What's the point of required reading?

Larry Walker24 said:And let's be real—to some 15-year-old kid scrolling Twitter, obsessed with the Kardashians and nothing else, this stuff feels totally alien. To them, it's just old junk that doesn't fit their 21st-century vibe.

Some random IT guy is gonna be making bank one day, but he sure as hell isn't gonna get rich by reading Judas.

You guys act like you've been living under a rock for the last 20 years or something.🤦

Honestly, what is your problem?

Look, if you don't like reading, haven't read it, and think Judith is garbage—and I mean the whole thing, all thirty pages of poetry including the footnotes that take up half the page—then fine. But you can't claim to value the mindless scrolling of a teenager and then foam at the mouth like you're on some heavy medication. Tell me, does this logic only apply to literature, or does it extend to, say, biology too? Try swapping out Judith's name for "gymnosperms" or "insects" in that sentence of yours and see how it sounds. 🤷

High school isn't mandatory. ☕

Nah, look at Judith. She’s the perfect example because even Djokovic was shouting about it on Open TV—how she isn't some holy grail of knowledge anymore. So yeah, Judith.

Back when I was grinding through Biochemistry II at state university, dealing with those endless cycles where you have to memorize every single structural formula and a million different enzymes—like phosphofructokinase and how all that regulation works—Judith didn't help one bit. Honestly, I didn't even need her.

Larry Walker24 said:🤦🤦🤦🤦🤦 🤦🤦

Try spending one single class period with them where they’re clearly smarter than you. They're jumping over desks, slamming stuff against the walls, and they literally don't give a damn about anything. And thanks to the laws here, you can't even kick them out, and all those warnings or threats of suspension don't mean squat. You really think you could get them interested in some book about Judith

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhaahahah

Tell them, I don't know, tell them Judith was a total slut, and watch how fast everyone starts paying attention.

I'm telling you again, it's not the same teaching American Lit at a prep school where kids actually try, versus a school where people enroll just because they barely scraped by with passing grades.

Look, man... it’s pretty obvious now that you haven't actually sat down and read Judith's work. 😁

wanderingbadger44 said:Honestly, what is your problem?

Look, if you don't like reading, haven't read it, and think Judith is garbage—and I mean the whole thing, all thirty pages of poetry including the footnotes that take up half the page—then fine. But you can't claim to value the mindless scrolling of a teenager and then foam at the mouth like you're on some heavy medication. Tell me, does this logic only apply to literature, or does it extend to, say, biology too? Try swapping out Judith's name for "gymnosperms" or "insects" in that sentence of yours and see how it sounds. 🤷

High school isn't mandatory. ☕

I love reading, but I'm not touching Quincy or that trashy Cengic.

Yeah, it applies to biology and chem too—male generations, female generations, whatever weird niche stuff you want to study, fine. Whatever.

wanderingbadger44 said:Look, man... it’s pretty obvious now that you haven't actually sat down and read Judith's work. 😁

Nah, because when I was 15, I didn't give a damn about 🙂

I'm telling you, if you told high schoolers who just started at a public school that they're working on a book where the main character is a total scumbag, see how much they'd actually care.

Just wait until your kids hit puberty, then you can ask them if they'd rather study Quincy or just scroll through porn all day!

Easy for you to talk now.

Honestly, my college experience was the exact same—just endless mitosis and meiosis lectures where our biology professor basically brainwashed us, and if you didn't nail it, you were stuck in summer school. And let’s be real, unless you went into biology (oops, there wasn't a single person in my class who did!) or med school (there was exactly one person!), none of that ever mattered again in our lives. ☕
Let's just ditch all of it together, along with Judith and those folks. We could even toss out those three-mile-long physics proofs I spent hours memorizing like I was tracing Chinese characters—just rote learning letter by letter without having the slightest clue who was doing what to whom or why. Sound like a plan? ☕

