Should Shakespeare only be taught at university/colleges?
Debate whether you think Shakespeare should only be taught in university's and colleges
I just want a good debate about the facts of Shakespeare and why it should or shouldn't be taught.
Yes it should
Side Score: 29
|
No it shouldn't
Side Score: 56
|
|
|
|
Sure, high schools in general have been failing miserably to get students to read books and think the curriculum might be to blame. His works might have academic value, but to a freshmen in high the language is too confusing and they completely miss out on all the humor Shakespeare has to offer. That and I find him to be rather overrated. His works were good, but there is no reason why one of his works ought to be read at least once a year for every grade level while great authors such as Conrad, Twain, Tolstoy, and Dostoyevsky are not taught in nay of the four years. Side: yes it should
2
points
I agree, he is grossly overrated. I've never really enjoyed any of his works - but that is still not a good enough reason not to teach him in high school. the language is too confusing and they completely miss out on all the humor Shakespeare has to offer. The language is confusing to most people, not just those in high school. Don't those in high school also find such subjects as math and biology confusing? Maybe they oughtn't be taught those, either? Conrad, Twain, Tolstoy, and Dostoyevsky are not taught in nay of the four years. Conrad? I recall DaWolfman mentioning that he was reading a Conrad story for school. Some schools teach Twain, but many object due to the numerable derogatory terms. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are quite long - they'd be hard pressed to find the time to teach them, what with everything else they teach and all. Side: No it shouldn't
I agree, he is grossly overrated. I've never really enjoyed any of his works - but that is still not a good enough reason not to teach him in high school. I'm not advocating him not being read at all, but the fact that 4+ of his works are read throughout a student's time at high school stay while other great authors are not read at all is simply ridiculous. The language is confusing to most people, not just those in high school. Don't those in high school also find such subjects as math and biology confusing? Maybe they oughtn't be taught those, either? The difference between math and science is that students are not thrown into the advanced classes when they are freshmen. Before a student takes calculus they take geometry and algebra. Before a student takes an advanced biology class where they go into detail about the functions of the cell they take a basic biology class. Yet, with English they throw the students into a difficult class before they get a chance to read simpler literature. Some schools teach Twain, but many object due to the numerable derogatory terms. I'm not sure how that works seeing as Shakespeare is full of sex and violence. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky are quite long They can teach some of their shorter novels or some of their novellas. Side: yes it should
his language (may be) too confusing, and thus it is necessary to teach it as early as possible so that students can have time to digest and appreciate his art and style. Uni may be too late to correct these misconceptions. And precisely because his works are understood and appreciated that they are "read at least once a year for every grade level". "Great" authors like Conrad, Twain, Tolstoy, and Dostoyevsky may have their works set as literature texts in other institutions, but it may well as Shakspeare's works are more widely discussed and analysed which make them more widely taught. Personally, I believe that once one has gotten over the barrier of "not understanding his language". one can then see the beauty in them and see that it should have been taught earlier rather than later so as to build in a better understanding. Side: No it shouldn't
2
points
i am a graduating senior and i never read Shakespeare at college or any university i attended. bachelors degree requires critical thinking english...i.e. write a persuasive essay on immigration. so idk if it is taught their unless poetry or acting is your major Side: yes it should
Good day. Whether your passion is nursing, social work, or any other field, Simmons University offers a dynamic and comprehensive curriculum designed to prepare students for real-world challenges. They have a wide selection of educational programs, and therefore each student will be able to choose everything they need, and if any consultation is needed, representatives of simmons university customer service will be happy to provide it, so that the student has only a good experience. Side: Yes it should
0
points
3
points
2
points
0
points
0
points
first i do not think that they should just read them they should divulge themselves in these books it is considered modern art Shakespeare is a great and intelligent author. hes not like king or Patterson. he has his own way with books almost as if they are his own art. which in a way they are. its not like any other author he is his own person Side: Yes it should
|
2
points
Ha, that's funny, because I am also reading Shakespeare in my English/la class, and we have to write an essay on him, providing examples from a midsummer's night dream, and frankly, at least 80% of the students in my class have no idea what is happening, even after watching the movie most people are confused about the events. Side: yes it should
4
points
They're confused because they don't pay attention - they don't give a damn. They are accustomed to modern movies - Star Wars, Crank, Batman - movies that are very, very fast paced. Most of them have probably never even heard of Laurence Olivier before. If, perchance, some of them have an interest in literature, they most likely read the works of King or Crichton. Both of those authors, and most modern authors at that, write in a similarly fast-pace. Side: No it shouldn't
2
points
Thats because most people have horrible comprehension, and also just don't care. Shakespeare is easy to understand, its older language and form requires you to be a bit more active of a reader but thats a valuable skill to practice and learn; its not something as simply written as twilight... Side: yes it should
2
points
I really enjoy shakespeare. I may be kinda ghetto but i do read shakespeare. I always get the modern english versions though. i may be smart but not smart enough to translate from old to new english. He put deep thoughts into alot of his plays and sonnets. You have to look deep to find a connection between his time and society now. Side: No it shouldn't
1
point
No. What is the point in hiding the man considered to have been the greatest playwright ever from high schoolers? He is now history, and his plays historic. It's not like they actually know or learn anything else from that timeperiod. Indeed, many people believe that he wrote in Old English, when in fact his language was modern English. Side: No it shouldn't
