too bad" and leave them behind?

The reality is that some children, much like certain adults, are simply ill-equipped to handle certain subjects or complexities. It is perfectly legitimate to find oneself incapable of grasping certain things.
Of course, having a talented teacher matters; dedication and quality are vital in any profession. However, a passion for reading is also a matter of individual inclination, personal capacity, and the habits formed during one's formative years—which ultimately falls on the shoulders of parental guidance and how they nurture their child's interests. 🙂

amberskipper3 said:Actually, I disagree.
The whole point of required reading is to give students a roadmap of literary movements, history, theory, language, and the specific styles that defined different eras.
We pick these specific works because they’re the clearest examples of those concepts in action. It's about teaching the fundamentals through representative classics.

Actually, it is.
The teacher chooses the curriculum, keeping in mind about fifteen titles designated for the SATs, a list that shifts from year to year. Given that, as a teacher, you actually have quite a bit of freedom to select many other works within the prescribed syllabus. As anyone working in American education knows, that syllabus is incredibly vast and rich; it certainly includes a wide array of stimulating, masterfully written pieces that leave lasting impressions on readers. For more ambitious or curious students, the curriculum can even be expanded with additional, equally or even more high-quality content. 🙂

amberskipper3 said:Actually, I disagree.
The whole point of required reading is to give students a roadmap of literary movements, history, theory, language, and the specific styles that defined different eras.
We pick these specific works because they’re the clearest examples of those concepts in action. It's about teaching the fundamentals through representative classics.

But why?
Why can't we just cover excerpts in textbooks instead? That’s how we handle historical periods anyway—it’s not like one single author defines an entire era we're studying for class. Maybe required reading could just be for deep analysis?

One more thing to consider: look at how we live today and all the other media out there.
Everything is moving forward. It feels like that list of mandatory books is stuck somewhere back in the last century.😬

Jamie Davis9 said:The reality is that some children, much like certain adults, are simply ill-equipped to handle certain subjects or complexities. It is perfectly legitimate to find oneself incapable of grasping certain things.
Of course, having a talented teacher matters; dedication and quality are vital in any profession. However, a passion for reading is also a matter of individual inclination, personal capacity, and the habits formed during one's formative years—which ultimately falls on the shoulders of parental guidance and how they nurture their child's interests. 🙂

Actually, it is.
The teacher chooses the curriculum, keeping in mind about fifteen titles designated for the SATs, a list that shifts from year to year. Given that, as a teacher, you actually have quite a bit of freedom to select many other works within the prescribed syllabus. As anyone working in American education knows, that syllabus is incredibly vast and rich; it certainly includes a wide array of stimulating, masterfully written pieces that leave lasting impressions on readers. For more ambitious or curious students, the curriculum can even be expanded with additional, equally or even more high-quality content. 🙂

Great.
That's exactly why we have different types of schools and specialized programs; otherwise, everyone would just be stuck in prep school.
But tell me—why is it that about 90% of the required reading list is identical across all high schools?
I mean, back when I was in prep school, I only had to read specific chapters of the Iliad, the Odyssey, or the Bible... meanwhile, my cousin in vocational school was actually forced to read the entire Iliad and Odyssey from cover to cover. 😕

Jamie Davis9 said:Exactly—it’s just like how people who struggle with math often face the brunt of the blame when their teachers failed to properly introduce them to basic intervals.
Honestly, I don't understand where this obsession comes from regarding whether children "must" love reading; some kids will enjoy it, and others won't, and that's just life.
Children who already possess an affinity for reading will naturally find the curriculum easier to navigate than those who don't, but you can't force that spark.
The required reading list isn't to blame for a lack of interest in books.
When I talk about high school reading lists, I'm referring to a curated collection of the finest literary works ever produced, organized chronologically so that any true lover of literature can always find something profound and engaging.
In elementary school, the selections are age-appropriate—some might be dull and others fun—but I find it utterly baffling that people think school holds more influence over a child's interest in books than, say, their own parents do.
At its core, required reading is just a monthly assignment to be completed, and there is no logical way it could serve as the primary or most decisive driver for a lifelong passion for reading; I hope it's clear to everyone just how absurd it is to expect such a thing.

p.s. I should also mention that the death of Smail aga Cengica is an exceptionally well-written epic.

how yes no.

