Totally with you here on the point that the teaching/learning model in American high schools is not the way to learn. I teach at a university (in design, not languages), and students who had even years of Spanish or French in HS can't converse in their language of study.
For me personally, however, I am so grateful that I learned other languages: Latin in HS (Catholic), German in college (Georgia State University required a year of foreign language), and then self-taught Italian (because I teach in Rome sometimes). I am a huge logophile, so maybe this explains why this matters so much to me. I am fascinated by words and their etymologies to the point that sometimes I can be annoying, or at least people look at me funny.
There is another aspect of foreign languages that brings me great joy: out-loud pronunciation of words or names. One of my favorite things about learning German was speaking the language, with all those weird sounds that English doesn't have. Same with Italian. And I even get a kick out of learning proper pronunciation for words in languages that I don't speak, such as Mandarin Chinese. I am a name-reader at my university's commencements every semester, and one of my greatest joys is reading the student names into a microphone that makes my voice reverberate to the rafters of a coliseum filled with 20,000 happy people—knowing that I "nailed" it.
It's a great role for me, because I have both a voice and a face that is perfect for radio :·)
As someone whose name is ALWAYS mispronounced (except, suspiciously, by Siri—how does she know?!), I thank you from the bottom of my heart for bothering to get the names right! It may seem like a small and enjoyable gesture, but it means so much to people like me!
I hope my essay doesn’t come off as opposed to learning languages—I just think that people like us, who love languages and have good reasons for learning them, sometimes don’t realize that other people would get more out of studying something else.
P.S. Matthew just seems so damn tortured. And what's with his hair? I'm sure that someone with a bazillion lbs a year owns an ivory comb? I'm Team Colin, but it's just because I think he's cuter.
I was sort of grumping at this take at first, but then you convinced me at least that the reason(s) for teaching foreign languages needs to be re-thought. I wonder what language instruction would be like if it were all more like Latin and Greek, where you're focused on reading and translation (and almost no speaking)?
Thank you so much for this video! How fun! Reminds me of a time when Noah was a baby and lived in DC. Matt and I had taken him to the park and were pushing him in the swing, and an older Russian couple walked past and started criticizing our parenting in Russian. Matt, whose Russian is flawless, said, in Russian, “I can understand everything you’re saying, you know.” Ha! They were NOT expecting that!
And I like your suggestion about focusing on languages that are for reading only (I took Anglo-Saxon in college, for example). That plays to classroom instruction’s strengths. The classroom is a poor venue for learning to speak, but it is much better for teaching reading and writing.
Haha, kids don't go on swings in Russia? Matt was not having it ..
And yes! For Latin they focus on what's easy to read first, like Julius Caesar's writings ... Learning French to read Racine, or something like that? These could be valuable experiences that students would remember.
The issue was that Noah wasn’t wearing shoes. I carried him around everywhere in a Baby Bjorn under my coat, so we never put shoes on him when we went out for walks. We saw the park and spontaneously decided to push him in the swing, figuring (correctly) that his shoeless feet would be fine for a few minutes. He did have warm socks! But the older couple was scandalized.
I thought over this essay for quite a while, and bounced the ideas off of some close friends. Granted, my data set consists almost entirely of people who would choose to study subjects outside of their own expertise solely for the new experiences and broadening of their own horizons. We feel like your practical approach to let children choose their own electives turns into the racism of low expectations.
Children are not good at choosing what's best for them, that comes with maturity and experience. Any child worth her salt would choose ice cream over broccoli. Do we just feed every child ice cream, let them take art and gym classes because they are the most fun, and reserve any real education to the little Sheldon Cooper nerdlings who actually have some affinity for foreign languages, writing classes, and math? I think it's our duty as adults to push our children to challenges, make them have some uncomfortable experience with topics they may not turn out to be naturally good at. So long as we don't keep pressing the issues into early adulthood (forced college to get jobs that have no real need for higher education) we could still end up with a population of citizens that might have the possibilty of knowing a little more than their own chosen little world.
Thank you so much for this thoughtful comment--I'm so glad to hear that the essay provoked thought and discussion with friends! I really like your ice cream analogy and agree completely that kids tend to choose the fun and easy way if they aren't required to challenge themselves--which is why schools should require English, math, science, and social sciences of every student. I think we're just arguing about details. I think that foreign languages belong in the category with art and music, and it sounds like you would put it with English and math. Fair enough.
