people who hate Latin

[serenade]

Ok so this post is really just to vent about people who don't respect Latin or realize its usefulness. My high school aged cousin has been taking Latin for years but is going to a new (private, not academically rigorous, fundamentalist, religious) school next year. Her future principal told her that her Latin credits won't count because "Latin is a dead language." When my cousin and her mother remarked about the usefulness of Latin and the diversity of disciplines that it has actively shaped, the principal basically laughed them off. The school in question only offers Spanish, which she will have to take (nothing wrong with Spanish, of course), but it would be nice if the school offered more than one language choice. 

 

I can understand not counting certain courses because they don't transfer/fit the curriculum for graduation requirements, etc. but to give the reason for not counting them as because it's a "dead language" or a "waste of time" is a mark of complete ignorance to me. How do you explain the centrality and worth of Latin to someone who refuses to acknowledge it as a useful language???

[1Q84]

Show this principal any law, biology, (or Spanish for that matter) textbook and ask him or her to explain how "dead" Latin is.

[dr. t]

You could make the case for Greek or Hebrew, but you're not going to convince a fundie that Latin is useful.

[xolo]

It's unfortunate that religion and ignorance are being conflated as it is completely irrelevant to the argument. The principal might have just been caught off guard, otherwise what a basket-case, and they might even have an Ed. D. (if we are going to conflate arguments, let's throw doctorates under the bus)

 

Actually, one can say that Spanish is a modern version of Latin.

[dr. t]

It's unfortunate that religion and ignorance are being conflated as it is completely irrelevant to the argument. 

 

Use of the passive voice to indirectly address criticism is something one should not do.

 

It is in fact incredibly relevant to the argument, particularly since I'm not accusing anyone of ignorance. I'm accusing them of having their own agenda inspired by faith.

 

In my experience (I have a MA degree from a divinity school) self-described fundamentalists, who are otherwise obsessed with ancient languages (Greek, Hebrew) as they constitute core mechanics for their theology, are extremely negative towards Latin because of its association with that greatest of evils, the Catholic Church.

Edited June 14, 2015 by telkanuru

[serenade]

"self-described fundamentalists, who are otherwise obsessed with ancient languages (Greek, Hebrew) as they constitute core mechanics for their theology, are extremely negative towards Latin because of its association with that greatest of evils, the Catholic Church."

Ah, yes, Latin is the very language of the Antichrist.

I agree that this opinion is fueled by a specific religious agenda, hence making religion relevant to this issue. My intention was not to conflate ignorance with religion, but rather with those of the fundie stripe.

[quirkycase]

That does seem ridiculous, refusing to count the credits for Latin.  It irks me too when people make judgment values like that about the "usefulness" of the language.  Perhaps if we spent a little more time teaching kids about "dead languages," say some Latin and Greek roots, spelling and reading would improve...

 

 

It is in fact incredibly relevant to the argument, particularly since I'm not accusing anyone of ignorance. I'm accusing them of having their own agenda inspired by faith.

 

In my experience (I have a MA degree from a divinity school) self-described fundamentalists, who are otherwise obsessed with ancient languages (Greek, Hebrew) as they constitute core mechanics for their theology, are extremely negative towards Latin because of its association with that greatest of evils, the Catholic Church.

 

I agree that there is likely a religious agenda involved.  As someone who grew up in a somewhat fundamentalist environment, I remember people being praised for learning Greek (and Hebrew), while people often dismissed Latin.  I had a friend who was taking Latin in high school, and others would act like she was completely wasting her time, then go on to talk about their Greek studies.

 

I agree that this opinion is fueled by a specific religious agenda, hence making religion relevant to this issue. My intention was not to conflate ignorance with religion, but rather with those of the fundie stripe.

 

I certainly do not believe that people who are religious, even fundamentalist, are ignorant people on the whole.  But there is often a self-imposed ignorance, in a way.  Sort of the "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil" thing.  I was taught as a child that to engage with anything that was against the beliefs of the church--even in an attempt to further understanding--could lead to temptation and doubt, which leads to sin.  Essentially, we were encouraged to be ignorant about anything deemed "sinful." It's a dangerous system, in my view.  Hence why I got out.  