The only thing I’ll say about Judith is that kids are given these works at the wrong time. I remember reading her back at the start of high school and cursing everything under the sun—Judith, Shakespeare, even the classics—because I couldn't get it. I actually had to hunt down a version with a translation guide instead of the original just so I could make sense of a single sentence.
And then, through some weird twist of fate, I ended up choosing her as my senior thesis (well, a third of it, technically, but still). I tackled it when I was eighteen, with four years of literature studies finally under my belt. I still keep that little book; I practically vandalized it with highlighters, Post-its, and handwritten footnotes because I was actually soaking in every single word. I finally knew how to appreciate it in a way I definitely didn't two years prior. Now, every once in a while, I’ll pull out specific passages and just sit there, marveling at the sheer mastery of the writing.

Look, let’s get one thing straight—I actually liked literature. Not every single era or movement, obviously, but yeah, overall I was into it.

Just look back at what I posted a few months ago:

Seriously, what are we even doing with English classes? Look, I don't teach at a high school, but I deal with kids who can't even put together a basic sentence during an oral exam. I even have a kid of mine who’s basically illiterate—everything is written in lowercase and they need special accommodations just for standard grammar. How is it even possible for these kids to finish eight years of elementary school English and still not know how to read? I literally had to ask them to read five sentences from a textbook, and they were basically spelling it out letter by letter. It was pathetic. If English is this much of a disaster everywhere else, then the subject is officially a lost cause.

But hey, why bother? As long as the curtains match the ruby color, everything is fine, right? 🤦

When it comes to teaching American literature, we’re basically following the same flawed playbook your professor used: we're just letting students pass through without actually learning how to write.

wanderingbadger44 said:When it comes to teaching American literature, we’re basically following the same flawed playbook your professor used: we're just letting students pass through without actually learning how to write.

signature

silentraven6 said:It’s honestly not a good idea to get lazy in the long run if we want our standardized testing and high school graduation exams to actually mean something. I don't want us reaching a point where they base everything on trivial nonsense—like asking which song was playing in the background during that scene in *Olga* and *Lina* when they find the piano, or what color flower Julia had tucked in her hair when Romeo first saw her, or even what shade of blue the sky was in *Romeo and Juliet*. We need substance, not trivia.

The worst part about all this is that people start asking these kinds of questions before they’ve even sat kids down to explain what the symbols mean. They don't bother pointing out those specific moments that actually deserve extra attention—whether it's within the pacing, the overall work, or just the flow of the action itself.

The fundamental question really comes down to this: what is the actual purpose of required reading, and who exactly gets to decide which books earn the title of "classic," "canonical," or a "masterpiece"?

Like I’ve said before, what actually makes up "the canon" isn't some fixed, holy truth. It’s really just whatever the zeitgeist decides it is at any given moment. You’ve got groups of hyper-focused literary historians—including those self-proclaimed "experts" who act like they discovered everything yesterday—as well as the academic establishment (usually those folks over at the Academy of Sciences who, let's be honest, often lacked any real teaching intuition even back when they were lecturing at universities). Then you have the social order shaped by ideology, and even small circles of dedicated humanists who are genuinely trying to make a difference. The canon is always being re-evaluated. It isn't some untouchable, sacred category that stays frozen for centuries; it never has been in history. Throughout time, the selection of canonical authors and works has been swayed by all sorts of phenomena—most often that pedagogical and didactic element used to serve specific ideologies, certain ways of teaching, or particular methods of study.

I honestly can't get behind this whole idea that kids today are lazier than previous generations just because of how they handle required reading. Let's be real here—kids have always been lazy. Every single one of us knows that. I'm 34 years old now, and even back then, only a tiny fraction of us actually sat down to read entire books from cover to cover, let alone any extra stuff. If anything, I think it was even worse in the past. Remember those ridiculous reading logs? Those massive 25-page booklets where you had to list everything you "read"? Half the time, it was just moms sitting there filling them out for their kids. It was a total sham. Nowadays, with the way written tests are structured, it’s much harder to cheat like that. It feels like the focus has shifted toward actual discussion and dialogue about the books, which is a much better way to see if someone actually engaged with the story.