I do, think, though, that you undersell the difficulty of art (and I'd add, music). My daughter took higher level art for her IB, and it was her toughest class--more difficult and demanding for her than calculus, and certainly more than German was for her. And I always say that my high school choir grades were the most challenging As I have ever earned. Classroom French would have been a breeze compared with Mr. Hansen's A Capella Choir!
It isn't low expectations, and still less is it racism, to acknowledge that people have different interests and talents, and that our yen for challenge and meaning can be met with music and art as much as with foreign languages.
Yes, you are correct on all points. I'd update my first comment, but since your replies to it are specific I'll leave it there and update my remarks here. I agree that the so-called "fun" classes are not necessarily easier, I too had harder times getting A's in those. And the low expectations remark was not appropriate here-- not sure what made me think of it in the moment.
I guess what I really think is simple, everybody should be forced to take some of everything. You never can tell what might inspire a young person, and I'd rather err on the side of giving them too much variety than allow them to narrow their scopes too early. I was never forced to take a foreign language, and regret it. It turns out I had a natural talent and affinity for learning languages, and it's too bad that I wasn't exposed to it until I was in my 20's. But better late than never.
The problem with your take on Pride and Prejudice is not that it’s wrong, exactly. It’s that Colin Firth is in the one with Jennifer Ehle, which means that all other adaptations are as nothing—dust floating away on the wind. So the Matthew Macfadyen performance effectively doesn’t exist. (Bad luck for him!)
I want you to know that I agree about the lack of usefulness and necessity of learning different languages for English speakers. Primarily because I'm a shameless jingoist, but I'm still glad whenever my instincts end up with intellectual backing after all.
What do you think of the hypothesis that growing up bilingual hampers future English mastery? Of course you'll be fluent - but it seems to me being even a little better at communicating among Americans is more valuable than speaking 2 languages.
What I have heard is that kids who grow up bi- or tri- (or more) lingual are a bit slower to start speaking all their languages fluently, but once they have everything sorted out, they speak at a native level in all their languages.
Yeah, you're right. To be fair, most of what you learn in high school is not necessary, but the foreign language one is especially egregious. The only languages you need to know are A) your country's language and B) English. If these two overlap, so much the better.
I took the bare minimum of my school's language requirement and then dropped it to have more time for music classes. I even petitioned to have other requirements waived so that I would have more space in my schedule for music, which I wouldn't have had to do if I hadn't taken those two years of Japanese I've totally forgotten.
Exactly! I was lucky that my high school didn’t require a foreign language, so I was able to take choir instead and got much more out of it than I would have from French, not only artistically, but intellectually too (it was an excellent choir that performed challenging music).
I think my counterargument is this: a foreign language is about the only thing that we learn at school level now that really requires a lot of memorisation, and memorisation is an important skill.
Kids used to have to learn texts (like the Bible) off by heart; they no longer do. (Where I live, in China, they still do that.) They probably still learn states and capitals, so that's 100 facts. They used to have to learn all the major waterways of the USA (I'm guessing), but now geography has changed in nature. Similarly, history is no longer a list of dates to learn.
Most of these changes in pegagogy seem good to me. But the cumulative result is that students don't do a lot of systematic learning: facing a task of learning 100s or 1000s of facts, working through it, and completing it. And that seems to me to be a shame, because learning stuff is a skill that you can practice, and it would be worth spending school time practicing it.
I was no linguist, but I ended up with 4 languages at GCSE (exam taken at 16): French because everyone does it; Latin and Greek because I went to an old-fashioned school; German because I didn't like history. When I came to China, I wasn't good at the language... but I never once doubted I could learn it. I'd done it 4 times before! There's a confidence that comes with having completed a chunky language class, which doesn't really have anything to do with whether you came out of it fluent or not.
I dunno. Your argument seems like a sub-branch of Scott Alexander's anti-school arguments, and I'm really struggling to respond effectively to either him or you! But this is the best way of putting it that I've come up with so far. Basically, kids have time in school, so make them do some quantifiably difficult stuff, so they know in future that they can do difficult stuff.
Oh, I am a huge fan of having kids memorize. It is good intellectual practice, and then they have the poem or passage in their back pocket for the rest of their lives. I once impressed a group of skeptical parents at Back to School Night by reciting the opening to the Canterbury Tales in Middle English, for example.