[random_grad]

wow, I 've got a lot to learn about the way things work in the U.S. It's hard for me to fathom why anyone would have a dismissive attitude toward Latin - which clearly has lots of value not just for words roots but also for teaching kids rigor and discipline and memorization skills.

On the other hand, I can understand that a school would want a kid to learn at least one non-dead language so that the person gets a competitive edge on the job market. Spanish seems like a good choice and an easy transition.

[TakeruK]

In Canada, a second language is required in high school (to a certain level) for those planning to go to university after high school. I think it's Grade 11 level for those pursuing BA degrees. However, while Latin is a provincially recognized language, most schools do not offer this and only offer languages that are more broadly applicable. Mandarin, Cantonese, French, Punjabi and Spanish are the most common languages where I grew up so these are generally the ones that schools offer (some places offer Japanese and German too, if there are teachers available). 

 

In my opinion, I don't think high schools should prioritize Latin as a second language. That is, if there is a shortage and they have to pick between Latin and other languages, I would prefer the school pick something that is more useful to teenagers not going to an academic field requiring Latin. 

 

I definitely think Latin is useful and worth learning, but I don't think it's worth more than a language that can get a teenager employed right after high school. When resources are limited, I think that Latin is better left until college and that high school prioritize other languages first.

[Eigen]

At least in my state, Latin would not count to satisfy a high-school "core" language credit. And I'm pretty sure the same is true at the Federal level, although not positive.

 

It's not that it's a useless language, but the point of the language credit being required in high school is to help develop additional means of communication- and since Latin is a dead language, it's not useful for global/cross cultural communication. 

 

Lots of our local high schools (esp. Catholic schools) teach Latin in high school, but most do it in addition to a modern language.

[ἠφανισμένος]

At least in my state, Latin would not count to satisfy a high-school "core" language credit. And I'm pretty sure the same is true at the Federal level, although not positive.

 

I quickly checked two states I've lived in, and I can't find any minimum language requirement for high school graduation.  In another state I've lived in, foreign languages are lumped in with electives.

 

It's not that it's a useless language, but the point of the language credit being required in high school is to help develop additional means of communication- and since Latin is a dead language, it's not useful for global/cross cultural communication.

 

 

You might be surprised.  There are people all over the world who regularly use Latin to communicate, and more and more high schools are teaching speaking and writing skills in Latin alongside reading skills.  Now, of course the number of people who use Latin is very small compared to most modern languages.  But when taught well, Latin can expand students' linguistic and cultural (and historical) horizons every bit as much as Spanish or Mandarin.

[Eigen]

It's quite a few states, yours may not be among them:

 

http://www.ncssfl.org/docs/States%20with%20Foreign%20Language%20Graduation%20Requirements%20-%20%20Revised%202010.pdf

[scarvesandcardigans]

I quickly checked two states I've lived in, and I can't find any minimum language requirement for high school graduation.  In another state I've lived in, foreign languages are lumped in with electives.

 

 

You might be surprised.  There are people all over the world who regularly use Latin to communicate, and more and more high schools are teaching speaking and writing skills in Latin alongside reading skills.  Now, of course the number of people who use Latin is very small compared to most modern languages.  But when taught well, Latin can expand students' linguistic and cultural (and historical) horizons every bit as much as Spanish or Mandarin.

 

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I'd like to add that I also believe teaching Latin can be seen as "useless" because there are few that speak it in our immediate geographical regions. 

 

At my high school, if you wanted to attend a four-year university, at least two language courses were required - no specific language necessary. My sister took Latin whereas I took Spanish, and I think we both walked away with greater appreciation for, as mentioned, linguistic and historical horizons. One thing that I found to be of immense value was a "history of the language" course I took as an undergrad. 90% of the course material covered how Latin fueled Spanish. I think that could be an interesting requirement of any language - to show how "dead languages" fuel modern-day languages to at least give us an appreciation for what they are. 

