No need for knowledge nowdays...
Thursday 11th of May 2006
Latin sucks.
Latin sucks a lot.
And when I say that latin sucks a lot, I'm gentle about it. After all, what reward do I get for having ploughed through 6 years of it? Nothing. All right, I'm getting a 3 point head-start in a test that I need 250 points to succede. Brilliant.
After all, why do we do latin? Is it really for the lengua latina that we're constantly taught? I'd hope not, because if it were, then it's one of the least efficient language classes that I've ever been in. In my whole 6 years, and the 4 teachers that I have had, I have yet to meet someone who could talk latin. And even were I to meet someone who was fluent in latin, wouldn't his efforts been in vain? Is there a reason to learning latin?
It's not all black and white though. Indeed, the language per se is particularly uninteresting. Virgil is quite interesting the first time, moderately the second, and quite boring the third time when you can't understand the finesse of his use of latin. I for one have yet to feel latin. I hear the rythm, I hear the rhymes, I hear the various rhetoric ploys, and I understand the flow of the text... And yet I feel like I'm missing something. The texts seem eerie, broken, damaged, unnatural. Perhaps latin should focalise less on teaching grammar (Cicerone consule or rosa, rosa, rosa, rosae, rosae, rosam, rosa...) , and more on making the students enjoy the subject.
After all I have said against latin, you could ask yourselves why I went on for 6 years, 6 years of mind-numbing declensions, translations and vocabulary lists. Well, I went on because latin is quite a contrasted subject.
Latin classes are in fact two completely seperate classes. The first are there to teach the dead latin language to mainly uninterested students in an uninnovative manner, relying on completely absurd texts that the students are hapless to understand (no 13 year-old that acts even twice his age can care about nor understand the more subtle passages that show minor differences between Marcus Aurelius and Cicero's understanding of Stoicism). The second class is a class that attracts great interest from the students, thanks to adapted content and complexity for each level; the cultural part of latin classes.
When a latin teacher gives a class that is within the boundaries of the cultural part, then firstly there is no lengua latina. After all, everything that falls within the cultural part is either similar to a history class, an art class, or a social studies class. And for all these, the only latin that is used is the latin that names whatever is being discussed. When talking about the Punic Wars, the teacher will bring up Caton the Elder's famous "Carthago delenda est", and yet they are not attempting to teach their students any grammar, because the class is about the Punic Wars, their timeline and their main caracters. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you remebered "Carthago delenda est" and not "Arma virumque cano, Trojae qui primus ab oris Italiam fato profugus Laviniaque venit", even though the second is probably the one you studied for far more time, as it is the beginning of the Incipit of Virgil's Aeneid (I met it 3 times as I went through my classes, and each time dwelled on it for at least a good month). But why do you remember one and not the other? Well, I think it's because you relate to Cato's words with more intensity than you do with Virgil's. Not that Cato is a better orator than Virgil, but rather that his catchphrase is clearly situated, and is instantly associated with one single idea.
I love learning about things like that. I find it wonderful to relive the stories of treachery, love, passion and cupidity that are at the root of our common culture. Nero, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Hannibal... So many great names, so many great stories, so much to learn, so much to rediscover! And yet, when the time of the exam comes, you could have been better off not losing 6 years learning latin at all.
How does the latin exam work, for this abberational exam? Is it something that allies both halves of latin classes? Is it something that makes you feel rewarded for your years of toil? Is it a test where you need to have been to 6 years of latin classes to succede?
Well, to cut a long story short, no. You don't need to have even touched a latin text before to get a good result at your exam. The exam is simple : translate and comment a text that has been prepared during the year. Sounds class, right? Well, the downfall is that it's "been prepared during the year". In other words : you're a dumbass to have been to 6 years of latin when you could have just stupidly recorded the translations and the commentaries
that the teacher did this year, and blurted them out without understanding a word you were saying to get the best possible mark.
