Why do high schools and colleges assign such boring books?

It's a tradeoff. The more interested your students are, the more will truly absorb the material, instead of learning just enough to get by. I personally enjoyed Lord of the Flies, but a lot of my classmates didn't care for it, and some of them still did well on that section of the course. Some of them skipped large portions of the book and read online summaries instead. I think I could have succeeded that way, and I did with several quizzes on short stories that didn't interest me.

On the other hand, for an academic setting, Lord of the Flies or Huckleberry Finn are certainly more appropriate than some random adventure story with few higher themes. The goals are different.

 

My schools just showed the movie renditions.

 

Speaking as a former high school English teacher, I partly agree with the OP. I loved reading and books, and I certainly do remember being forced to read some I just didn't like—The Sound And The Fury is the one bummer I remember most vividly. It was required reading in my 11th grade English class, and I could NOT get my head around that book. However, when I read some of Faulkner's other stories later on, I quite liked them. I just think that one was a bad choice. However, I seem to have survived the experience intact.

It all depends, I guess, on what the students can do, and what age they are. There are literary references the students are likely to encounter in real life, and it is part of their education to learn about these references and discuss what they mean and where they come from. I know I absolutely hated math, but I'm glad I was forced to learn it, because I've certainly had to use it in later life. It's not the job of an educator to simply give students something to occupy their time until graduation. We see the products of that approach every day, in the semi-coherent nonsense that gets spouted online, etc.

However, I think the 'worthy' books don't all have to be dull and dreary. For me, a worthy book is one I a) remember, and b) one I thought about a lot when I finished reading it. I'm in favour of allowing teachers to choose the books they'd like to teach, within reason, because each teacher's skills are different, and I like the notion of students being exposed to a variety of things, including stuff they 'don't like.' Welcome to life, guys.

I think the main problem teachers face at the moment isn't 'boring books,' but the fact that so many students don't read at all—even before they get to the class that gives them F Scott Fitzgerald, etc. If @MrWrite 's point is that bad choice of reading material in school puts students off reading anything, then I'm wondering if he's looking at the total picture, or considering where a dislike of reading actually starts.

I maintain that a dislike of reading starts in front of a TV screen or a computer screen or a smartphone screen. As a young person, I read voraciously when I wasn't in school, and could actually read a little bit before I started school. We didn't have a TV at home, so all my 'escapist' stories came from books and the very occasional movie. Having to read a boring book at school certainly didn't put me off reading.

But yes, I think there were a few books we got stuck with that could have been culled—not because they were unworthy, but because they really were out of date. (Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter also comes to mind.) It's always a good idea to revisit the lists and make adjustments, especially to the more modern books kids are expected to read. But don't forget the students' outside environment plays a part as well. If all they do is play with their computers and smartphones outside of school, reading isn't going to be high on their list of pastimes.

A really daring approach for teachers (with appropriate administration backup) would be to choose a book that is incredibly popular with young people who DO read, but is shallow in theme and not very well written. There will be some astute students who will pick out the flaws in this kind of book, I reckon. And that makes for an interesting discussion and learning experience that bypasses the 'old fogey-out-of-date teacher' charge. (Twilight, anyone?) This might help develop discrimination in reading choices in students who disliked the book, while the students who unreservedly love the book would at least have read it and enjoyed coming to class. And those in the middle might see both what made the book popular and how it could have been improved. Who knows? The students might even enjoy the NEXT book you assign.

It would also be fun to allow the class to vote on a reading choice, say, at the start of the year, and then assign it midway through. They could nominate books and then vote on the choices—developing a long list, then a short list. It would also be fun to present a worthy choice from popular genres, such as Crime or Horror or Science Fiction or Fantasy or Romance. It doesn't all have to be heavy classics.

Lots of approaches, really, if teachers are allowed to make these kinds of choices. I suspect some school systems are more open to an experimental approach than others.

 

I think Jannert raises an interesting point when writing, "I think the main problem teachers face at the moment isn't 'boring books,' but the fact that so many students don't read at all—even before they get to the class that gives them F Scott Fitzgerald, etc. If @MrWrite 's point is that bad choice of reading material in school puts students off reading anything, then I'm wondering if he's looking at the total picture, or considering where a dislike of reading actually starts."