There are more of us who have already pointed this out in this thread, but take me as an example: back in elementary school, I absolutely devoured books and read anything I could get my hands on. Some assignments were great, others were boring, but none of them made me hate reading

High school, however, totally wrecked me.
Literally. The mandatory reading lists made me loathe reading so much that I didn't touch a book for ten years—mostly because I simply didn't have to!

And honestly, a ton of people in real life will tell you the same thing. From the person working at the local newsstand to highly educated professionals... ☕

In this era we live in, where digital media and online content are becoming increasingly dominant in our daily lives, sticking to these traditional reading lists feels like doing a disservice to students.

Whether experts agree or not, that's just how it is.

Peter Doyle2 said:Great.
That's exactly why we have different types of schools and specialized programs; otherwise, everyone would just be stuck in prep school.
But tell me—why is it that about 90% of the required reading list is identical across all high schools?
I mean, back when I was in prep school, I only had to read specific chapters of the Iliad, the Odyssey, or the Bible... meanwhile, my cousin in vocational school was actually forced to read the entire Iliad and Odyssey from cover to cover. 😕

Look, let's be realistic here: the SAT might set some general boundaries regarding what's prioritized within the curriculum, but we’re talking about maybe fifteen core works. Since that list shifts every single year, there is absolutely zero guarantee that the potential essay topics we're looking at this year will even matter by next season.
When you really step back and look at the reality of the situation, there isn't actually any regulation or formal mandate that would force you, in your capacity as an instructor, to prioritize someone like Slobodan Novak over Ranko Marinković—or, if we're looking at the classics, choosing Faulkner over Proust, or maybe Goethe instead of Lermontov. 🤷

While the curriculum in academic high schools tends to be more extensive than what you see in vocational schools, there are certain incredibly dedicated and hardworking teachers—some of whom I actually know personally—who have gone out of their way to coordinate with their students to expand the vocational syllabus. They do this specifically so that when it comes time for the national standardized exams, those vocational students aren't left at a disadvantage and can stand on equal footing with the academic crowd regarding the material they've mastered.

I honestly can't wrap my head around why your little brother was forced to slog through the entirety of the Iliad and the Odyssey; it seems like an utterly unnecessary burden to place on a kid.
Either there’s a complete lunatic running the lecture hall, or he simply lost his grip on reality and made a massive blunder. 🙂

Peter Doyle2 said:how yes no.

There are more of us who have already pointed this out in this thread, but take me as an example: back in elementary school, I absolutely devoured books and read anything I could get my hands on. Some assignments were great, others were boring, but none of them made me hate reading

High school, however, totally wrecked me.
Literally. The mandatory reading lists made me loathe reading so much that I didn't touch a book for ten years—mostly because I simply didn't have to!

And honestly, a ton of people in real life will tell you the same thing. From the person working at the local newsstand to highly educated professionals... ☕

In this era we live in, where digital media and online content are becoming increasingly dominant in our daily lives, sticking to these traditional reading lists feels like doing a disservice to students.

Whether experts agree or not, that's just how it is.

For the seventeenth time now, there is no such thing as a fixed reading list. There are countless classics from American and world literature out there, and you can always—no, you absolutely should—find something captivating within them. As a student, nobody is restricting you; you should be free to reach for whatever sparks your interest and feels worth reading.
It’s clear you just can't stand reading, and honestly, there's nothing wrong with that.

From a professional standpoint, it's quite irrelevant whether you, La_Luni, have zero interest in books. My expertise actually supports your right to embrace whatever makes you happy as an adult, regardless of how much you avoid literature. 🙂

So, are you saying someone who isn't into assigned reading automatically hates quotes? 😂
I mean, looking at the choices you made—picking Faulkner over Proust—it wasn't just a bad call, it was a total disaster. 🤷

No, what I’m actually trying to get at is that if someone doesn't enjoy reading, they aren't going to enjoy it regardless of what's on the syllabus. On the flip side, anyone who actually likes getting lost in a book will always find something that resonates within the rich, diverse tapestry of an American English curriculum, and even the mandatory assignments won't be so overwhelming that they'll make them want to quit reading for the next decade. 🙂

As for my second point, I think it should be perfectly obvious that those examples were meant to illustrate the fact that the curriculum doesn't mandate a specific list of ten authors or their works; there simply isn't such a fixed roster.
Sure, Faulkner isn't everyone's cup of tea, and Proust is even more niche, but then again, neither are algorithms, wave interference patterns, or dispersive systems, so I fail to see why that should be treated as some sort of crisis.