Indeed, being able to talk latin is completely crazy, and even if you could, then it wouldn't really be an advantage, as you'd not get a single point if you didn't manage to comment the text properly. And if you've understood the text, and can comment on it for hours, but not translate it, you're also doomed. To get the best mark, it's best to not really know what you're talking about, and just blurt out the words you learnt by heart, in the order you learnt by heart. No knowledge required to get a good mark.
But what's even more dissapointing is that all the cultural part is completely absent, and will not bring home a single point. Let me explain. You start the test with -10 points, and can get at the best 10. The cultural parts are worth 6 points, and the lengua latina parts worth 14 (translation 7, commentary 7). I was never into learning the latin language per se, as I see no interest. Of course, to know a couple of latin expressions is useful in everyday life, and to get the overall picture of what's being said in a latin text can be interesting. But I never felt compelled to delve into the functions of the ablative, nor into the uses of the subjonctive pluperfect. Now, I've been an average student, spending time doing the homework that the teacher set out, and participating in class. I've also spent time in class chatting, scribbling notes to my neighbours, and been late for class. But so has every child.
Now, the thing that I don't understand is why I'm going to regret not having learnt latin. Ok, I'll only get +3, thanks to 6 points for the culture part and 7 for the average translation and bland commentary combo. If I'm under 8, then I'll have regrets; or at least that's what the school wants me to understand. You get 79% in a maths test, well it means that you've got to improve, because you'll only be content with yourself once you get 100%. But I don't think that rule applies any longer to latin. Some of my classmates will get 7, 8 or 9. But they don't like latin any more than me. They simply took more time, had more capacity than me, and learnt their texts better by heart than I did.
So... I'm "bad" because I didn't know how to learn some 14 texts by heart perfectly? That's in contradiction with what school has been telling me for as long as I can remember. "Don't learn these formulae by heart, but remember how to find them again!", "the values can change, so don't learn this example, learn the rule!", etc... And with latin it seems to be the contrary. Sorry, but I don't understand.
I'm dissapointed that I wasn't able to get more, and yet I won't be crying for the 7 points I won't get. But when you hear teachers that bemoan the lack of students that are taking latin, you hear the administrative structure that is having troubles accomodating the receding number of students because of administrative limits to how many students are needed to maintain a latin class, and you're plagued with politicians, great scholars, scientists and artists that are pointing out that culture is receeding, then you begin to wonder if the exam isn't what deters people from the subject.
When you're going to start, your parents are the only reason you begin, for most children. And for most children, as soon as the parental pressure is relaxed, then latin stops. And yet, it could be different. This year, my latin teacher gave me will to learn, and showed me that latin isn't all bad. She wouldn't fit nicely in the box that latin teachers fit into all too often, she thought like a student, preferring to hand out polycopied translations of texts when we weren't in a good enough state to sit through a whole hour of translation with her, and punctuating her classes with cultural moments that brought a whole new dimension to the texts we were reading.
Yes, knowledge of how to use the latin language well is an important factor in the exam, and should remain as such. But it would be far more encouraging for students if the cultural part was more rewarding, as it will be the most rewarding throughout theit whole lives. This year, I met a student who was brilliant at translating texts, and seemed to have a knack to spotting the case each word was in, and which function that word should then have. However, he didn't understand when I commented that I was "between Scylla and Charybdis", nor when I left the room saying to the teacher in a humourous context "acta est fabula plaudite". Can I be excused when I don't believe that he is 'better' than me because he can translate and comment (or rather memorise them) better than I can, and as such will earn more points? I think that 'useful' latin is latin that is part of common culture... Certainly not scholar's latin that translates text.
Latin sucks.
Latin sucks a lot.
And when I say that latin sucks a lot, I'm gentle about it. After all, what reward do I get for having ploughed through 6 years of it? Nothing. All right, I'm getting a 3 point head-start in a test that I need 250 points to succede. Brilliant.