I agree that boring reading choices made by high school or college teachers is not the reason some (many?) students don't read at all. Despite the fact that I read to my kids at bedtime every night when they were growing up, neither of them like to read now that they are 18 and 22 years old. The intent of my original post was not to lay the blame for a decline in reading at the feet of teachers. I was simply making the observation that way too many of my teachers growing up had us reading books that were painful for me to read (and I loved reading as a kid).

But going back to Jannert's point of "I think the main problem teachers face at the moment isn't 'boring books,' but the fact that so many students don't read at all," if that is the case isn't that all the more reason to try to create curriculum that will make reading seem more interesting? I am certainly not saying that teachers have to surrender and only assign books that are modern day popular, but would it be so terrible to offer a class in high school called "For the love of reading" in which the assigned books would be books such as Hunger Games, Divergent, The Da Vinci Code, A Steven King book, etc.?

And before you decry this as writing not worthy of academic treatment, consider this. According to a goodreads article (https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/2413.100_Best_American_Authors) I found listing the 100 best novels by American writers of all time, some of the books from above rank as follows:

#22 The Stand by Steven King
#46 The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins
#77 The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown

Other top 100 books by more modern writers include:

#32 Beloved by Toni Morrison
#34 I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou
#81 The Fault in our Stars by John Green
#82 Roots: The Saga of an American Family by Alex Haley
#86 Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas by Hunter S. Thompson
#99 The Godfather by Mario Puzo

I have not read all of these books so I am not vouching for all of them, but my point is there are acclaimed modern writers that might resonate better with students than books that seem so ancient. And yes, I know Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas would set the hair on fire of parents and school boards if it were assigned reading.

Or why not a class on modern day thriller writers? I would pound the table for David Baldacci, Brad Meltzer, Harlan Coben. You could probably throw in writers like John Grisham, although after liking his books for awhile I have grown tired of them.

Or a class on books that write about greed and Wall Street excess which is current. Ben Mezrich has written several page turners on these subjects. The Wolf of Wall Street by Jordan Belfort and Bonfire of the Vanities by Tom Wolfe come to mind.

While I am sure that some of the books I have mentioned may be viewed as not academic like Shaekespeare or Hemingway or Hawthorne, I would counter that if the purpose is to teach high quality reading you can do so with modern books just as much as you can do so with ancient books.

In my opinion, you can't be effective in whatever you do if you do not engage your audience. This is true with public speaking. It is true with a lawyer pleading his case to a jury. It is true with teaching. I just don't understand why a teacher would choose to teach something that students are bored by when there are so many alternate options that have greater potential to pique their interest.

I am not saying that all older books and authors are bad. As a student (one who loved reading, however) I enjoyed Truman Capote (In Cold Blood), Ernest Hemingway, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., William Faulkner (this is greatly due to the fact that my college professor who taught a class with his books was his official biographer), Sherwood Anderson (Winesburg, Ohio), Ralph Ellison (Invisible Man), Theodore Dreiser (Sister Carrie). Even though I enjoyed these authors (more so in college than high school), I think in many cases today's students would be better served by great modern writers. Classic authors I disliked in school included Shakespeare (hated with a fierce, raging, fiery passion), Nathaniel Hawthorne, Edgar Allen Poe, Herman Mellville, Henry David Thoreau.

I provide the above paragraph merely for context. I am not saying my opinion is right on the authors I list above as writers I like or disliked. That really is an unimportant point to this discussion. What I am saying is that I think teachers 1) can get their message across much better with quality books that are from their students' era, and 2) while bad book choices are not to blame for today's youth disliking reading, I believe that showing students that reading can be enjoyable is a worthwhile, important and somewhat attainable goal if book selections are made that will resonate with, motivate and inspire students. In my opinion, every decision made on curriculum by teachers should have in mind the question, is this the best way to communicate with and motivate my students? Not saying to give in to every whim of the students. But for goodness sakes, do everything in your power to motivate.