That’s a whole different conversation: what even qualifies as "required reading," and what is its actual purpose? Does it really need to be confined strictly to American literature classes?

It feels like we’re constantly trying to justify ourselves by clinging to the canon. We act like because we forced these books down everyone's throats, and they turn out to be terrible or just too much work to actually read, then it’s somehow not our fault. It's like we're shifting the blame. A massive group of people decided that ten specific works were "masterpieces" just because of some high-brow artistic label, but most people don't want them. To them, it's all just a chore—too heavy, too tedious, just plain exhausting. It’s honestly a bit pathetic.

We basically washed our hands of their whole reading culture. I mean, the entire idea behind required school reading was to cultivate a genuine love for books, to sharpen aesthetic judgment, and to build up critical thinking skills—not just to serve as a dry history lesson on literature.

My favorite type of people are those who constantly lecture everyone else about "the classics," even though they only ever cracked them open because it was required for a high school English credit and haven't touched them since. Seriously, how is that even considered reading? How is that supposed to be a love for literature? About 90% of these critics—the ones calling everyone else lazy for skipping the old stuff—have never actually picked up one of those books again, let alone explored another work by the same author. They remind me of those religious types who swear by the Bible but haven't read a single actual letter from it unless they're hearing it read aloud during a sermon at church.

The whole idea that Americans don't read? Honestly, I think that’s complete nonsense. It's just not true. You can't look at a claim like that and call it a valid data point when you aren't even accounting for all the variables. People are reading; they're just doing it differently than how some folks might expect.

When you look at the data, most people focus on book acquisitions or, more recently, how libraries are adding physical media to their collections. But honestly, even that doesn't give you the full picture. It’s impossible to get an accurate sense of the actual state of things because not every library is integrated into the central database—like the Library of Congress system. You also end up missing out on private exchanges between institutions, small local home libraries, and we’ve only just started accounting for alternative sources like e-readers. There are just too many gaps in the data to say we have the whole story.
Also, what can we actually say about library access across the US? Does anyone here actually know what the situation looks like on the ground? I’m curious how well-equipped school libraries in smaller towns really are—specifically regarding collections that aren't just strictly required reading lists. What are they doing to actually encourage kids to read for pleasure? Are librarians in those smaller communities taking the initiative to build up their own little collections to spark some interest in the smallest readers?

I could be really mean here and say that if my kid wanted to find something beyond the required reading list, he’d first have to hunt down a librarian somewhere in the school hallways and try to actually strike up a conversation that isn't just, "Hey, I need this for class." But honestly, I know that's not how it works, and I truly respect the work librarians do all over the US. They run such incredible programs and workshops. How many of them are doing that kind of heavy lifting? I don't know, but it feels like there aren't nearly enough. On one hand, you have my life in a place like Chicago—I'm basically a professional bibliophile who spends way more time tucked away in libraries than the average person. I feel at home in them. Instead of grabbing coffee on a busy street corner, I’d much rather be sitting in a library, reading, working, or just chatting with the staff. But then there's the rest of the country. There's the issue of accessibility, the actual availability of books, and the reality that for a lot of people, purchasing power is just too low to make reading an easy choice.

And why on earth should reading assignments be confined strictly to English class? If we’re actually serious about encouraging people to read—if we really care about preserving literary history, the canon, and all that other stuff—then we can do it during math, history, or physics too. Think about the massive potential hidden in the papers of legendary physicists. Honestly, let's stop this constant brainwashing in English class that strips the subject of its actual purpose. Let them read in the original languages they're learning in school; let them dive into scientific papers, essays, or even feuilletons. It’s absurd to act like English class is the only way to spark an interest in reading, or like reading is nothing more than just picking up a piece of fiction.

so—they're lazy.

😬

Maybe laziness isn't quite the right way to put it... our kids aren't stupid, but they seem to be getting increasingly duller with every generation—from every angle. It starts with parents who constantly lean on teachers because an exam feels "too hard" or because the material isn't explicitly in the textbook and such.