I just think that while some kids will thrive learning languages, others will do better studying music, or art, or shop, or an extra science.
Incidentally, I greatly admire your language prowess! Four languages—wow!
Haha, those languages have long gone. My kids are learning French now, and they look at me with disdain when I try to help them, but Chinese invades my French: J'habite en Zhongguo!
I myself learned a different bit of the Canterbury Tales: out of the Devil's arse, in a rout, 10,000 friars flew and somethinged about...
I get what you mean about choosing the most appropriate classes, but I also think it's pretty much impossible to tell until you try. It's not clear to me that 'choice' in itself makes for a better alternative. Schools offering choice exist - as does homeschooling - and they don't seem to produce significantly better results.
I completely agree with you on the language question. Mostly for the hopeless-without-constant-practice reason. All anyone needs to do to understand why the US, UK & Australia are mostly monolingual is look at a map. Unless you have some practical cause, unusual drive, or a magic shamelessness mixed with a good ear, it's extremely difficult to maintain the constant practice you need for decent fluency in a new language. The worst grade I received in college was a C in Italian. I was utterly terrible. When I moved to Italy a decade later, it was a completely different experience (not easy, just... necessary). Which turned a light on over my head and made improving my miserable Spanish and French much easier (not nearly at the friend-conversing level, but I might be able to crudely make fun of produce after 2-3 days in a native environment). I may still have immediately given up if confronted with Czech -- that table is terrifying! I'm impressed!
Sadly I can't speak to you rationally in any language with regard to your deranged Pride & Prejudice opinion. Particularly after hearing Colin Firth gamely trying to chat up reporters at some awards ceremony in his extremely rudimentary Italian -- I'm far too besotted to have ever given muddy Matthew Whatsis a second glance. But I am intrigued to hear more of your (undoubtedly scandalous) ideas about other movie versions of beloved literature characters. Sounds like there are enough passionate readers in here that we could have some lively, possibly apéro-fueled arguments in the comments.
I would love to have you over for an apéro and lively Jane Austen movie adaptation discussion, Lyra! I hope this doesn’t also sound deranged (😂), but one of my very favorite Jane Austen movies is Clueless. The film so perfectly captures the status wrangling of Emma’s little community when it transports it to a posh high school, and I love how the film translates the ever-so-slightly fraternal relationship of Emma and Mr. Knightly.
Oh, absolutely! There I'm with you 100% ❤️ I love Clueless even more because it made me better appreciate Emma (which I had put, with Mansfield Park, in the category of "heroines I wouldn't especially want to hang out with"). The straight adaptation that came out after it was high quality, but not as satisfying or joyful. Gwyneth's Emma wasn't nearly as charming as Cher -- who didn't have an ounce of real smug in her -- and it was harder for me to like her. And I felt like the relationship between her and Knightly on screen was closer to the "hmm, if you say so" one in the text.
My dad and I had a running Clueless joke for years after I got him to memorize the exact phrase her father threatens Christian with when he picks her up (my dad is a very non-physically-intimidating scientist): "Anything happens to my daughter, I got a .45 and a shovel. I doubt anybody would miss you." It never once came out smoothly when he tried it on my boyfriend at the time (who was 6'4" and liked to banter), but it always cracked me up.
That is one of my favorite lines in the film! I also just love the little sly smile on Dan Hedaya’s face whenever he sends Cher and Josh off together on some task or other. He is their secret Cupid!
(I'm all over the place in my thoughts...pardon that). For the most part I agree. Looking at the big-picture issue, I would argue that school time would be better spent teaching "life skill" subjects that would be much more valuable to the vast majority of students. On that front my list would include basic home/apt and car maintenance, basic finance/accounting, human growth and development, nutrition/fitness/wellness, et al. Given what I do for a living, I am also a big proponent of adding creative problem solving and leadership development/facilitation into the curriculum. That said, there are certainly many professions in the US where speaking Spanish (or another second language) is vital...healthcare, social services, almost any service job in a mid to major metro area or on the phone. As you suggest, those kids could opt in. Finally --- as an aside --- your "magic wand" approach is what Tina experienced at private Montessori school. They start them at age 2 and in the beginning it's just play...singing songs, learning the names of countries on the map, et al. Flash forward, the vast majority of kids in her class will leave 8th grade having completed Spanish 2. Because XT showed strong aptitude and interest in Spanish, she moved ahead and will leave 8th grade having completed Spanish 3 and start high school with the Srs. But the challenge with the Montessori approach is that is isn't scalable and requires added, qualified (and ideally native-speaking) staff.