[TakeruK]

A large part of my French high school education (in Canada, we take French from Grade 4 through Grade 8, and then any language up to Grade 11 level is recommended for university-bound students, and Grade 12 level for BA bound students) was also about how Latin fueled French and other Romance languages. But ultimately, I feel like I get the same appreciation for language taking French as I would have taking Latin. But, French is a useful language in Canada and many parts of the world. Latin is mostly useful for specific careers or academics only.

 

I feel like public high schools should be focused on training people with useful life skills rather than specialized academic knowledge. The latter is what universities and graduate schools are for.

[unræd]

A large part of my French high school education (in Canada, we take French from Grade 4 through Grade 8, and then any language up to Grade 11 level is recommended for university-bound students, and Grade 12 level for BA bound students) was also about how Latin fueled French and other Romance languages. But ultimately, I feel like I get the same appreciation for language taking French as I would have taking Latin. But, French is a useful language in Canada and many parts of the world. Latin is mostly useful for specific careers or academics only.

 

I feel like public high schools should be focused on training people with useful life skills rather than specialized academic knowledge. The latter is what universities and graduate schools are for.

 

And the former is what vocational schools are for. (Which I don't say to knock them! I went to a vocational school after high school, got a nice career out of it, and think we funnel way too many students into four year colleges without good reason.)

 

But public high schools have goals other than just training people in general life skills--for example, I'd assume no one's opposed to, say, the teaching of calculus in high school, which is definitely "specialized academic knowledge" that is "mostly useful for specific careers"?

[Eigen]

I'm actually opposed to the teaching of calculus in public high schools, as are most of the college math teachers and science faculty I know. 

 

I find it often comes at the detriment of basic math skills, and ends up with a poor (at best) knowledge of calculus for most of the students. 

 

My university stopped accepting any high school credits towards calculus for this reason. 

 

High school is supposed to train and prepare people for nonacademic and non-specialized careers- it's general knowledge. Turning high school into "pre-college" or "college prep" is quite detrimental to the education of the average students, and we usually teach watered down "advanced" topics in place of more broadly relevant subjects. 

 

It would be far better to teach economics or statistics than calculus- they have far broader societal use, and generally result in a more educated public. Calculus is specific, and the average person will probably never find a use for it. 

 

In short, I completely agree with what TakeruK has said. The US has an overly long educational system that doesn't end up preparing anyone for anything. It's 12 years that have so very much wasted space rather than focusing on the basics, and then letting people specialize post-public high school. 

[dr. t]

Tak or Eigen - do either of you actually know Latin?

[TakeruK]

No, I do not know any Latin. I will concede that I cannot fully judge Latin's usefulness without having taken the course myself. But at the same time, I can still partially judge it based on my personal opinion of what a high school diploma should bestow the graduate with and what I see are desired skills in jobs past high school. For example, in my hometown, the desired languages are English and Cantonese (Mandarin is a close 3rd choice). Learning Latin is not going to help a graduate from my high school find work.

 

Public high schools in Canada (or at least in British Columbia, my home province, since education is a provincial responsibility, not national) does not include Latin or Calculus or any of these specific skills in our core curriculum. And I think that's the right decision. Our school system has found a decent balance between "teaching general knowledge" and "offering advanced topics for motivated students" through what our system calls "Board/Authority Authorized Courses" (BAAC). BAACs allows for schools to offer specific special courses that will be allowed to count towards a high school diploma if there is both interest and expertise. Unlike the "regular" courses, the BAACs do not follow a province-wide curriculum and schools are not required to offer them. But if there is interest from students and a teacher willing to develop the course material and teach it, then the school can submit the course plan for approval/authorization.

 

I'm sure the regulations have changed a bit since I was in high school, but I vaguely remember there being some limit on the number of BAACs you can count towards your diploma (to ensure that every student in the province has some minimum standard). At my school, some examples of BAACs are:

 

Calculus, Psychology, Animation (computer), Business classes (e.g. we had an entrepreneurship class where the class runs the school store), advanced art classes (e.g. Photography) , Fitness, Journalism, Yearbook, Peer Mentoring, Creative Writing etc.

