Forum menu
studying Latin when you are young establishes a solid grammatical foundation for acquiring any other inflectional language later in your life
...studying a live inflectional language when you are young would provide that same foundation AND knowledge of a language that can be used today, in reality
…studying a live inflectional language when you are young would provide that same foundation AND knowledge of a language that can be used today, in reality
You'd need a highly inflected language to get the same grammatical benefit as you do with Latin. Russian would be the obvious choice, but then you have the added complication of learning the Cyrillic alphabet (not to mention the political barriers). Latin offers you a familiar alphabet, rigorous grammatical structure, a direct link to British history and the commmon ancestry to at least 6 modern European languages.
Most schools and sixth forms are struggling to teach any language. This is a pet project distracting from further cuts that are now coming down the line. Your child’s schooling is being systematically defunded and downgraded… but hey, some state school kids will get to learn Latin. Great. If this was an initiative on top of fixing the damage done to state schools in recent years, then it would be welcomed… as it is it’s a joke.
furrymarmot
Free MemberLeaving aside our embarrassing lack of linguistic interest or ability as a nation… the benefits of studying Latin go well beyond assistance in learning other modern languages. Latin accustoms you to working within logical structures, sharpens your mind and improves your critical thinking.
But is not the only way to do so, or the most direct. Is there any reason to think that learning latin will be more useful for logic and critical thinking than teaching those as standalones, or strengthening how they're taught in sciences?
As mentioned, I'm a former Latin scholar and I can barely form a semi coherent argument, judging by the evidence on various threads on here. I can order a beer in French, though.
But is not the only way to do so, or the most direct. Is there any reason to think that learning latin will be more useful for logic and critical thinking than teaching those as standalones, or strengthening how they’re taught in sciences?
Very few subjects provide the same unique combination of linguistic, logical, historical and socio-political training as Latin. Ancient Greek is another example, but has a much higher entry barrier due to the different alphabet.
We also have hundreds of years' worth of data - in the form of great philosophers, writers, scientists and polymaths - which attest to the value of a classical education.
I only studied Latin till I was 16; I could certainly never speak it and I imagine I would struggle enormously if presented with a text to translate today (over 20 years later). But I can still read simple newspaper articles in Spanish and Italian (neither of which I've ever studied) and had no problems assimilating (and retaining) German grammar. I also feel that the increased logical awareness and attention to detail (which one unavoidably develops while learning Latin) have been of great benefit in my career as a scientist - though of course this is difficult to quantify.
It is perfectly normal and acceptable for certain individuals to enjoy or excel in certain academic subjects more than others. However, I see no justification for the persistent hostility towards studying Latin when it offers so many obvious benefits.
Meanwhile back in the real world
Ah yes, could someone remind me the average reading age in the U.K.
Meanwhile back in the real world
I am expecting that in reality these forty schools will be the ones next to the forty new hospitals the Tories have promised, and the graduates will go on to find employment in the expanded police service.
I only studied Latin till I was 16; I could certainly never speak it and I imagine I would struggle enormously if presented with a text to translate today (over 20 years later). But I can still read simple newspaper articles in Spanish and Italian (neither of which I’ve ever studied) and had no problems assimilating (and retaining) German grammar.
If you'd studied Spanish, Italian or German instead of Latin, you'd have had all those benefits AND the value of a live language.
I see no justification for the persistent hostility towards studying Latin when it offers so many obvious benefits.
It's a dead language.
Meanwhile back in the real world
+1
I can't believe anyone actually thinks studying Latin is of any real benefit over learning a live language....
I see no justification for the persistent hostility towards studying Latin when it offers so many
obviousintangible and obscure benefits.
FIFY
If you’d studied Spanish, Italian or German instead of Latin, you’d have had all those benefits AND the value of a live language.
I studied French and German to 18, and Latin to 16. The Latin made the other two languages easier, as well as giving me all the other benefits I've already detailed.
It’s a dead language.
No-one is suggesting that we should all learn to communicate in Latin at the expense of studying modern languages. The point is that Latin students develop a uniquely broad and useful array of skills and knowledge, and hence it is no bad thing if the opportunity to learn Latin is made more widely available.