XT’s school sounds so wonderful! And I agree that Spanish can be very useful in some careers—two of Matt’s brothers are ER doctors and speak excellent Spanish, which definitely comes in handy.
If only you could be put in charge to implement a life-skills class for all kids, as well as creative problem-solving every year. That is a skill that is sorely needed in our country these days!
I agree with what you said, and especially reasons you used to argue for it.
My own most controversial opinion - and I say this as a math teacher, although not in the US - is that algebra and (pre)calculus should not be mandatory either; there are many rewarding paths through life - some of which involve foreign languages - where you never need to solve anything for the square of the cosine.
As to language education in the US, I've listened to all of APM reports' "sold a story" and I'd much rather effort and money went into making sure children can read English by the time they move to high school (or college). That means that at least some of them will need phonics instruction.
Interesting! My husband is a mathematician, and he agrees with you! He thinks that after algebra 1, the mandatory math curriculum should include an introduction to statistics, because statistics are so important to critical reasoning—especially for stories about scientific studies that are poorly resorted by the media. But he thinks that other math classes should be electives.
And I agree about Sold a Story. It was sobering and at times enraging to learn about how poorly reading has been taught to American kids because of a flawed theory and financial interests.
I have been an international tour organizer and leader for decades, every continent except Antartica. Once upon a time just out of university where two languages were necessary for my Ph.D. I could speak (but not necessarily understand spoken) French and awkwardly read German. But I never once in these decades traveling internationally actually needed to speak or read a foreign language. Of course, my groups are always in the "tourist bubble," but you are right, second languages are just not necessary to function in the world and there are lots of things more necessary or just enjoyable.
Well, it's been a living. Some memorable experiences like the lady in St Petersburg looking out from a hotel balcony over the Gulf of Finland (Baltic Sea) and asking about how far above sea level we were: answer, five stories. Or the fellow getting on a train in Helsinki, train drawn up flat against the station platform and asking which direction he should sit to be looking forward when the train departed. I have been doing it since 1985 after people heard of my travels and asked if I could help them plan a trip and then later to travel with them. By 1995 it had become full-time. I have never had to advertise, just repeat and referral business. One of the drawbacks is, I almost always see the highlights over and over again, rather like Clark Griswold stuck on the roundabout in European Vacation: "look kids, it's Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament". . . again and again. But I have been on safari in Africa, on a houseboat on Amazon tributaries, riding in 1955 Chevies in Havana, camels at the pyramids. All in all, it's been a good run. Maybe not too much more running at 77 . . . but still good far.
As a practical matter, I suspect you're right about second language education. But studying a second language, even casually, opens doors of understanding on the nature of language itself -- its beauties and its limitations -- that a single-language speaker will never know about. Once you step outside your native tongue for even a bit, you gain insights into how your own language works that can't be had any other way. (A fish who's experienced air for a moment knows something more about water than a fish who's never left its normal habitat.)
Oh yes, I completely agree, based on my experience. Learning other languages has definitely enriched my life. But other people’s lives have e been enriched by studying music, art, and many other topics.
I loved your article. Your are so good at supporting all your theses. Perhaps more time spent on learning “correct” English would be more helpful than learning a foreign language. I am forever mentally correcting tv hosts and commentators and advertisers misusing objective and subjective pronouns and “accompanying”verbs! They are not always the best models for our children.
PS I am not sure I would have gotten my high diploma in Minnesota!
This is such a good point! (About learning English more fully, that is—if you had grown up in Minnesota, you would have easily passed the test, because you would have been taking swimming lessons from the age of six!) I agree with you that being able to write and speak English fluently is invaluable for all Americans, and I wish our elementary school reading classes focused more on getting kids to love reading for enjoyment, and less on a Common Core–style interpretation of “informational texts.”
Totally with you here on the point that the teaching/learning model in American high schools is not the way to learn. I teach at a university (in design, not languages), and students who had even years of Spanish or French in HS can't converse in their language of study.
For me personally, however, I am so grateful that I learned other languages: Latin in HS (Catholic), German in college (Georgia State University required a year of foreign language), and then self-taught Italian (because I teach in Rome sometimes). I am a huge logophile, so maybe this explains why this matters so much to me. I am fascinated by words and their etymologies to the point that sometimes I can be annoying, or at least people look at me funny.
