(my brother is clearly illiterate, but does it matter?)
My younger brother and I often argue about the value of being a “good writer.” I am always inclined to argue that the ability to write eloquently and effectively is one of the most powerful skills human beings can possess. My emphatic defense of this statement may have something to do with the fact that I continually fail to succeed in math and science classes. My fervor may also be linked to the fact that I am paying an absurd amount of money to put “English Major” on my resume. Despite these prejudice-producing influences, however, I maintain that it is important to learn to write well. My favorite evidence to reference in support of my theory is that job listings in almost every field cite “Good written and verbal communication skills” as an applicant requirement.
My brother sees it differently. He claims that it doesn’t matter if a phrase sounds awkward, if you could’ve used a better adjective, or if you repeat verbs, as long as you get the point across. He thinks that when he gets a job he will record videos instead of writing memos, share his ideas with colleagues via video-chat, and converse with clients informally on social media sites. In his mind, the upsurge in video sharing over the last 10 years is not a trend; it is the future. He's an economics major and these discussions get pretty tense.
I was reminded of this long-standing debate when reading Franklin’s views on the English language and education. Obviously, Enlightenment thinkers were infatuated with ideas about democracy, right authority, and the “consent of the governed.” The implementation of democracy clearly required many societal changes, but foremost demanded a highly educated citizenry—something that the education system of the 18th century was not built to provide. As we read, this deficiency sparked many new ideas about how to education the public. Imparting an education to average citizens required that new topics be introduced into the curriculum, language standardized, and new teaching methods established.
Franklin, ever focused on utility, argues that those bound for different trades have different needs, and therefore demand different curriculums—“all should not be compelled to learn Latin.” I think that this realization by people like Franklin, Rousseau, and Priestley (that the current education system does not produce the most productive citizens) is recurring today. As the post below points out, handwriting has already taken a back seat in most elementary school curriculums.
So, is my brother right? Will spelling soon fall out of vogue and oration become the staple class? Should basic grammar take a backseat to basic computer skills? Will news sites like nytimes.com soon be a giant archive of video/vlog posts as more people refuse to read? All I can say is hopefully none of this will come to pass until after I get a job.
My brother sees it differently. He claims that it doesn’t matter if a phrase sounds awkward, if you could’ve used a better adjective, or if you repeat verbs, as long as you get the point across. He thinks that when he gets a job he will record videos instead of writing memos, share his ideas with colleagues via video-chat, and converse with clients informally on social media sites. In his mind, the upsurge in video sharing over the last 10 years is not a trend; it is the future. He's an economics major and these discussions get pretty tense.
I was reminded of this long-standing debate when reading Franklin’s views on the English language and education. Obviously, Enlightenment thinkers were infatuated with ideas about democracy, right authority, and the “consent of the governed.” The implementation of democracy clearly required many societal changes, but foremost demanded a highly educated citizenry—something that the education system of the 18th century was not built to provide. As we read, this deficiency sparked many new ideas about how to education the public. Imparting an education to average citizens required that new topics be introduced into the curriculum, language standardized, and new teaching methods established.
Franklin, ever focused on utility, argues that those bound for different trades have different needs, and therefore demand different curriculums—“all should not be compelled to learn Latin.” I think that this realization by people like Franklin, Rousseau, and Priestley (that the current education system does not produce the most productive citizens) is recurring today. As the post below points out, handwriting has already taken a back seat in most elementary school curriculums.
So, is my brother right? Will spelling soon fall out of vogue and oration become the staple class? Should basic grammar take a backseat to basic computer skills? Will news sites like nytimes.com soon be a giant archive of video/vlog posts as more people refuse to read? All I can say is hopefully none of this will come to pass until after I get a job.
Molly I love your post, my little brother, a sophomore in college, is a Business major, who considers his education a means to an ends, and figures as long as he can eventually earn a paycheck his education will be valuable. He still says "like" every fourth word. Nonetheless, I am the one who constantly receives slack for my Film & English majors (my parents secretly think I dropped my English major... imagine if that was your marketable side!). I agree wholeheartedly that the ability to think abstractly, formulate and express thoughts quickly, and most importantly creatively solve problems are invaluable skills in whatever you decide to do! Even if those skills are used video chatting.
ReplyDelete