After all, why do we do latin? Is it really for the lengua latina that we're constantly taught? I'd hope not, because if it were, then it's one of the least efficient language classes that I've ever been in. In my whole 6 years, and the 4 teachers that I have had, I have yet to meet someone who could talk latin. And even were I to meet someone who was fluent in latin, wouldn't his efforts been in vain? Is there a reason to learning latin?
It's not all black and white though. Indeed, the language per se is particularly uninteresting. Virgil is quite interesting the first time, moderately the second, and quite boring the third time when you can't understand the finesse of his use of latin. I for one have yet to feel latin. I hear the rythm, I hear the rhymes, I hear the various rhetoric ploys, and I understand the flow of the text... And yet I feel like I'm missing something. The texts seem eerie, broken, damaged, unnatural. Perhaps latin should focalise less on teaching grammar (Cicerone consule or rosa, rosa, rosa, rosae, rosae, rosam, rosa...) , and more on making the students enjoy the subject.
After all I have said against latin, you could ask yourselves why I went on for 6 years, 6 years of mind-numbing declensions, translations and vocabulary lists. Well, I went on because latin is quite a contrasted subject.
Latin classes are in fact two completely seperate classes. The first are there to teach the dead latin language to mainly uninterested students in an uninnovative manner, relying on completely absurd texts that the students are hapless to understand (no 13 year-old that acts even twice his age can care about nor understand the more subtle passages that show minor differences between Marcus Aurelius and Cicero's understanding of Stoicism). The second class is a class that attracts great interest from the students, thanks to adapted content and complexity for each level; the cultural part of latin classes.
When a latin teacher gives a class that is within the boundaries of the cultural part, then firstly there is no lengua latina. After all, everything that falls within the cultural part is either similar to a history class, an art class, or a social studies class. And for all these, the only latin that is used is the latin that names whatever is being discussed. When talking about the Punic Wars, the teacher will bring up Caton the Elder's famous "Carthago delenda est", and yet they are not attempting to teach their students any grammar, because the class is about the Punic Wars, their timeline and their main caracters. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you remebered "Carthago delenda est" and not "Arma virumque cano, Trojae qui primus ab oris Italiam fato profugus Laviniaque venit", even though the second is probably the one you studied for far more time, as it is the beginning of the Incipit of Virgil's Aeneid (I met it 3 times as I went through my classes, and each time dwelled on it for at least a good month). But why do you remember one and not the other? Well, I think it's because you relate to Cato's words with more intensity than you do with Virgil's. Not that Cato is a better orator than Virgil, but rather that his catchphrase is clearly situated, and is instantly associated with one single idea.
I love learning about things like that. I find it wonderful to relive the stories of treachery, love, passion and cupidity that are at the root of our common culture. Nero, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Hannibal... So many great names, so many great stories, so much to learn, so much to rediscover! And yet, when the time of the exam comes, you could have been better off not losing 6 years learning latin at all.
How does the latin exam work, for this abberational exam? Is it something that allies both halves of latin classes? Is it something that makes you feel rewarded for your years of toil? Is it a test where you need to have been to 6 years of latin classes to succede?
Well, to cut a long story short, no. You don't need to have even touched a latin text before to get a good result at your exam. The exam is simple : translate and comment a text that has been prepared during the year. Sounds class, right? Well, the downfall is that it's "been prepared during the year". In other words : you're a dumbass to have been to 6 years of latin when you could have just stupidly recorded the translations and the commentaries
that the teacher did this year, and blurted them out without understanding a word you were saying to get the best possible mark.
Indeed, being able to talk latin is completely crazy, and even if you could, then it wouldn't really be an advantage, as you'd not get a single point if you didn't manage to comment the text properly. And if you've understood the text, and can comment on it for hours, but not translate it, you're also doomed. To get the best mark, it's best to not really know what you're talking about, and just blurt out the words you learnt by heart, in the order you learnt by heart. No knowledge required to get a good mark.