There is another aspect of foreign languages that brings me great joy: out-loud pronunciation of words or names. One of my favorite things about learning German was speaking the language, with all those weird sounds that English doesn't have. Same with Italian. And I even get a kick out of learning proper pronunciation for words in languages that I don't speak, such as Mandarin Chinese. I am a name-reader at my university's commencements every semester, and one of my greatest joys is reading the student names into a microphone that makes my voice reverberate to the rafters of a coliseum filled with 20,000 happy people—knowing that I "nailed" it.
It's a great role for me, because I have both a voice and a face that is perfect for radio :·)
As someone whose name is ALWAYS mispronounced (except, suspiciously, by Siri—how does she know?!), I thank you from the bottom of my heart for bothering to get the names right! It may seem like a small and enjoyable gesture, but it means so much to people like me!
I hope my essay doesn’t come off as opposed to learning languages—I just think that people like us, who love languages and have good reasons for learning them, sometimes don’t realize that other people would get more out of studying something else.
P.S. Matthew just seems so damn tortured. And what's with his hair? I'm sure that someone with a bazillion lbs a year owns an ivory comb? I'm Team Colin, but it's just because I think he's cuter.
Ha! The tousled hair is part of the appeal!
Piffle!
A mere comb would not have been sufficient. All the hair tonic on earth could not balance the scales there.
😂
I was sort of grumping at this take at first, but then you convinced me at least that the reason(s) for teaching foreign languages needs to be re-thought. I wonder what language instruction would be like if it were all more like Latin and Greek, where you're focused on reading and translation (and almost no speaking)?
Also your discussion of the best way to learn a language made me think of Xiao Ma -- do you know this guy? He's fun -- he makes viral videos on youtube speaking different languages in public and surprising people, and has "street smart" language classes -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njn6krU3tQ8&ab_channel=Xiaomanyc%E5%B0%8F%E9%A9%AC%E5%9C%A8%E7%BA%BD%E7%BA%A6
Thank you so much for this video! How fun! Reminds me of a time when Noah was a baby and lived in DC. Matt and I had taken him to the park and were pushing him in the swing, and an older Russian couple walked past and started criticizing our parenting in Russian. Matt, whose Russian is flawless, said, in Russian, “I can understand everything you’re saying, you know.” Ha! They were NOT expecting that!
And I like your suggestion about focusing on languages that are for reading only (I took Anglo-Saxon in college, for example). That plays to classroom instruction’s strengths. The classroom is a poor venue for learning to speak, but it is much better for teaching reading and writing.
Haha, kids don't go on swings in Russia? Matt was not having it ..
And yes! For Latin they focus on what's easy to read first, like Julius Caesar's writings ... Learning French to read Racine, or something like that? These could be valuable experiences that students would remember.
The issue was that Noah wasn’t wearing shoes. I carried him around everywhere in a Baby Bjorn under my coat, so we never put shoes on him when we went out for walks. We saw the park and spontaneously decided to push him in the swing, figuring (correctly) that his shoeless feet would be fine for a few minutes. He did have warm socks! But the older couple was scandalized.
I thought over this essay for quite a while, and bounced the ideas off of some close friends. Granted, my data set consists almost entirely of people who would choose to study subjects outside of their own expertise solely for the new experiences and broadening of their own horizons. We feel like your practical approach to let children choose their own electives turns into the racism of low expectations.
Children are not good at choosing what's best for them, that comes with maturity and experience. Any child worth her salt would choose ice cream over broccoli. Do we just feed every child ice cream, let them take art and gym classes because they are the most fun, and reserve any real education to the little Sheldon Cooper nerdlings who actually have some affinity for foreign languages, writing classes, and math? I think it's our duty as adults to push our children to challenges, make them have some uncomfortable experience with topics they may not turn out to be naturally good at. So long as we don't keep pressing the issues into early adulthood (forced college to get jobs that have no real need for higher education) we could still end up with a population of citizens that might have the possibilty of knowing a little more than their own chosen little world.
Thank you so much for this thoughtful comment--I'm so glad to hear that the essay provoked thought and discussion with friends! I really like your ice cream analogy and agree completely that kids tend to choose the fun and easy way if they aren't required to challenge themselves--which is why schools should require English, math, science, and social sciences of every student. I think we're just arguing about details. I think that foreign languages belong in the category with art and music, and it sounds like you would put it with English and math. Fair enough.