 

I find this all so interesting. My schools never really assigned us many novels. I only remember reading The Odyssey and Romeo and Juliet. I read counting the stars at some point, but earlier, 5th grade I think. However, the problem was even my freshmen classmates when we all had to get tested for our reading grade level were only 2-4 while I read 5-10 at the time. Students need material appropriate for their abilities sadly as well which I don't think gets taken into account. Thus resentment brews.

 

In my high school we actually had this option both sophomore and junior year--the school offered a combined English/History course. Sophomore year English was European literature and history was western cultures, so they overlapped significantly. Junior year was American literature and history, so again there was overlap.

The unfortunate thing was that neither year offered the course at the honors level, so a lot of us overachievers passed on it (especially the ones who opted for AP-level history courses). I did hear pretty good things about it from those who took it, though.

 

In the past books were seen as almost as bad as today's smartphones are; there's a comic story in my country featuring those "boys who
read all the time, instead of studying or do some house work". They were seen as distraction, never mind if it was quality literature or not.
It's only we value the byproduct of reading skills the kids of the past had, and stress the fact that today this skill is in recession.

 

You're right that everything in in flux, and some day we may look back on reading as a skill nobody really needed after smartphones and TVs came along. Me? I think we're losing a very valuable skill and resource if we dump it and decide it's not worthy of retaining. That puts control over our sources of information into the ultimate hands of a very very few.

It's kind of like the difference between being able to repair your car yourself—via simple knowledge of mechanics and availability of basic parts—and the ability to haul it to a place that will replace the entire electronics system for you (for a small fortune), so the simple things (like ignition, etc) will work again. Both result in the same thing: a car that works. But when you think of the control you've surrendered by no longer being entitled to or able to repair your own, the situation looks a bit darker. At least it does to me. Technology can do lots of stuff we used to have to do ourselves, more slowly, but how much of it do we actually control? AND how expensive is it to maintain?

Writing a letter on paper, or reading a book from a library and/or bookshop seems simpler and more accessible to me than having to keep up with the latest technology in order to maintain basic communication and acquire basic knowledge. It's not the medium that bothers me so much as who controls it, and how expensive it is to acquire.

 

I see both sides of this.

I will never be convinced that teenagers should be forced to study Shakespeare - plays written 400 years ago to be performed, not read. Ridiculous.

I'm trying to think of a good reason to study relatively modern classics over contemporary popular novels... and failing. This is trickier because I enjoyed many of the 'boring' books I read for English class (Of Mice and Men, The Pearl, Jane Eyre, etc) but I can't come up with good reasons to set those over Harry Potter. I went to a very rough school where reading was sneered at, and several of my peers had never picked up a book until Harry Potter came out.

So I guess I think instilling a love of reading is more important than pushing 'classics' over contemporary commercial fiction.

 

If the teacher is passionate about the book it shouldn't matter at all about what book it is. I would add that some students just aren't interested in anything due to a need to rebel against the system. Those students should be set to a task they wish to partake of rather than being forced to sit idle (but the system is what it is!)

 

Well, this roundaboutly connects with the initial post, or the thought direction here; by discarding reading people will actually get steeped in
their own parochialism and "lesser mindedness", thinking only their opinion the right one, tending to exhibit tribalism and arrogance and hasty conclusions tapping into their emotions.
By reading a book, any book, whether boring or complicated, psychological, religious or whatever, you agree to adopt - temporarily - someone
else's opinion (in a way!). It teaches the reader patience, understanding and analysis. Now, without people reading - generally - this will go
nd it's f*cked up because then we'll see superficial thinking at its best. Already seeing it, right? I don't value most the people who share my opinion (of course that feels like heaven, for sure), but those with a different opinion who are willing - and intellectual enough - to discuss it, present it, go step by step to understand the opponent's track of thoughts and reasoning. Now, THAT is the new gospel. To react dispassionately to a claim preposterous at the first sight, having cultivation both of the self and others in mind while respecting freedom, freedom of speech and discarding arrogance, seeking truth and not acknowledgement and strengthening of already established opinions for self-assurance.