I am expecting that in reality these forty schools will be the ones next to the forty new hospitals the Tories have promised, and the graduates will go on to find employment in the expanded police service.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
furrymarmot
Free MemberVery few subjects provide the same unique combination of linguistic, logical, historical and socio-political training as Latin. Ancient Greek is another example, but has a much higher entry barrier due to the different alphabet.
We also have hundreds of years’ worth of data – in the form of great philosophers, writers, scientists and polymaths – which attest to the value of a classical education.
Can you actually support any of that though? Why is latin so valuable? How does it provide historical training, or socio-political? And how does ancient greek do the same?
Is the "hundreds of years worth of data" causation or correlation? And does data from hundreds of years ago apply today when the language is deader and further from use?
Any English speaking country is always going to be in an awkward situation when it comes to languages. In non-English speaking countries the obvious language to learn first is English.
For English speakers there is no obvious language to learn although in the UK French always seems to be the automatic choice as a first language to learn. For the vast majority, French will be about as much use as Latin.
I think the UK needs to re-evaluate what language teaching is all about. The requirements are very different to non-English speaking countries teaching English. They are teaching a skill that can be used for the rest of their lives. In the UK, any foreign language you learn is almost certainly going to be the 'wrong' one.
I've learned 3 foreign languages in my life. The first, French, I learned in school. Actually, that's not entirely accurate. I learned how to pass French exams in school but I learned how to speak and understand French working in France.
When I had to learn Spanish and Norwegian I didn't use any of the learning methods I used in school. Instead I taught myself using methods I picked up reading various books and from my time as an ESL teacher for adults.
English speaking countries need to focus on the process of learning languages, rather than the languages themselves. Learning Latin in the traditional sense may not be relevant to this but certainly it could form part of the process.
With this government I very much doubt this is the goal but who knows, maybe some good will come from it.
If Latin has such solid logical rules and structure, why is there always so much disagreement and discussion over the correct grammar whenever a Latin phrase is uttered?
No-one is suggesting that we should all learn to communicate in Latin at the expense of studying modern languages.
Not an economist, then?
Can you actually support any of that though? Why is latin so valuable? How does it provide historical training, or socio-political? And how does ancient greek do the same?
If you are questioning the benefit or interest in learning a little about the languages and cultures of the two empires which shaped the political structures of modern Western civilisation, then words frankly fail me.
Is the “hundreds of years worth of data” causation or correlation? And does data from hundreds of years ago apply today when the language is deader and further from use?
Outside certain religious settings, Latin was functionally just as dead hundreds of years ago as it is now. Yet the lessons it can teach and the academic rigour which it can instil in us remain just as valuable today. Of course it is difficult to deconvolve the fact that everyone used to be exposed to Latin from historical data, so perhaps a better question would be "Can you name a single 'modern' subject which provides the same unique and challenging didactic blend as Latin?"
Realistically, until you reach university (perhaps even postgraduate) level, an education should aim to equip you with learning tools and logical processing abilities rather than mere fact retention. Latin is a superb instrument for this purpose. Perhaps the more widespread availability of Latin in the curriculum might help to redress the ongoing decay in students' mathematical and problem-solving skills, which I have personally witnessed in a university environment over the past 18 years.
English speaking countries need to focus on the process of learning languages, rather than the languages themselves. Learning Latin in the traditional sense may not be relevant to this but certainly it could form part of the process.
An excellent point from a multilingual perspective.
Not an economist, then?
No, I am a scientist who was lucky enough to be exposed to Latin in secondary school. I appreciate the positive impact it had on my cognitive and linguistic abilities, and I would like more young people to be given the option of accessing these benefits.
This is just a nod to the bleary eyed, ruddy cheeked demographic who are feeling nostalgic for their schooldays - it makes them feel like the current crop of bastards in charge are regressing things nicely back to the rose-tinted version of their youth that they imagine in their minds eye, when everything was simpler/easier to understand. Farage's Britain.
Perhaps the more widespread availability of Latin in the curriculum might help to redress the ongoing decay in students’ mathematical and problem-solving skills, which I have personally witnessed in a university environment over the past 18 years.
Yeah it might..... but improving our maths (insert other subjects here where you think Latin might help) teaching standards certainly would, without us having to try to find sufficient people who can teach a dead language, or convince every parent in the country that their child's effort could be better spent elsewhere.