I do, think, though, that you undersell the difficulty of art (and I'd add, music). My daughter took higher level art for her IB, and it was her toughest class--more difficult and demanding for her than calculus, and certainly more than German was for her. And I always say that my high school choir grades were the most challenging As I have ever earned. Classroom French would have been a breeze compared with Mr. Hansen's A Capella Choir!
It isn't low expectations, and still less is it racism, to acknowledge that people have different interests and talents, and that our yen for challenge and meaning can be met with music and art as much as with foreign languages.
Yes, you are correct on all points. I'd update my first comment, but since your replies to it are specific I'll leave it there and update my remarks here. I agree that the so-called "fun" classes are not necessarily easier, I too had harder times getting A's in those. And the low expectations remark was not appropriate here-- not sure what made me think of it in the moment.
I guess what I really think is simple, everybody should be forced to take some of everything. You never can tell what might inspire a young person, and I'd rather err on the side of giving them too much variety than allow them to narrow their scopes too early. I was never forced to take a foreign language, and regret it. It turns out I had a natural talent and affinity for learning languages, and it's too bad that I wasn't exposed to it until I was in my 20's. But better late than never.
The problem with your take on Pride and Prejudice is not that it’s wrong, exactly. It’s that Colin Firth is in the one with Jennifer Ehle, which means that all other adaptations are as nothing—dust floating away on the wind. So the Matthew Macfadyen performance effectively doesn’t exist. (Bad luck for him!)
Ha! I do dearly love Ehle’s Elizabeth. So sparkling and mischievous!
I want you to know that I agree about the lack of usefulness and necessity of learning different languages for English speakers. Primarily because I'm a shameless jingoist, but I'm still glad whenever my instincts end up with intellectual backing after all.
What do you think of the hypothesis that growing up bilingual hampers future English mastery? Of course you'll be fluent - but it seems to me being even a little better at communicating among Americans is more valuable than speaking 2 languages.
What I have heard is that kids who grow up bi- or tri- (or more) lingual are a bit slower to start speaking all their languages fluently, but once they have everything sorted out, they speak at a native level in all their languages.
Yeah, you're right. To be fair, most of what you learn in high school is not necessary, but the foreign language one is especially egregious. The only languages you need to know are A) your country's language and B) English. If these two overlap, so much the better.
I took the bare minimum of my school's language requirement and then dropped it to have more time for music classes. I even petitioned to have other requirements waived so that I would have more space in my schedule for music, which I wouldn't have had to do if I hadn't taken those two years of Japanese I've totally forgotten.
Exactly! I was lucky that my high school didn’t require a foreign language, so I was able to take choir instead and got much more out of it than I would have from French, not only artistically, but intellectually too (it was an excellent choir that performed challenging music).
I think my counterargument is this: a foreign language is about the only thing that we learn at school level now that really requires a lot of memorisation, and memorisation is an important skill.
Kids used to have to learn texts (like the Bible) off by heart; they no longer do. (Where I live, in China, they still do that.) They probably still learn states and capitals, so that's 100 facts. They used to have to learn all the major waterways of the USA (I'm guessing), but now geography has changed in nature. Similarly, history is no longer a list of dates to learn.
Most of these changes in pegagogy seem good to me. But the cumulative result is that students don't do a lot of systematic learning: facing a task of learning 100s or 1000s of facts, working through it, and completing it. And that seems to me to be a shame, because learning stuff is a skill that you can practice, and it would be worth spending school time practicing it.
I was no linguist, but I ended up with 4 languages at GCSE (exam taken at 16): French because everyone does it; Latin and Greek because I went to an old-fashioned school; German because I didn't like history. When I came to China, I wasn't good at the language... but I never once doubted I could learn it. I'd done it 4 times before! There's a confidence that comes with having completed a chunky language class, which doesn't really have anything to do with whether you came out of it fluent or not.
I dunno. Your argument seems like a sub-branch of Scott Alexander's anti-school arguments, and I'm really struggling to respond effectively to either him or you! But this is the best way of putting it that I've come up with so far. Basically, kids have time in school, so make them do some quantifiably difficult stuff, so they know in future that they can do difficult stuff.