 

I do think it is important for schools to do more than just meet minimum standards. But I think Calculus, Latin, and other topics mentioned above does not have to be part of a set of core courses offered by every high school. And, more broadly speaking, I do think that we should move public high school away from being simply college prep and instead, teach more basic concepts that have everyday application to students who don't go on to college, much less graduate school. I would much rather prefer to see fundamental skills like critical thinking and understanding of statistics taught as core courses rather than Calculus or Latin.

 

But to be clear, I do want public schools to be able to get approval to teach Calculus or Latin if they wanted to, just not be required to. The downside of going all the way to just "basic general knowledge" in high school is that some students from less academic backgrounds might never be exposed to some of these "specific" skills/knowledge and thus might never find that spark or inspiration that gets them to go to college and higher learning. So I personally think the combination of "general knowledge" being the only requirement with optional "special skills" depending on approval/interest is a good balance to ensure public high schools meet the needs of the community as well as being stimulating for students with specialized interests.

[unræd]

TakeruK, that makes sense. I still think we vastly overestimate the actual utility of most high school language instruction and underestimate the utility of Latin, and even more than that, I still object to workplace "utility" as the criterion for judging curricular value--but I very much appreciate the response. It seemed like in the last few posts what got lost was that no one was saying that Latin (or any other language) should be required, only that Latin should be allowed to fulfill a preexisting language requirement. You write that "learning Latin is not going to help a graduate from my high school find work," and while that's true, two years of high school German weren't going to help a graduate of my high school in Minnesota find work, either.

 

This is a tangential point, but there's been a lot of discussion upthread about what our "public" schools should be doing. I worry about the sort of stratification that says that people in public schools get one kind of education, people who can afford private schools another, as well as the kind of thinking that says if you don't need something for your career there's no point in it being offered to you. I also do think there should be a foreign language requirement at the high school level--not because of pragmatic employment considerations, but for more general knowledge, "informed citizenry" ones. Nothing makes you realize that your own culture is not at the center of all things faster than struggling with another culture's language and/or texts, and that's something that can happen just as well with a language that was spoken fifteen hundred years ago as one that's spoken today.

Edited June 29, 2015 by unræd

[Eigen]

Tak or Eigen - do either of you actually know Latin?

 

Yup, two semesters of college latin as my college language electives. 

 

I think it's highly valuable at the collegiate level, but not at the high school level. 

[TakeruK]

TakeruK, that makes sense. I still think we vastly overestimate the actual utility of most high school language instruction and underestimate the utility of Latin, and even more than that, I still object to workplace "utility" as the criterion for judging curricular value--but I very much appreciate the response. It seemed like in the last few posts what got lost was that no one was saying that Latin (or any other language) should be required, only that Latin should be allowed to fulfill a preexisting language requirement. You write that "learning Latin is not going to help a graduate from my high school find work," and while that's true, two years of high school German weren't going to help a graduate of my high school in Minnesota find work, either.

 

Agreed--and I forgot to mention, but in fact, many of the languages are also BAAC and German was one of them in my school. French is really the only other language that will help a Canadian find work (it is preferred to be English-French bilingual for most government jobs). I agree that for the purposes of enrichment and creating an informed public, German and Latin would have similar priorities (in my opinion), with a tiny difference that a student might be able to use their course knowledge to have a conversation in German if he/she travels to certain parts of Canada or to Germany, while actually conversing in Latin would be much more rare.

[Glasperlenspieler]

I think it's highly valuable at the collegiate level, but not at the high school level. 

 

I don't know. Knowing what I know now and given my interests, I sort of wish I'd had a truly classical education and been forced to learn Latin and Greek and a young age. I mean JS Mill started learning Greek at three and Latin at eight. I believe Hegel started Latin at five. Obviously these were exceptional cases, but that sort of thing was at least not uncommon at one point. Clearly this shouldn't be part of a universal education system, but man I can only imagine where I'd be if I has that sort of opportunity.