 

Good point. Rebels without a cause. Know 'em.

 

I don't think the passion of the teacher matters at all. Someone enthusing over Shakespeare with genuine love doesn't change my enjoyment (non enjoyment) of the text itself.

 

Yes. I had teachers who were wildly enthusiastic about certain writers. A few of these were passionate about Hemingway, Faulkner and Joyce (three writers I remember) whom I really didn't enjoy reading. (I've since begun to read more Joyce, and I like him a lot better now.) These teachers' enthusiasm never actually caught fire with me.

However, my 12th grade high school English teacher overcame my initial antipathy towards reading old fashioned poetry, and made me appreciate what Shakespeare actually was. Not some poet holed up in a garret churning out lots of heady guff, but a playwright whose plays was extremely popular with ordinary folks in his day. The barrier between young people and Shakespeare today is the archaic language and even more than that, the references to things we no longer recognise or know about. However, young people of HIS day regarded his work the way we love Spielberg and similar moviemakers—and the stories are amazing. Once a few of these obscure references were explained, however, I began to understand what makes Shakespeare work. He's out of his time period now, which makes what used to be obvious and non-cerebral now require a lot of study to appreciate. But if you're so inclined, it's very well worth the effort. He really was a writer and a half.

Milton? Not so much.

 

(Snipping the quote for length)

See, I think every teen has that experience. My class was certainly told that his plays were made to be performed to the masses (SO WHY ARE YOU MAKING US READ THEM, YOU KNOBHEAD) and we had copious footnotes explaining all the puns, including innuendo. But we all know if you have to explain a joke, it isn't funny, right? Making the effort to understand the joke did nothing for me, or anyone else in my class as far as I could tell. I'm not sure what any of us learned from studying his plays.

 

I think there was a breakthrough for some (this happened when I was actually teaching) when the Zefferelli movie version of Romeo and Juliet came out. Kids loved it, and were talking about it in school, etc. It made it a lot easier to teach Romeo and Juliet to a bunch of 9th graders, I can assure you. We had a perfect Mercutio in the class, and I was delighted that he agreed to read the part in the bits we chose to read out loud. As in the real play, he stole the show. And it was also fun to watch him drop his aversion to such an old fashioned thing, and really dig into the part.

If more of Shakespeare's plays could be made more accessible via well-made movies, I think there would be a revival of interest in Shakespeare. One particular play that's crying out for just the right adaptation is Hamlet. SO much of Hamlet is exciting and human-interest stuff that can be more or less easily communicated. Unfortunately, all the filmed versions I've seen have seemed really stiff, and not particularly appealing to young people. But considering the subject matter, there's no real reason it shouldn't be, if it was made more accessible ...via good filming, appealing actors, and an emphasis on the storyline rather than on the words. I wouldn't advocate changing any of the words, but some could be edited out if need be.

I wrote my best college paper on Hamlet, and during the writing I discovered SO much about the play I hadn't known about. Including the nature of the ghost who appears to Hamlet to talk him into killing his stepfather. Superficially the ghost is acting like Hamlet's conscience, prodding him to stop shilly-shallying and take revenge. The ghost's actions and words make us agree with the ghost, and the rest of the play is taken up with discovering how Hamlet finally stops swithering and does the right thing by his dead father. Ho dee hum.

HOWEVER, I discovered in the course of researching my paper that Elizabethan audiences would have known full well that ghost was exhorting Hamlet to do something he definitely should NOT do. There were many signs that people of that day attributed to 'good ghosts' and 'bad ghosts' ...and Hamlet's had all the signs of being a bad one. It appears in dead of night, and in the shape of a loved one tempts the victim into taking an action—such as murder—that will consign that victim to hell. And one of the most telling signs ...the ghost disappears in haste at the crowing of a rooster. That was a particularly bad sign, that confirmed the ghost was evil. So the Elisabethans watching this play would be thinking 'oh NO ...Hamlet, don't do this!' Kind of like modern horror films ...'no DON'T go and investigate that odd noise...! Oh, SHIT....'