Oh, I am a huge fan of having kids memorize. It is good intellectual practice, and then they have the poem or passage in their back pocket for the rest of their lives. I once impressed a group of skeptical parents at Back to School Night by reciting the opening to the Canterbury Tales in Middle English, for example.
I just think that while some kids will thrive learning languages, others will do better studying music, or art, or shop, or an extra science.
Incidentally, I greatly admire your language prowess! Four languages—wow!
Haha, those languages have long gone. My kids are learning French now, and they look at me with disdain when I try to help them, but Chinese invades my French: J'habite en Zhongguo!
I myself learned a different bit of the Canterbury Tales: out of the Devil's arse, in a rout, 10,000 friars flew and somethinged about...
I get what you mean about choosing the most appropriate classes, but I also think it's pretty much impossible to tell until you try. It's not clear to me that 'choice' in itself makes for a better alternative. Schools offering choice exist - as does homeschooling - and they don't seem to produce significantly better results.
I completely agree with you on the language question. Mostly for the hopeless-without-constant-practice reason. All anyone needs to do to understand why the US, UK & Australia are mostly monolingual is look at a map. Unless you have some practical cause, unusual drive, or a magic shamelessness mixed with a good ear, it's extremely difficult to maintain the constant practice you need for decent fluency in a new language. The worst grade I received in college was a C in Italian. I was utterly terrible. When I moved to Italy a decade later, it was a completely different experience (not easy, just... necessary). Which turned a light on over my head and made improving my miserable Spanish and French much easier (not nearly at the friend-conversing level, but I might be able to crudely make fun of produce after 2-3 days in a native environment). I may still have immediately given up if confronted with Czech -- that table is terrifying! I'm impressed!
Sadly I can't speak to you rationally in any language with regard to your deranged Pride & Prejudice opinion. Particularly after hearing Colin Firth gamely trying to chat up reporters at some awards ceremony in his extremely rudimentary Italian -- I'm far too besotted to have ever given muddy Matthew Whatsis a second glance. But I am intrigued to hear more of your (undoubtedly scandalous) ideas about other movie versions of beloved literature characters. Sounds like there are enough passionate readers in here that we could have some lively, possibly apéro-fueled arguments in the comments.
I would love to have you over for an apéro and lively Jane Austen movie adaptation discussion, Lyra! I hope this doesn’t also sound deranged (😂), but one of my very favorite Jane Austen movies is Clueless. The film so perfectly captures the status wrangling of Emma’s little community when it transports it to a posh high school, and I love how the film translates the ever-so-slightly fraternal relationship of Emma and Mr. Knightly.
Oh, absolutely! There I'm with you 100% ❤️ I love Clueless even more because it made me better appreciate Emma (which I had put, with Mansfield Park, in the category of "heroines I wouldn't especially want to hang out with"). The straight adaptation that came out after it was high quality, but not as satisfying or joyful. Gwyneth's Emma wasn't nearly as charming as Cher -- who didn't have an ounce of real smug in her -- and it was harder for me to like her. And I felt like the relationship between her and Knightly on screen was closer to the "hmm, if you say so" one in the text.
My dad and I had a running Clueless joke for years after I got him to memorize the exact phrase her father threatens Christian with when he picks her up (my dad is a very non-physically-intimidating scientist): "Anything happens to my daughter, I got a .45 and a shovel. I doubt anybody would miss you." It never once came out smoothly when he tried it on my boyfriend at the time (who was 6'4" and liked to banter), but it always cracked me up.
That is one of my favorite lines in the film! I also just love the little sly smile on Dan Hedaya’s face whenever he sends Cher and Josh off together on some task or other. He is their secret Cupid!
So true! 🥰
(I'm all over the place in my thoughts...pardon that). For the most part I agree. Looking at the big-picture issue, I would argue that school time would be better spent teaching "life skill" subjects that would be much more valuable to the vast majority of students. On that front my list would include basic home/apt and car maintenance, basic finance/accounting, human growth and development, nutrition/fitness/wellness, et al. Given what I do for a living, I am also a big proponent of adding creative problem solving and leadership development/facilitation into the curriculum. That said, there are certainly many professions in the US where speaking Spanish (or another second language) is vital...healthcare, social services, almost any service job in a mid to major metro area or on the phone. As you suggest, those kids could opt in. Finally --- as an aside --- your "magic wand" approach is what Tina experienced at private Montessori school. They start them at age 2 and in the beginning it's just play...singing songs, learning the names of countries on the map, et al. Flash forward, the vast majority of kids in her class will leave 8th grade having completed Spanish 2. Because XT showed strong aptitude and interest in Spanish, she moved ahead and will leave 8th grade having completed Spanish 3 and start high school with the Srs. But the challenge with the Montessori approach is that is isn't scalable and requires added, qualified (and ideally native-speaking) staff.