Time would be far better spent teaching more British kids Mandarin IMO
This is just a nod to the bleary eyed, ruddy cheeked demographic who are feeling nostalgic for their schooldays – it makes them feel like the current crop of bastards in charge are regressing things nicely back to the rose-tinted version of their youth that they imagine in their minds eye, when everything was simpler/easier to understand. Farage’s Britain.
Even a fool can sometimes stumble onto a reasonable idea.
eah it might….. but improving our maths (insert other subjects here where you think Latin might help) teaching standards certainly would,
We don't seem to be making a very good job of this...
without us having to try to find sufficient people who can teach a dead language, or convince every parent in the country that their child’s effort could be better spent elsewhere.
Again, I'm not recommending that every 11 year-old in the country should have their nose glued to Pliny and Horace. I am merely pointing out that it is nice for more students to have the option of exposure to such a potentially beneficial subject.
Time would be far better spent teaching more British kids Mandarin IMO
I'm not sure that learning an analytic, tonal and frankly primitive language with almost zero grammatical structure, which merely requires the tedious memorisation of hundreds of characters and has limited relevance to Western society, is really the best use of time for young minds. Yes, it is always useful to be exposed to different cultures, but - in stark contrast to Latin - the intellectual reward from learning Mandarin is incommensurate with the effort.
Just another headline grabbing policy drawn up on the back of a sheet of Westminster bog roll, designed solely to appease the Reese-Mogg section 9f Tory voters.
a better question would be “Can you name a single ‘modern’ subject which provides the same unique and challenging didactic blend as Latin?”
Yes: any other modern language. Spanish and French both have national Acadamies that define the rules behind the language if you're so concerned about rigor and clarity. German is certainly complicated enough to exercise the brain. All three countries have more than enough history to provide that blend of politics and language you seem to find so appealing. And while Latin was the lingua franca of medieval and early modern Europe, let's not forget Maxwell and Darwin both wrote in English, Descartes in French, and Einstein in German.
In an ideal world where time was not an issue then yes, Latin would be an option - but that's clearly not the case, and the opportunity cost of teaching it at school is far higher than the potential gains.
furrymarmot
Free MemberIf you are questioning the benefit or interest in learning a little about the languages and cultures of the two empires which shaped the political structures of modern Western civilisation, then words frankly fail me.
So you can't substantiate it. Fair enough.
We're not talking about learning "a little about the languages and cultures", we're talking about learning the language. Learning a little about the cultures is history. I learned German, how much did that teach me about german culture? For that matter how much did I learn about english culture by learning english?
Looks like that superior latin-based logic is overrated tbh
an education should aim to equip you with learning tools and logical processing abilities rather than mere fact retention
Absolutely. Now, what experience of recent education reforms do you have? Because the exact opposite of that is where teaching has been moved towards in state education, and this policy on Latin is a distraction from the mess being made by the likes of Gove, Cummings and Williamson. Their aims are not in line with what you think education is for, don’t fall for the distraction.
a better question would be “Can you name a single ‘modern’ subject which provides the same unique and challenging didactic blend as Latin?
If you accept that Latin is unique in that respect, then obviously the answer is "no".
If you don't accept that premise and think it's a load of old tosh, then "yes - any modern language or Theory of Knowledge or Philosophy or Law or any of the social sciences". All the subjects which have been choked of time, money and teachers by this shower in government.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, at risk kids have been roaming the streets unsupervised and unsupported for a year and a half. We are on the brink of a crimewave and lost cohort the likes of which we haven't seen since the 80s.
Yes: any other modern language. Spanish and French both have national Acadamies that define the rules behind the language if you’re so concerned about rigor and clarity. German is certainly complicated enough to exercise the brain. All three countries have more than enough history to provide that blend of politics and language you seem to find so appealing.
As a fluent French speaker who has also studied German to an advanced level, I can comfortably assert that Latin is far more intellectually challenging.
And while Latin was the lingua franca of medieval and early modern Europe, let’s not forget Maxwell and Darwin both wrote in English, Descartes in French, and Einstein in German.
Yes, and Newton wrote his Principia in Latin - but the working language in the time or place in which any of these great thinkers were active is frankly irrelevant. You have overlooked the fact that all of them will have studied Latin in their youth, which plausibly helped to hone their brilliance.
In an ideal world where time was not an issue then yes, Latin would be an option – but that’s clearly not the case, and the opportunity cost of teaching it at school is far higher than the potential gains.
