Also, students these days have lots to juggle with. Too many “high-standards” is killing them.

But if we do not teach Shaky and co, then aren’t we being condescending in thinking the students can’t get “it”?

There are students who ‘get’ it, but there are students who don’t. The students who ‘get’ it at a young age might go on to major in English. The students who don’t are just put off by Lit. For the former group, they are most likely going to major in English anyway, so why not pay some attention to the latter group? At least make learning Lit fun and enjoyable for them.

The argument you’re making is to simplify things, but don’t you think we should set high standards so that even if the students fall short slightly, they would still be in good standing.

True. But some students aren’t even able to walk yet, so no point teaching them how to fly. Learning needs to be progressive.

In my USP writing course, I understood maybe 15% of the readings but look where that got me now.

Same here. But I still don’t see why we must teach Shakey to students of lower-ability?

Besides, if maths is made to be so difficult, and students struggle to learn it and become better for it, then why not English? Why shouldn’t learning involve learning to overcome difficulty?

Then we only privilege a certain group of people – those who are able to defer gratification the longest.

Isn’t it too late to start introducing writers of different periods at university level? How are we to catch up with UK universities then?

Should we introduce Foucault in high school then, so that students get a headstart?

What attracts me to the Victorian period is that many of their concerns are our concerns now. In other words, we can learn from them. So I think your scope of contemporary fiction is too narrow. Make it the 20th century at least.

I know. But like I said, the students mainly face difficulties in interpreting Ye Olde English. This is why I’d like to see a Lit syllabus where we teach students Lit in reverse chronological order.

The argument you’re making is to simplify things, but don’t you think we should set high standards so that even if the students fall short slightly, they would still be in good standing. In my USP writing course, I understood maybe 15% of the readings but look where that got me now.

Besides, if maths is made to be so difficult, and students struggle to learn it and become better for it, then why not English? Why shouldn’t learning involve learning to overcome difficulty?

Isn’t it too late to start introducing writers of different periods at university level? How are we to catch up with UK universities then?

What attracts me to the Victorian period is that many of their concerns are our concerns now. In other words, we can learn from them. So I think your scope of contemporary fiction is too narrow. Make it the 20th century at least.