XT’s school sounds so wonderful! And I agree that Spanish can be very useful in some careers—two of Matt’s brothers are ER doctors and speak excellent Spanish, which definitely comes in handy.
If only you could be put in charge to implement a life-skills class for all kids, as well as creative problem-solving every year. That is a skill that is sorely needed in our country these days!
I agree with what you said, and especially reasons you used to argue for it.
My own most controversial opinion - and I say this as a math teacher, although not in the US - is that algebra and (pre)calculus should not be mandatory either; there are many rewarding paths through life - some of which involve foreign languages - where you never need to solve anything for the square of the cosine.
As to language education in the US, I've listened to all of APM reports' "sold a story" and I'd much rather effort and money went into making sure children can read English by the time they move to high school (or college). That means that at least some of them will need phonics instruction.
Interesting! My husband is a mathematician, and he agrees with you! He thinks that after algebra 1, the mandatory math curriculum should include an introduction to statistics, because statistics are so important to critical reasoning—especially for stories about scientific studies that are poorly resorted by the media. But he thinks that other math classes should be electives.
And I agree about Sold a Story. It was sobering and at times enraging to learn about how poorly reading has been taught to American kids because of a flawed theory and financial interests.
I have been an international tour organizer and leader for decades, every continent except Antartica. Once upon a time just out of university where two languages were necessary for my Ph.D. I could speak (but not necessarily understand spoken) French and awkwardly read German. But I never once in these decades traveling internationally actually needed to speak or read a foreign language. Of course, my groups are always in the "tourist bubble," but you are right, second languages are just not necessary to function in the world and there are lots of things more necessary or just enjoyable.
Great comment. You have my dream job! What an exciting life you must have had, leading your groups so many places!
Well, it's been a living. Some memorable experiences like the lady in St Petersburg looking out from a hotel balcony over the Gulf of Finland (Baltic Sea) and asking about how far above sea level we were: answer, five stories. Or the fellow getting on a train in Helsinki, train drawn up flat against the station platform and asking which direction he should sit to be looking forward when the train departed. I have been doing it since 1985 after people heard of my travels and asked if I could help them plan a trip and then later to travel with them. By 1995 it had become full-time. I have never had to advertise, just repeat and referral business. One of the drawbacks is, I almost always see the highlights over and over again, rather like Clark Griswold stuck on the roundabout in European Vacation: "look kids, it's Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament". . . again and again. But I have been on safari in Africa, on a houseboat on Amazon tributaries, riding in 1955 Chevies in Havana, camels at the pyramids. All in all, it's been a good run. Maybe not too much more running at 77 . . . but still good far.
As a practical matter, I suspect you're right about second language education. But studying a second language, even casually, opens doors of understanding on the nature of language itself -- its beauties and its limitations -- that a single-language speaker will never know about. Once you step outside your native tongue for even a bit, you gain insights into how your own language works that can't be had any other way. (A fish who's experienced air for a moment knows something more about water than a fish who's never left its normal habitat.)
Oh yes, I completely agree, based on my experience. Learning other languages has definitely enriched my life. But other people’s lives have e been enriched by studying music, art, and many other topics.
I loved your article. Your are so good at supporting all your theses. Perhaps more time spent on learning “correct” English would be more helpful than learning a foreign language. I am forever mentally correcting tv hosts and commentators and advertisers misusing objective and subjective pronouns and “accompanying”verbs! They are not always the best models for our children.
PS I am not sure I would have gotten my high diploma in Minnesota!
This is such a good point! (About learning English more fully, that is—if you had grown up in Minnesota, you would have easily passed the test, because you would have been taking swimming lessons from the age of six!) I agree with you that being able to write and speak English fluently is invaluable for all Americans, and I wish our elementary school reading classes focused more on getting kids to love reading for enjoyment, and less on a Common Core–style interpretation of “informational texts.”
I enjoyed reading this educational article. I too prefer Matthew over Colin 😘
Hooray! Another member of Team Matthew!