And yeah, the SATs show this perfectly. Just think back to that incredibly basic math problem from the standard level that 12,000 students couldn't solve. My niece took her biology exam last year. It used to be a subject for straight-A students until they overhauled the curriculum to focus on logic and reasoning—one question actually featured a picture of a road sign, a triangle with a frog on it. You have to believe that most seniors were complaining about that specific question because the MATERIAL WASN'T IN THE TEXTBOOK?! The English exams had questions along those same lines—you just had to think a little bit, but how are these kids supposed to think when nobody has asked them to do so for twelve years?

And no, I don't believe Americans read—I mean, research can never be perfect, but the only statistics we actually have support what they show. That seems a lot more credible to me than anyone's individual anecdotes.

silentraven6 said:Smart, if you’re going back to Kafka, I’d suggest checking out Castle 🙂

Regarding the whole debate about academic high schools versus vocational schools—honestly, the reading list shouldn't be so massive that it dictates someone's SAT scores or their entire grasp of general culture. Sure, there needs to be a core set of universal classics, but the lists should also be curated in a way that actually encourages a chef or a mechanic to pick up a book. I don't care how it happens, as long as they eventually stumble upon something high-quality.

And frankly, screw the prestige of academic high schools and all those snobby vibes about them being the breeding ground for "new intellectuals." I've lost count of how many times life has thrown people my way who never even stepped foot in a prep school or finished college, yet the literature they read is honestly enviable.

But look, if you actually wanted to put together a solid reading list for, say, future engineers, electricians, or mechanics—people you'd want to inspire to pick up a book after they've spent all day getting their hands greasy under an engine block—you’d have to be a clever researcher who genuinely loves literature.

I'm not sure if you've seen that Prince series. That guy can teach kids more in a single hour than some history professor manages in their entire career.

And if you'll excuse me, most shows about books and literature are either scheduled at ridiculous hours or are just totally inappropriate for younger audiences.

Nowadays, you get one hit series that inspires people to read so much you can't even find a decent book at the local library for months.

But the gap unfortunately does exist.

The national standardized tests aren't mandatory for vocational students; they're designed for the prep school crowd. It is what it is.

wanderingbadger44 said:Don't turn this around on my ability to understand what's being said—I just don't buy the story that people were getting failing marks simply because they disliked a piece of art. I wasn't trying to call you a liar, per se.

None of us believed it either, at least not during those first few required readings.

rowdypanther12 said:I can’t believe I actually heard someone say, "Ladies, if you don't agree with him (Aristotle), then you clearly haven't understood him. See you next semester."
I honestly have no idea if she actually got it or not, but he certainly doesn't know either since he didn't ask a single follow-up question after that.
I used to have professors who actually encouraged debate, but I can only imagine being handed an F just because you dared to suggest Karenina might have been a bit foolish.

I don't have to imagine it. I've seen it happen.

I pretty much coasted through my American schooling, from elementary all the way through high school.

My homework assignments were always straight A's—my teacher even told me I was the best in the class—but this leftover crap? I couldn't be bothered to read it.

It’s not like I wasn't reading back then, though.

I’d dive into stuff like the Ku Klux Klan, spending 10,000 days in Siberia, terror and contempt in Las Vegas, or the history of the Gestapo... but damn, none of that was on the syllabus. Honestly, if I remember correctly, the only actual book I finished for school was The Old Man and the Sea.

I’m not even going to bother replying to the rest of you forum folks, because you've mostly hit the nail on the head regarding the core issues, especially Poison when talking about how brain-dead kids are these days.

I’m pretty sure the subject is actually called American Language!🤔😁
People seriously need to learn how to write properly in it!🙂
Can even the eighth graders write a decent sentence, or is it just all talk?😠
And besides, what do you actually get out of reading those required books?
If someone genuinely loves reading, they'll pick up a book on their own, but there's absolutely no point in forcing it on them!☕

Look, if someone actually wants to go to school, let them live their life, but don't go forcing it on them.

