Should "Language Arts" as it is be a required class?

[Darkurai]

In my high school, from freshman to senior year, we are required to take a language arts class, commonly referred to as "English" class, and I assume the rest of the US at least is like this as well.

The class is not only to learn about the English language itself, but also about tearing into 'classic' works of literature for symbolism. In this class I have learned that a book is only a 'classic' if it is highly symbolic, and you don't read novels for fun.

Now, I did let a little bit of my bias into that last paragraph, but in short, that's what it is. Now here's the question I wish to raise: Should Language Arts as it is be a required class? In my school, this is how your requirements for graduation break down (five credits is equal to one full year course):

Credit Requirements: 120 credits

English: 20 credits
Phys.Ed./Health*: 20 credits
Social Studies**: 15 credits
Mathematics: 15 credits
Science: 15 credits
Visual/Practical/Performing Arts***: 10 credits
World Language (of the same Language): 10 credits
Career Exploration: 5 credits
Electives: 10 credits

* One credit year of physical education, health and safety education for each year of enrollment.
**World Cultures, United States History 1 and 2.
***5 credits are required in Visual and Performing Arts.

Note that the only class, excluding Physical Education, that is required all four years of high school is Language Arts. Even Mathematics and Science stop being required after their third year. Why is this? Language Arts, while a brilliant field and a great thing in this world, is the most expendable of the three classes I've just now mentioned, so why then is it the one heralded as the most important? I believe that as it is, Language Arts is not as important as we are led to believe.

Please, discuss.

 

[Crimson King]

Try getting to college with poor Language skills - you can't. Math and Science are largely applicable in that once you learn how to do basics, you can advance on your own/go to a school that teaches higher orders. With English, not only are the basic rules immense and complicated, but ignoring them will make you look like an idiot to most colleges. Sure, I am biased, but we have mocked MANY Freshman papers we have found because their grammar was borderline illiterate. Also, many colleges require essays to get in or some form of writing, which if you cannot write, you will not be even considered. Finally, graduate school requires pages upon pages of writing and reading that is taught in high school. If you cannot write in manner that is legible and understandable, then you cannot make it to grad school.

On the issue of symbolism, you, like me, missed the whole point of that. I took a class on Shakespeare, and in my frustration, I asked why we needed to study him? The teacher explained it isn't about who or what you study, it's how. Shakespeare class could be replaced with Milton, Lovecraft, Poe or some douchebag like Stephanie Meyer, but the class would be taught the same way: reading a work, discovering the meaning, and focusing on the single writer. Pretty much every class is about doing this. The reason you read the classics is because they are usually so well written and thought about that it gives you plenty to consider, think about, and has so little room for being wrong. Want to challenge yourself? Tear apart T.S. Elliot's "The Waste Land." It is a mess of allusions and metaphors, but after breaking it down, I got it so much more.

 

[Pr0phetic]

Crimson King literally just put all the debate needed into this. I don't know about it being the top class, it differs from school to school credit-wise, however it is highly necessary.

- Builds vocabulary
- Helps in writing structure and ability
- Improves speech
- Develops interest in new categories of work/literature

The list goes on.

 

[Crimson King]

One thing I forgot to put: it makes you smarter.

This may seem presumptuous and elitist, but think of the books you have read in schools, and how many times those things are referenced over and over again. I was watching Twilight and Transformers with RiffTrax, and my friends missed a load of jokes on the tracks because they weren't as A. well read as I am, nor B. as familiar with the references as I was. So, I felt smarter and was able to explain the topics in depth.

A better example is to read this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11985582/hplovecraft-Waste-Paper-A-Poem-of-Profound-Insignificance

On it's own, it is a bit confusing, but if you have knowledge of this:
http://eliotswasteland.tripod.com/

You would understand exactly what Mr. Howard Philip was joking about. This is just one example of many.

 

[Darkurai]

I understand where you come from with this, however I suppose I wasn't clear enough, which is an error on my part.

I understand that the actual writing portion of Language Arts is very important. What I do not understand is why the symbolism aspect is so important. I don't mean to offend anyone or vilify the symbolism aspect, but part of me still does not understand why this aspect is so prominent and 'important' to the point of being above mathematics and sciences.

It may only be my school, though, that puts as heavy an emphasis on the symbolism as I'm used to, rendering my point moot. I suppose I didn't think of that.

 

[GoldShadow]

CK put it very well.

Language, verbal ability and comprehension, and critical thinking are the cornerstones of all thought and communication. In today's world, it is becoming increasingly important to be not only literate, but able to dissect and analyze.

I guarantee you that if more people in the US (and probably any other country) had better skills in these areas, politicians and leaders would not be able to get away with half the stuff they do. Smear campaigns and fancy, vapid rhetoric would not fly. If everybody had a better understanding of issues (which would be the direct result of being able to read and interpret better and at a higher level), then they would make more informed choices.

That is just one facet of society. That's the thing about language arts. It is not specific or vocational and will probably not be directly related to your life or job (unless you become an English major/grad student/professor/etc). But rather, it builds skills that are applicable and necessary to function in all other parts of society, in academia, in your job, etc. Maybe symbolism specifically has no bearing on anything else you do, but knowing how to identify and interpret it is part of a wider skillset, part of something much bigger and more fundamental.

 

[Crimson King]

CK put it very well.

Language, verbal ability and comprehension, and critical thinking are the cornerstones of all thought and communication. In today's world, it is becoming increasingly important to be not only literate, but able to dissect and analyze.

I guarantee you that if more people in the US (and probably any other country) had better skills in these areas, politicians and leaders would not be able to get away with half the stuff they do. Smear campaigns and fancy, vapid rhetoric would not fly. If everybody had a better understanding of issues (which would be the direct result of being able to read and interpret better and at a higher level), then they would make more informed choices.

That is just one facet of society. That's the thing about language arts. It is not specific or vocational and will probably not be directly related to your life or job (unless you become an English major/grad student/professor/etc). But rather, it builds skills that are applicable and necessary to function in all other parts of society, in academia, in your job, etc. Maybe symbolism specifically has no bearing on anything else you do, but knowing how to identify and interpret it is part of a wider skillset, part of something much bigger and more fundamental.

That is the point you are missing. Symbolism is just a vehicle to illustrate a point. They could have taken ANYTHING, harp on that, etc, but you are still doing the same basic process - taking something, critically thinking about it, deconstruct it, analyze it, get mad at it, laugh at it, ANYTHING. The point is you are taking things out of their normal means and extrapolating it so much that it means nothing anymore, which is a crucial point of analyzing. If you want to see how far this goes, PM me, and I can show you some extreme examples of Deconstructionist theory.

 

[Darkurai]

That is the point you are missing. Symbolism is just a vehicle to illustrate a point. They could have taken ANYTHING, harp on that, etc, but you are still doing the same basic process - taking something, critically thinking about it, deconstruct it, analyze it, get mad at it, laugh at it, ANYTHING. The point is you are taking things out of their normal means and extrapolating it so much that it means nothing anymore, which is a crucial point of analyzing. If you want to see how far this goes, PM me, and I can show you some extreme examples of Deconstructionist theory.

No need, I think I understand now. Perhaps I'll like to see those at a later date, but for now I do believe that I have been enlightened so to speak.

Thank you, by the way.

I suppose this thread has served its purpose.