of couse it shouldn't i don't for what some fool had it taught in the universities in the first place he never wrote the correct grammer all his writings are ever so boring love stories and romances without even a single superhero thing in it it could atleast be a mystery story adventurous or hilarious i seriously will flunk if it's taught in our school i'm glad they don't i would hav gone back in history and murdered him Side: No it shouldn't
2
points
No one was so bored back then that they needed to put a superhero in! And anyway, a superhero would have pretty much been the fusion of deus ex machina powers with one of the characters. Shakespeare preferred to work with normal human characters and their limitations and their ingenuity; is that wrong? Accuracy of grammar is disputable. English doesn't have a fixed word order per se, so why should grammar come into the picture? And in any case, if his grammar deviates from the norm, it's not without a reason: it could either be the grammar convention of Early Modern English (someone correct me if I'm wrong) or (and I believe this to be more likely) an authorial effect on his part. Mystery story? That falls under suspense. And if you want suspense go to Shakespeare's tragedies. You'll find your fill. And hilarity - is in the plays on words themselves. You need to be punny to appreciate them. Granted, that's not up everyone's alley, but it was way back then, so. And if you went back in time and murdered Shakespeare I reckon Queen Elizabeth I would have ordered your head chopped off; and with the level of technology for a time machine being inexistent in the Elizabethan era, you'd be stuck there, dead, before you were born. What a beautiful time paradox. Just don't create it or we'll all be in trouble. Please. You have the option of not going back to Shakespeare's works if you ever come into contact with them. Thank you. Side: yes it should
2
points
His English is considered to be old English now, but during his time, of course it was considered normal. Now it is considered old English, so what are you talking about. I know he had a great influence on the way literature is now, but why should he be singled out to be taught at schools, and not others who helped create our modern day literature along the way. It's like educating someone about hockey, why just teach upcoming hockey players about Gretzky, because he is debated the greatest hockey players ever? No, people are also educated on other influential hockey players, because they made the sport. So literature should be the same, it should be on other great influences to, other than Shakespeare, or they shouldn't put so much emphasis on him. Side: yes it should
1
point
He did not speak Old English! Have you spent several years studying languages? He spoke Early Modern English. Chaucer wrote in Middle English. Beowulf was written in Old English. If you would like an example, read the links: Old English: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/ Middle English: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/ Early Modern English: http://shakespeare.mit.edu/tempest/ Modern English: http://www.online- As you can see, there are many differences. Side: No it shouldn't
what are you thinking think of the gennext what loads of problems they will face reading those boring stories maybe you don't suffer so much as othr kids do but this is not the time to think only of yourself it's about others too and heck it will increase the literacy rate people will sit with a dictionary to find the meaning of those hard unknown words and still won't find them coz shakespreare wrote half the words that he had himself invented what do you think of high school it's just meant for having fun freaking out n trying to crawl out of the nerdy life the kids have had before Side: No it shouldn't
1
point
Man, mitgag, what are you thinking? While it's true that modern children might find these stories boring compared to what they have, the benefits are not simply to be glossed over. Shakespeare's works are masterpieces of his era - would Queen Elizabeth I have commissioned them if not for that? And the subtleties of language - they too must be appreciated. The English language would lose a lot of its sense if it communicated in language as direct and bold as primary colours. If Shakespeare coined words, he must have seen some deficiency in the English of his time - which also happens to be the reason why words are borrowed from other languages. And if you said high school is just about fun, then what are the other stages of school about? Fun too? Then we might as well just get on with life having fun, shooting drugs, getting laid like nobody's business, getting AIDS and dying, getting into trouble with the law and not being productive, then! Come on. Which employer will want to hire people who have no solid foundation in anything? Yes, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that all have the right to a job, but given the demand for good salaries and well-paying jobs, will people who live as I just described above have earned that right? NO. Side: No it shouldn't
1
point
Why should it not? Are we to make education easy? Surely, in such an act, we would entirely undermine education's purpose? There is no merit in any endeavour to remove difficult elements of education, because, so doing, one would be catering to idiots. He who would cater to idiots would cater to himself. Side: No it shouldn't
1
point
1
point
No, I do not believe that Shakespeare should ONLY be taught at university/ colleges. Students should be exposed to Shakespeare as early as possible, to make them better able to appreciate Literature. After all, there is absolutely no reason why it should be taught at the Uni level and not in high. elementary school. Here, in Singapore, Shakespeare is taught in elementary and high schools. It has allowed pupils like me to better appreciate Lit as a subject and see its beauty. Also, by teaching it earlier, the beauty of Shakespeare works can be better preserved. As students move on to Uni, they may be more interested or preoccupied with other subjects. Side: No it shouldn't
1
point
I see no reason for shakespeare to be limited to only college level. Even if younger readers don't completely grasp it, it gives them a challenge and an idea of what writing used to be like. Then when they are taught more of it at college they can comprehend it even better. Side: No it shouldn't
No it shouldn't only be taught at university/colleges but also in high school for early preparation. More practice will be done in high school and therefore it won't be difficult to continue studying it later on. The reason why i am saying this is because so many students are going through a hard time in university and colleges because they didn't study it early enough. Side: No it shouldn't
|