The kid thought the book was "trash," so they figured they didn't have to answer any questions about it on their reading log or explain their reasoning—and the parent was totally fine with that.

A child shouldn't be the one deciding how they're raised and educated, whether it's the parent or the teacher.

It’s actually pretty funny to me how we went from a post where a dad was bragging about getting a C in third grade all the way to a deep debate about high school reading lists and the deeper meaning of *Judith*.
First off, high school isn't mandatory, and you definitely aren't forced to read *Judith*.
Second, if someone hasn't developed a love for reading or picked up the habit by the time they hit high school, they probably shouldn't be heading to high school at all—especially not a prep school.
But here’s my main point, speaking strictly as a parent: it honestly scares me how little kids read in the elementary years. We assign reading just once a month, yet with all the books and translations available today, school has become so simplified that it’s basically training kids to be uninformed. They're being raised to show zero interest in anything beyond the bare minimum required for class, and frankly, the requirements are so low it's terrifying.
Not to mention, the reading lists for every grade are public on the library websites. Usually, there's only one mandatory book, and everything else is left up to the teacher's discretion. I mean, what would happen to a poor kid if they actually tried to read that entire list? There are plenty of fascinating stories out there, sure, but there are also some dull ones—that's just part of life.
It's about practicing grammar, capitalization, and building a solid vocabulary.
If they don't pick those skills up in the lower grades, they never will.

As a parent, I make sure to bring home or buy books for my child. My kid reads because we read at home, too, and we’ve been reading together since they were tiny.
Honestly, I feel bad for the school system and for other parents and their kids.

But look, if teachers actually want kids to learn something, they can't just leave it all up to the parents or shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, the kids don't want to, and the parents aren't helping."

At the end of the day, some people are raising the next generation of leaders, while others are just raising people who will be easily manipulated.
Cheers!🙂

(The only real issue is who’s going to foot the bill for the teachers... especially their pensions...🙂).

Regardless, reading is a great thing, even when the books themselves are a bit lackluster.

Susan James said:It’s actually pretty funny to me how we went from a post where a dad was bragging about getting a C in third grade all the way to a deep debate about high school reading lists and the deeper meaning of *Judith*.
First off, high school isn't mandatory, and you definitely aren't forced to read *Judith*.
Second, if someone hasn't developed a love for reading or picked up the habit by the time they hit high school, they probably shouldn't be heading to high school at all—especially not a prep school.
But here’s my main point, speaking strictly as a parent: it honestly scares me how little kids read in the elementary years. We assign reading just once a month, yet with all the books and translations available today, school has become so simplified that it’s basically training kids to be uninformed. They're being raised to show zero interest in anything beyond the bare minimum required for class, and frankly, the requirements are so low it's terrifying.
Not to mention, the reading lists for every grade are public on the library websites. Usually, there's only one mandatory book, and everything else is left up to the teacher's discretion. I mean, what would happen to a poor kid if they actually tried to read that entire list? There are plenty of fascinating stories out there, sure, but there are also some dull ones—that's just part of life.
It's about practicing grammar, capitalization, and building a solid vocabulary.
If they don't pick those skills up in the lower grades, they never will.

As a parent, I make sure to bring home or buy books for my child. My kid reads because we read at home, too, and we’ve been reading together since they were tiny.
Honestly, I feel bad for the school system and for other parents and their kids.

But look, if teachers actually want kids to learn something, they can't just leave it all up to the parents or shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, the kids don't want to, and the parents aren't helping."

At the end of the day, some people are raising the next generation of leaders, while others are just raising people who will be easily manipulated.
Cheers!🙂

(The only real issue is who’s going to foot the bill for the teachers... especially their pensions...🙂).

Regardless, reading is a great thing, even when the books themselves are a bit lackluster.

For heaven's sake, please explain to me why it would be in a teacher's best interest to force a child to learn something specifically when it goes against what the parent wants. I am genuinely asking you to walk me through that logic.

What exactly is this supposed "teacher's interest" you're talking about?