I cannot support your claim that time constraints make studying Latin infeasible. How was it possible for me to take Latin and 2 modern languages (+ all 3 sciences and a humanity) to GCSE level? Has UK time somehow contracted since the mid-1990s, unbeknown to me?
So you can’t substantiate it. Fair enough.
Fill your boots. There are many more datasets out there.
We’re not talking about learning “a little about the languages and cultures”, we’re talking about learning the language. Learning a little about the cultures is history.
Your post betrays a complete ignorance of the manner in which Latin is typically taught in schools. Unlike modern languages, there is no speaking or listening component. Instead, once students are familiar with the grammatical basics, emphasis moves towards studying the literature of the ancient world: poetry, epics, satire, political correspondence and more. Exposure to history and culture is hence natural and indeed forms one of the more enjoyable aspects of studying the language.
I learned German, how much did that teach me about german culture? For that matter how much did I learn about english culture by learning english?
Every time you read a novel or watch a play, you should be able to absorb certain aspects of the culture and context in which it was written. Perhaps you slept through your English Literature classes.
Looks like that superior latin-based logic is overrated tbh
Since you appear unwilling or unable to understand any of the points I made in my previous posts, I will instead direct you to a quote in the original linked article from a renowned classicist who shares my alma mater:
Responding to the announcement, Prof Mary Beard said: “Studying classics opens up history to us – from early dramas, that 2,000 years on are still part of the theatrical repertoire, to some foundational philosophy, from democracy to empire, from powerful rulers to the enslaved. But it’s not just about the past. Studying the ancient world helps us look at ourselves, and our own problems, afresh and with clearer eyes.”
But hey - maybe she's just as misguided as I am?
Absolutely. Now, what experience of recent education reforms do you have? Because the exact opposite of that is where teaching has been moved towards in state education, and this policy on Latin is a distraction from the mess being made by the likes of Gove, Cummings and Williamson. Their aims are not in line with what you think education is for, don’t fall for the distraction.
I will freely admit that I am unfamiliar with recent UK educational reforms in the state primary and secondary sectors. My colleagues and I are only indirectly exposed to their consequences, in the form of undergraduate or postgraduate students arriving on our doorsteps every year with manifestly deteriorating levels of academic attainment. I have no time whatsoever for the three clowns you mentioned, I have no intention of defending the indefensible and I am perfectly aware that this new initiative was likely conceived as a politically expedient gesture. However, we should not allow our justifiable hostility towards this government to obscure the fact that there are well-established benefits to learning Latin in school.
furrymarmot
Free MemberYour post betrays a complete ignorance of the manner in which Latin is typically taught in schools. Unlike modern languages, there is no speaking or listening component. Instead, once students are familiar with the grammatical basics, emphasis moves towards studying the literature of the ancient world: poetry, epics, satire, political correspondence and more. Exposure to history and culture is hence natural and indeed forms one of the more enjoyable aspects of studying the language.
If you actually believe that's how it'll be taught in this scheme, I have a bridge in brooklyn to sell you.
"Studying classics opens up history to us – from early dramas, that 2,000 years on are still part of the theatrical repertoire, to some foundational philosophy, from democracy to empire, from powerful rulers to the enslaved. But it’s not just about the past. Studying the ancient world helps us look at ourselves, and our own problems, afresh and with clearer eyes.”
I've already addressed this several times and you've ignored it several times. "Studying the ancient world" does not equate to "learning latin". All of the positives here can be taught without nailing them to a dead language and all of the time spent on the language, can be more positively invested into the other subjects.
The main arguments for learning latin are always "coincidentally, while learning latin you'll learn some other stuff that might be useful". And the counterargument is always the same- if those things are worth learning, then teach them. The best way to study the ancient world is to study the ancient world.
My wife is a mfl teacher in a state secondary, and has to teach a term of Latin in year 7 already. Posh area and the parents love it. Judging by this thread it's not hugely surprising..
The best way to study the ancient world is to study the ancient world.
Which is what you do when you study latin (and Greek), you read contemporary texts in the original language, I certainly read - Julius Caesar, Cicero, Virgil, both Plinys, Terence, and Horace inter alia.
Well personally I've found it quite interesting to read @furrymarmot's points.
With no direct experience of Latin personally I can't say whether overall Latin is of more benefit than another language or subject. There are some other articles out there if you Google saying the same thing as @furrymarmot.