It's this kind of understanding that escapes us, if we don't know about it beforehand. But once we do know it, the play takes a different shape entirely. The ghost gives Hamlet permission to do what he's been wanting to do all along—instead of calling upon him to get off his arse and do something he doesn't want to do. An entirely different slant on the story.

 

I feel like the best solution would be for them to assign a mixture of literature from different eras. There's no reason why they should do only modern literature or only classic literature. Unless it's a specific type of class, (like the spy novel class mentioned earlier) they should be looking to assign one type of literature: good literature. There are a lot of good classics, but there are a lot of good modern books as well, and there's something to be learned from both.

 

I think to a certain extent a book becomes dull for many students precisely because they're dissecting it in class. While I loved reading Lord of the Flies and Henry V, it took me decades to make peace with Macbeth, and I still don't like Romeo & Juliet or A Midsummer Nights Dream. I did Theatre Studies A Level and hate A Comedy of Errors now too.

I suppose, especially now, there has to be a balance between encouraging children to read generally and teaching them critical analysis, where they're not going to get very far with Harry Potter, joy to read as it might be.

At our school we had free reading sessions where we could choose anything. Many didn't really take advantage of that, and I imagine that's ten times more true today.

 

I think maybe you misunderstood me?

A teacher with passion inspires students. If a teacher is passionate about the text then the students benefit. The teacher matters more than anything else in the classroom. Every student is different too. In some cases students simply don't care for fiction at all.

Shakespeare and various classical styles of writing should be taught to the students. It is not simply about "enjoyment", it is about exposure and appreciation - although for some this may come at a later date.

That said, it would perhaps be a good idea for one text aimed at the age range of the students. Such a title could be used to help students study basic plotlines and offer opinions about characters and how they were interesting.

 

While I agree that a teacher who is passionate about what they teach is always preferable to a teacher who drones on as they punch the clock and ponder wistfully for the day when they can retire, there are limitations to how much passion can matter if the subject matter is painful for/over the head of students.

I'll give an example. In college I took a couple of intro philosophy courses. Really enjoyed them. Did well in them. Then I made the mistake of taking an upper level philosophy course filled with philosophy majors in which the subject matter was painful to read and more often than not went completely over my head. Books by the likes of Nietzsche where I'd finish reading an assigned chapter and realize I had absolutely no earthly idea what I'd just read. In any event, the professor was extremely passionate about what he was teaching. In fact, one class he spent the entire hour doing a one-man play he had written using Nietzsche's writings as a guide. My professor was really into it. He was a pool of sweat by the end of the class. I respected the passion he displayed, but I had no idea what he was trying to convey in his performance.

That's pretty much how I felt anytime I had to read Shakespeare in high school or college. The Bard could have actually come back to life and been a guest teacher and I still would have hated it.

 

I think you're confusing what I mean by "passion" too. I am not talking about obsession.

The point of education, at least the better side of it, is to expose students to diverse material. It is not a good idea to constantly play to the likes and dislikes of the students. Education is not a "fashion".

If you didn't understand Shakespeare then can you appreciate that others may have actually enjoyed the experience? I had some bad English teachers and some good ones. I remember the usual "What's the point in learning this?" being voiced, and these words were often spoken by students who said pretty much th esame thing in EVERY subject.

The system, and their parents (and parents parents), failed them for sure. It is a sad thing.

I do certainly agree that it makes sense to have ONE text that is chosen to suit the students age. I actually remember GCSE's and studying Z for Zachariah, which was aimed at my age range. I also studied Midsummer Night's Dream and Wilfred Owen. The teacher I had leading up to the end of my school days was passionate.

Also, it is worth understanding the literature is not just about appreciation of novels and poetry, it is also a cultural and historical commentary. The context of the novel, play or poem could be argued to have more importance to the student in the course of their lives.

note: Nietzsche is no walk in the park! You're talking about college now? I assumed this thread was aimed at secondary (high) school reading lists. As student smove into adulthood I would say the argument against texts becomes less and less substantial.