I could certainly give you plenty of examples regarding a teacher's interest in not pushing back against a parent's wishes.

But I want you to tell me: what is my personal incentive to insist on something that contradicts a parent's will?

Why on earth would I try to force biology on Manchild's kid or John Doe's child—using those specific names Manchild mentioned—or push Faulkner, when at the end of the day, the parent is the customer, and we all know the old adage that the customer is always right?

I clearly see how it benefits society and the community for children to read, to become literate, and to grow more educated. But as for my own personal gain, kill me now, because I simply don't see any.

And if society has such an interest, then society should have the mechanisms in place to make it happen. Instead, society ties my hands behind my back and then expects me to act like it's my personal mission to ensure kids read, even though I have no way to fight for it.

What would actually bother me more is if my kid was just that dim—forced to read some garbage book, and then being so incapable that they can't even make up a single thing they supposedly liked about it. Instead, they just parrot someone else like, "the book sucked," just to get a cookie. 🤦

I’d much rather deal with the kids who scavenge the internet to dodge a boring book just to scrape by with a passing grade—at least those kids showed some initiative 😁 compared to the ones who aren't even lazy enough to finish the reading, yet are too brainless to come up with two decent sentences about what they just read. 🙄

Unless, of course, the little one is actually a total badass and just couldn't care less about any of this. 😎

hollowcrane47 said:What would actually bother me more is if my kid was just that dim—forced to read some garbage book, and then being so incapable that they can't even make up a single thing they supposedly liked about it. Instead, they just parrot someone else like, "the book sucked," just to get a cookie. 🤦

I’d much rather deal with the kids who scavenge the internet to dodge a boring book just to scrape by with a passing grade—at least those kids showed some initiative 😁 compared to the ones who aren't even lazy enough to finish the reading, yet are too brainless to come up with two decent sentences about what they just read. 🙄

Unless, of course, the little one is actually a total badass and just couldn't care less about any of this. 😎

🙏🙏🙏

Beyond that, having a negative impression counts as an impression too.
You should chime in, build on the points made before you were called out, or take what was already said and put it into your own words.

Honestly, pulling off something like that requires a level of linguistic skill that you actually develop—it's a bit of a paradox, really—through reading. 🙂

Unless the little one is actually a total rebel who just doesn't care at all. 😎

Exactly, which is why she came home from school feeling "sad and a little unhappy," to use the author's words—which is pretty badass in its own way. Usually, that kind of attitude lasts until you hit a C-minus. But hey, look at me rambling—any grade lower than an A in my book would be a problem. 🙂

wanderingbadger44 said:For heaven's sake, please explain to me why it would be in a teacher's best interest to force a child to learn something specifically when it goes against what the parent wants. I am genuinely asking you to walk me through that logic.

What exactly is this supposed "teacher's interest" you're talking about?

I could certainly give you plenty of examples regarding a teacher's interest in not pushing back against a parent's wishes.

But I want you to tell me: what is my personal incentive to insist on something that contradicts a parent's will?

Why on earth would I try to force biology on Manchild's kid or John Doe's child—using those specific names Manchild mentioned—or push Faulkner, when at the end of the day, the parent is the customer, and we all know the old adage that the customer is always right?

I clearly see how it benefits society and the community for children to read, to become literate, and to grow more educated. But as for my own personal gain, kill me now, because I simply don't see any.

And if society has such an interest, then society should have the mechanisms in place to make it happen. Instead, society ties my hands behind my back and then expects me to act like it's my personal mission to ensure kids read, even though I have no way to fight for it.

The only real interest for a teacher is keeping the system running. It doesn't matter if the education is top-tier, mediocre, or absolute garbage—as long as the machine keeps grinding.

By the time today's kindergarteners enter the workforce, the teacher will be halfway to retirement. By the time the next generation hits the job market, they'll be retired entirely.

So tell me: do teachers actually care if kids can read with comprehension? Do they care if they know where Uzbekistan is, who fought at Thermopylae, or if they’ve even read the story of Philip Latinović?