So rather than call @furrymarmot out for spouting bollocks*, instead I'll thank @furrymarmot for the points as further food for thought.
* because it goes against my own biased/ignorant knee-jerk preconceptions
As others have pointed out though, it’s how you teach Latin that matters. And with all other subjects being turned into fact regurgitation rather than education, why would we expect Latin to escape that trend from enlightenment to drudgery if it became more popular in more state schools? And, more importantly, that isn’t going to happen anyway… there is zero real intent to improve or expand education here beyond a few schools, it’s a political gesture we’ve been led into talking about, to draw attention away from the cuts to funding of art subjects (and the already forgotten cuts to sixth form funding). Oh, and…
I am all in favour of deep academic learning but I still can't see how Latin is going to be of much benefit to today's youth GIVEN THAT there is only so much time in the school day.
@furrymarmot has given a plausible defence stating why Latin could be useful for some people, but he hasn't given any argument as to why it would be more useful than other things about which kids could be learning. I mean, yes I agree classical history is great but it would be much more effective and quicker to get the same basic points across in English than to have to learn an entirely new language beforehand.
I personally feel that teaching philosophy would be vastly more useful in terms of understanding humanity and the modern world; especially political philosophy. Or just a second modern language.
Saying you need to learn Latin is like saying you need an £8k carbon road bike for a sportive. Yes, it's nice, but when the budget is limited it's less important than food and housing, and you can enjoy the same ride on a £2k bike.
Due to Gove, the teaching of English grammar in primary schools is stilted, repetitive, soul destroying and quickly forgotten. Whereas teaching eg Rectitudines Singularum Personarum gives a fascinating insight into life on medieval estates and bits of Old English and Latin can be learned in context. Spouting Latin phrases is like displaying a boater in the back of the car, it's about social distinction not intellectual development.
These 40 schools won't happen, I've seen the size of the Latin examiners' meetings, they're miniscule, it's a pointless distraction.
Ah yes, could someone remind me the average reading age in the U.K.
Could anyone remind us what 'Reading Age' actually means - it might not mean what we think it does.
'Average' isn't a great measure is it? We have less than two legs on average but its not normal to have one leg. Averages can be skewed by outliers. Are you including 3 year olds in that sample? Are you including people with brain injury and intellectual disabilities? What are the mean and median reading ages?
Do we know how the UK's average compares to a global average? Maybe the reading age in the UK is pretty good if we know what the measure really refers to.
These 40 schools won’t happen,
40 is a very now number for the government isn't it. Remember the 40 new hospitals - turns out the what defines a hospital and what constitute 'new' were very fluid notions. But 40 is a nice round number. So it will be interesting to see what 'school' really means - and what teaching latin there really consists of.
There are over 4000 secondary schools in the UK
I'm fully comp and polytechinical and northern- but was thought Latin at school. We had a school roll of around 3000 and one latin teacher. Four classes out of ten in a year group got one latin lesson a week during their second year - there was nominally the option to continue to study it up to GSCE but it was only theoretical as its an option nobody ever took, let alone a viable class-sized group. It could never have really happened even if someone really wanted to do it. But I can say that my school taught latin.
How does learning Latin encourage critical thinking? More schools could offer critical thinking as an actual GCSE/A Level subject instead, but the government won't be encouraging that will they.
I don't think anyone is opposed to learning Latin being available per se, it's just when many schools are closing music and art departments and stopping teaching history A Level etc it seems rather bizarre to be focussing on it.
It just seems like another culture war talking point and a patronising suggestion that it isn't the massive privilege of the 1% that gives them better life outcomes it's because they learned superior content. 'We don't need to tackle inequality just teach the proles some of our fancy language'.
.....and the poor only have themselves to blame for not being as good at it as we are. I detest elitism and philistinism in equal measure, hence my little YTs on art history (100% public school educated department when I was a student). Education is part of class warfare!
Latin is just there as symbol to represent the 'rounded classical education' received by a relatively tiny number of pupils in a previous age. The other components are subjects such as Greek, History, Ancient History, other languages, Music, Art, and sport.
However, Latin alone offers very little, and teaching in the others has been progressively gutted in favour of STEM. It is a fig leaf to obscure the fact that this kind of education barely exists any longer, and selecting the classical education pathway is nigh-on impossible.