But what's even more dissapointing is that all the cultural part is completely absent, and will not bring home a single point. Let me explain. You start the test with -10 points, and can get at the best 10. The cultural parts are worth 6 points, and the lengua latina parts worth 14 (translation 7, commentary 7). I was never into learning the latin language per se, as I see no interest. Of course, to know a couple of latin expressions is useful in everyday life, and to get the overall picture of what's being said in a latin text can be interesting. But I never felt compelled to delve into the functions of the ablative, nor into the uses of the subjonctive pluperfect. Now, I've been an average student, spending time doing the homework that the teacher set out, and participating in class. I've also spent time in class chatting, scribbling notes to my neighbours, and been late for class. But so has every child.
Now, the thing that I don't understand is why I'm going to regret not having learnt latin. Ok, I'll only get +3, thanks to 6 points for the culture part and 7 for the average translation and bland commentary combo. If I'm under 8, then I'll have regrets; or at least that's what the school wants me to understand. You get 79% in a maths test, well it means that you've got to improve, because you'll only be content with yourself once you get 100%. But I don't think that rule applies any longer to latin. Some of my classmates will get 7, 8 or 9. But they don't like latin any more than me. They simply took more time, had more capacity than me, and learnt their texts better by heart than I did.
So... I'm "bad" because I didn't know how to learn some 14 texts by heart perfectly? That's in contradiction with what school has been telling me for as long as I can remember. "Don't learn these formulae by heart, but remember how to find them again!", "the values can change, so don't learn this example, learn the rule!", etc... And with latin it seems to be the contrary. Sorry, but I don't understand.
I'm dissapointed that I wasn't able to get more, and yet I won't be crying for the 7 points I won't get. But when you hear teachers that bemoan the lack of students that are taking latin, you hear the administrative structure that is having troubles accomodating the receding number of students because of administrative limits to how many students are needed to maintain a latin class, and you're plagued with politicians, great scholars, scientists and artists that are pointing out that culture is receeding, then you begin to wonder if the exam isn't what deters people from the subject.
When you're going to start, your parents are the only reason you begin, for most children. And for most children, as soon as the parental pressure is relaxed, then latin stops. And yet, it could be different. This year, my latin teacher gave me will to learn, and showed me that latin isn't all bad. She wouldn't fit nicely in the box that latin teachers fit into all too often, she thought like a student, preferring to hand out polycopied translations of texts when we weren't in a good enough state to sit through a whole hour of translation with her, and punctuating her classes with cultural moments that brought a whole new dimension to the texts we were reading.
Yes, knowledge of how to use the latin language well is an important factor in the exam, and should remain as such. But it would be far more encouraging for students if the cultural part was more rewarding, as it will be the most rewarding throughout theit whole lives. This year, I met a student who was brilliant at translating texts, and seemed to have a knack to spotting the case each word was in, and which function that word should then have. However, he didn't understand when I commented that I was "between Scylla and Charybdis", nor when I left the room saying to the teacher in a humourous context "acta est fabula plaudite". Can I be excused when I don't believe that he is 'better' than me because he can translate and comment (or rather memorise them) better than I can, and as such will earn more points? I think that 'useful' latin is latin that is part of common culture... Certainly not scholar's latin that translates text.
posted by Unknown at 21:08
1 Comments:
Tout ça est assez vrai....
De tte façon, en général, les péreuves du bac semble assez absurdes, car faites pour qu'un maximum de gens l'ait.
Côté latin, j'ai commencé, comme tu dis, poussée par mes parents, et j'étais assez passionée (enfin presque !) par le coté culturel, c la que j'ai appris ce qu'était et signifiait "épée de damoclès". Mai la grammaire a eu raison de moi...Je regrette juste pour la prof qui semblai avoir réussi a donner un aperçu agréable du latin.
Pas mal pour un premier article, en tout cas j'ai lu jusko bout ! ;)
Bisous
Post a Comment
<< Home