[amtalx]

Originally Posted by Delete

A math problem enjoyable? Neat Results? Wth ?

It takes a while to reach the cool stuff (most likely late undergrad), but math can be pretty interesting. Higher level calculus and proofs can be a lot of fun. It will take 45 mins to solve one problem though.

[Gunslinger-08]

Originally Posted by CupOfCoffee

While I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with trying to read deeper into literature, I do take extreme issue with which books most people are forced to read and analyze throughout school. For some reason, educational higher-ups always try to drop these ungodly weighty "classic" novels on the heads of 15- and 16-year-olds, who are undoubtedly at the wrong stages of life to get a damn thing out of them. I can't imagine a sophomore in high school really picking up on very much of anything (or even appreciating the somewhat unusual writing style[s]) to be found in books like Catcher In the Rye and Slaughterhouse-Five, and as a consequence, many young people end up deciding to just hate all books.

I think it must be some kind of miracle I ended up being into both reading and writing as a college student, because I absolutely despised the vast majority of books I had to read in middle and high school.

I totally agree. In fact, if it weren't for the few required reading books like Ender's Game and the Count of Monte Cristo that I actually enjoyed reading, I might have been totally turned off from reading by other required reading books like As I Lay Dying, or any of Shakespeare's works. (Not that Shakespeare is bad. It's just that his style of writing and highschool students don't mesh well.)

[Sinue_v2]

Originally Posted by CupOfCoffee

For some reason, educational higher-ups always try to drop these ungodly weighty "classic" novels on the heads of 15- and 16-year-olds, who are undoubtedly at the wrong stages of life to get a damn thing out of them.

It's not beyond a 15 ~ 16 year old to understand the weighty material, but I think our culture and society is producing a bit of an extended neoteny in regards to the maturity and life experience necessary to relate to and positively evaluate these literary interpretations. It's not so much that they can't get it, but they don't have a base of reference in their everyday lives and experience. It's simply not applicable and disinteresting to many of them.

(Oh wow, there might actually be something to that. Found a hypothesis on PubMed from 2007 which looks like it might not just be me who thinks something like this is going on. Hardly supportive evidence, but I'll have to look into this more after bit to see what's developed. Small sample sizes, and it seems as though he focuses more on transition out of highschool to collage. Links: Psychological neoteny and higher education: associations with delayed parenthood. with Possible full Text )

Originally Posted by amtalx

It takes a while to reach the cool stuff (most likely late undergrad), but math can be pretty interesting. Higher level calculus and proofs can be a lot of fun. It will take 45 mins to solve one problem though.

I've never considered math to be "fun", which is a shame because it would be really helpful when reading up on chaos/complexity theories... which ARE fun, fascinating, and mind-blowing. It can really flip how you view the world around you completely on it's head.

[Outrider]

Originally Posted by CupOfCoffee

I can't imagine a sophomore in high school really picking up on very much of anything (or even appreciating the somewhat unusual writing style[s]) to be found in books like Catcher In the Rye and Slaughterhouse-Five, and as a consequence, many young people end up deciding to just hate all books.

Really? Catcher in the Rye is pretty much the definitive troubled-teenager novel. Sure, I'm able to appreciate it more now than when I was in high school, but it was still an incredibly rewarding read when I was 16-17.

I can see Slaughterhouse-Five being a little too open-ended for some people, but it's certainly nothing a high schooler shouldn't be able to comprehend.

[CupOfCoffee]

Originally Posted by Outrider

Really? Catcher in the Rye is pretty much the definitive troubled-teenager novel. Sure, I'm able to appreciate it more now than when I was in high school, but it was still an incredibly rewarding read when I was 16-17.

I may have worded that somewhat wrong, yeah. In my experience, it wasn't so much that the kids I knew didn't understand Catcher In the Rye, but a lot of them hated it just because they thought "nothing happened" or they didn't like how whiney Holden was. You might be able to explain the book to someone else or even parrot out the basic themes and metaphors as a modern day 15-16 year old, but I'd still maintain that it's a bit of a stretch to say 15-16 is the age at which you're really ready to read and appreciate a lot of the classic literature that gets thrown at kids in high school. I initially enjoyed Catcher In the Rye when I read it at 17 for school, but it wasn't until I reread it just a few months ago when Salinger died that I felt like I had really read it, if you know what I mean.

[Delete]

Originally Posted by amtalx

It takes a while to reach the cool stuff (most likely late undergrad), but math can be pretty interesting. Higher level calculus and proofs can be a lot of fun. It will take 45 mins to solve one problem though.

45 minutes of something that won't help me out ever in life........I'll pass

Whatever floats peoples boats I guess.

[Outrider]

Originally Posted by CupOfCoffee

I initially enjoyed Catcher In the Rye when I read it at 17 for school, but it wasn't until I reread it just a few months ago when Salinger died that I felt like I had really read it, if you know what I mean.

Oh, absolutely. I re-read the book earlier this year and really came away with a wildly different take than when I was in high school. I don't think my initial interpretation of it was wrong in any way, but my focus was definitely on different aspects of the story and characters all those years ago.

[Palle]

Originally Posted by CupOfCoffee

I think it must be some kind of miracle I ended up being into both reading and writing as a college student, because I absolutely despised the vast majority of books I had to read in middle and high school.

Sometimes, I want to dig up Dickens' bones just so I can beat them into dust. I usually get this urge whenever another movie starring Colin Firth is released.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Sinue_v2

Dreams are (to the best of my knowledge) are currently understood as a form of "virtual construct" in which experience and memory are mashed together in new and unique combinations as a form of training for life in a uncertain world.

I had a dream about shooting House's floating head with a Frozen Shooter so he wouldn't launch unblockable projectiles at me. I hope the world is more certain than that.

[fighgunners]

Originally Posted by joefro

I absolutely love English and I love reading. I cannot stand teachers who think that every single piece of literature has a metaphor in it of a deeper meaning. Why can't they just read the novel for what it is and enjoy the story? Do they really think that every author in the world sets out a deep underlying story for their novels? Now, I'm not saying that some literature doesn't have a deeper meaning, but a lot don't. After taking so many English classes, I read less for my own pleasure. Some of the novels we have to read are so stupid. Not that the novels are necessarily bad (I enjoy a few of them) but the teachers insist on making us write 2000 word essays about what the novel was "really" about. These assignments are very hard for me because when I read something, I usually just enjoy it for what it was and what the author intended for me to get out of the story. I wish that I could find one literature story that just let us read novels and write about them, instead of having to find a new meaning in the story. Ugh.

tl;dr
I hate how teachers over analyze novels to death, to the point where they aren't enjoyable to read.

And the best part, it seems the only thing thats a 100% in their eyes is something they wrote.