 

Yes, Nietzsche was in college. I only mentioned it because I liked the anecdote about a teacher's passion.

 

What I mean by teacher passion is the desire to communicate with students in a way that will make them WANT to learn. Any teacher that does not constantly ask themselves the question how can I inspire my students to learn is missing the boat. In college I had a professor who taught an intro to anthropology class (300 students in a lecture hall). He began EVERY class by telling a how many anthropologists does it take to screw in a lightbulb joke. It took up maybe 20 seconds but it created an enthusiasm, a buzz in the lecture hall every day. Students were much more engaged as a result. There is no reason learning can't be fun, but in my opinion not enough high school teachers make the effort to inspire, to dazzle, to intrigue. Those that do seem to be the exception and not the rule. Teacher institute days should be spent at seminars on how to teach like your hair is on fire instead of god knows what they do instead.

 

Yep, I agree then.

Have you ever taught yourself? One thing that is important to understand is that what you consider a good teacher (from the student perspective) other students will find boring or trivial. There are some amazing lecturers out there who inspire their students, but at the same time lack the insight to point the students at the major questions, and the flip side is also true. It is extremely rare to find a teacher who can engage the students and be at the height of their field of study.

I tend to engage with students as a student. I look at them as teachers and me as the student. Egotism can creep up on you when you're put into a position of considered "authority".

Helping the students relax is always a good thing. The simple truth is some students will never feel comfortable in a classroom environment, whilst others will fail outside of one.

I always find it funny that as kids we have our thirst for experience learning beaten out of us in order to structure our lives and then toward the end of our formal education we're expected to drop the structure and learn with childlike wonder. We're a seriously confused species! haha!

As for high school ... students are difficult. Hormones and such things make the whole environment extremely demanding for teachers. I'd probably never consider teaching in the west because the culture generally looks down on teachers and this is emphasized by the rate of pay they receive. Recently in the UK some teachers have had to fork out their own money to buy materials for the school, and fundraising has taken place in order to pay some teachers so they don't have to leave the school due to low pay.

I was also quite shocked by the move made by Obama to drop, push aside, the experienced teachers. I think it would make sense to have ALL teachers start at kindergarden level to learn patience, then move into high school environments after a year or two (minimum!)

As you can probably tell I am passionate about this subject. It is an easy problem to solve on paper, the issue is how to implement the required changes. The very first step would be to pay teachers more money, but not too much more.

The general mantra of "Don't teach, facilitate," is likely the most basic thing to keep in mind.

 

I have not taught in the classroom. At one stage in life when I was considering a change in career I considered going into teaching, but I felt like my approach would be so outside the box that I would be constantly butting heads with department heads who favor a more traditional approach. When I used to be a journalist, one of my jobs was as editor-in-chief of a national publication. The owner of the publication liked to have me hire journalism school graduates (they're cheaper) which fit my approach very well (they have no bad habits and are moldable) because I loved mentoring young talent. In that regard I felt like I was a teacher, just not in a classroom. I didn't just make grammar changes on my edits. I would discuss story arc, creativity, writing style and how to make their articles better upon reading a first draft. Grammar mattered to me but not as much as teaching my charges how to write creatively, interestingly. Proper structure, story telling skills, etc. were what we discussed following their first draft. Proper grammar was dealt with at the final edit stage. My thoughts on the subject of high school teachers are based upon my own experience in school as well as my experience as a parent of kids currently aged 18 and 22.

While I agree that no teacher can get through to every student, teachers that teach like their hair is on fire are obvious and to be treasured. An example I have given of a spanish teacher my older daughter had freshman year in high school comes to mind. He taught the kids to conjugate verbs by rapping in class. The energy in his classroom was astonishing and it was a two-way street. I guarantee you he got through to way more kids than the average teacher. As I wrote earlier, I see absolutely no reason why teaching has to be boring. Any teacher who does not focus on how to making learning interesting is in the wrong field as far as I am concerned. As for the notion that high school students are difficult, even if that is true I still think they will respond much better to a teacher who makes learning interesting as compared to a teacher who is as dull as watching paint dry.