 

Then again Mill did have a nervous breakdown, and had I been pushed in that direction, who know if I my interests would have developed in the same way. So it's probably best to proceed with caution, but I still can't help but think that more languages earlier (including classical ones) isn't a bad idea.

[TakeruK]

I don't know. Knowing what I know now and given my interests, I sort of wish I'd had a truly classical education and been forced to learn Latin and Greek and a young age. I mean JS Mill started learning Greek at three and Latin at eight. I believe Hegel started Latin at five. Obviously these were exceptional cases, but that sort of thing was at least not uncommon at one point. Clearly this shouldn't be part of a universal education system, but man I can only imagine where I'd be if I has that sort of opportunity.

 

But what about all of the other people that won't benefit from being forced to learn Latin and Greek at a young age (I'm assuming by "forced" you mean part of the core curriculum). I'm more familiar with STEM fields, so using Calculus as the "equivalent" example, I do think it's possible to teach more math in public schools (at the expense of other topics) so that one can master Calculus by early high school. Understanding even the first year of Calculus unlocks so much science! For example, when you learn calculus-based physics in college, you can basically throw out all of the physics you learned in high school and reduce a giant list of "fundamental equations" you had to memorize in high school physics and replace it with a few truly fundamental laws and principles plus the tools that Calculus opens up to you.

 

But is this a good idea? It certainly would have helped me become better at physics. Out of 200 or so graduates from my high school, I'm the only one to major in physics in college. Maybe a few more found physics at the high school level too boring and if they were exposed to Calculus, they might truly love physics and we might have even got one or two additional physics major. Plus, the physics majors would be well prepared for University level physics and everything would have clicked way faster (it took me about 3 years, right after learning multivariable and vector calculus, for there to be that "eureka" moment and a lot of connections between concepts I previously thought were unrelated to suddenly link up). 

 

On the other hand, this would have been completely useless to the other 99% of students that do not want to major in Physics. We can expand the usefulness of Calculus to more than just Physics of course, so it's probably more like 90% of graduates from my high school would have not needed to learn Calculus at all. Their time would have been much better spent learning something more directly relevant to their post-high school life (for most people in my school, this does not include college).

 

I think this kind of enrichment training/learning is valuable but it should stay out of public schools. The most common way I see young students receiving this enrichment is through private schools or tutoring. I have taught Calculus to many preteens who were either really interested or their parents were forcing them (I tried to avoid being hired to do this, but sometimes you don't know it's the case until several sessions in). The problem with this approach only is that it's not very equitable--not everyone can afford special enrichment programs for their children. So, another way this could happen is through cheaper (or free) summer camps or other after-school programs that get young students interested in these concepts and challenge them to push their horizons. I've volunteered / worked for several of these programs too, and I found it very fun! 

[dr. t]

Yup, two semesters of college latin as my college language electives. 

 

I think it's highly valuable at the collegiate level, but not at the high school level. 

 

Interesting. I was forced to take Latin or Greek in high school (chose Latin), and I found the experience invaluable. IM(not very)HO, there is no better way to learn English grammar (and thus provide a very firm grounding for the other 5 IE languages I've learned) than through learning a fully inflected language, and Latin remains the most accessible of these. Accordingly, I do not see the language as "specialized" in the way you and Tak have outlined.

 

Also, I just used the calc I learned in high school to write a history paper 

Edited June 29, 2015 by telkanuru

[Eigen]

It's not that Latin or Greek aren't generally helpful or applicable to learning languages in general.... But that's not something the average person does much of. 

 

Learning, say, spanish in the US will allow an individual to communicate with a much greater range of people that they may encounter every day.

 

Both useful, the second is likely to be more useful in the average person's daily, non-academic, non-learning centered life. You're assuming that it's not specialized because it let you learn other languages... but learning other languages is in itself specialized (i.e., non-typical for the average person).