I don’t think anyone is opposed to learning Latin being available per se
careful now, that's the first step to full Johnson.
Anyway, English has gerunds and cases and all that bollocks if you want to learn it that way, it also has 16 tenses as opposed to Latin's 6, and word order matters in English. And the spelling's difficult as my posts no doubt attest.
I suspect that rather than studying Latin fostering analytical/critical thinking it's more obviously a marker for private education (a testable assertion I guess though I'd be surprised if credible studies exist). Which allows folks to say they're such great successes because they learned Latin, rather than because of having had a privileged start in life.
Anyhow, enough of this cultural appropriation. Let's get back to basics and celebrate proper Old English from fyrn-dagum.
to obscure the fact that there are well-established benefits to learning Latin in school.
I probably fall on the side of the argument that agrees with this...But you'd have to do so much reformation of schools beforehand to realise any benefits of teaching Latin and seeing the results that you'd hope for.(a wider appreciation of the foundation of arts literature, science etc) Schools now aren't places (generally) for children to appreciate greater understanding, like the Universities (I'm presuming you're an academic) everything is geared towards league tables and teaching to tests. (It's the Tory way!)
The argument that Pleney made (the one about candles and vessels) has been won by the vessel fillers a long time ago, after all you can't measure the worth of anything without comparison can you? How else do they know if sending their child to Eton is worth it? This isn't a dramatic reversal of that policy, it's just a headline for the Telegraph.
if you want to understand why Handel's Shepard/Nymph operas are supposed to be funny, you're going to have to get the book from the library yourself I'm afraid.
I suspect that rather than studying Latin fostering analytical/critical thinking it’s more obviously a marker for private education (a testable assertion I guess though I’d be surprised if credible studies exist). Which allows folks to say they’re such great successes because they learned Latin, rather than because of having had a privileged start in life.
Yep theres a subtle distinction in learning Latin and learning Latin@Eton.
Anyway why just 40 schools,in the ‘80s they put a computer into every school and that was my gateway.
Alright how about a compromise: every kid gets taught to code but only in Latin?
The main arguments for learning latin are always “coincidentally, while learning latin you’ll learn some other stuff that might be useful”. And the counterargument is always the same- if those things are worth learning, then teach them. The best way to study the ancient world is to study the ancient world.
I am all in favour of deep academic learning but I still can’t see how Latin is going to be of much benefit to today’s youth GIVEN THAT there is only so much time in the school day.
In fact, a key advantage of Latin is that it provides a route to circumnavigate the time constraints and finite resources in the school day which many of you have correctly identified. In one subject, taught by one teacher, pupils are exposed to profound concepts in grammar and linguistics, while simultaneously exercising their logical abilities and receiving an introduction to the politics and culture which shaped modern European history. Teaching all these topics individually would likely be impractical, both from timetabling and staffing perspectives.
This is why learning Latin at the early/mid secondary level gives you a marvellous foundation on which to base more advanced studies in a field of your choice.
Of course I recognise that after decades of underinvestment and misguided government priorities, it is financially and logistically challenging to reintroduce Latin to state education. I am also aware of the perceived role of Latin in perpetuating class division - but what better way to overcome this than by improving access and understanding? In my - admittedly idealistic - view, the value of Latin can transcend these practical and psychological barriers. I certainly didn't come from a privileged Eton-type background, but I can still appreciate what Latin did for me.
So rather than call @furrymarmot out for spouting bollocks*, instead I’ll thank @furrymarmot for the points as further food for thought.
* because it goes against my own biased/ignorant knee-jerk preconceptions
Thank you, @el_boufador - I wish more people shared your open-mindedness.
In fact, a key advantage of Latin is that it provides a route to circumnavigate the time constraints and finite resources in the school day which many of you have correctly identified. In one subject, taught by one teacher, pupils are exposed to profound concepts in grammar and linguistics, while simultaneously exercising their logical abilities and receiving an introduction to the politics and culture which shaped modern European history.
The problem with that, and the thing you still haven't answered, is that you could do all that in any other modern European language. You could teach Italian, with Machiavelli, add in a bit of Garibaldi's struggle and its influence on modern European history... and bingo, all those advantages and you've learned a modern, useful language and not just a dead one. German, maybe? Read the Zimmerman telegram and some extracts from Mein Kampf and you'll be far ahead when it comes to understanding the modern world compared to time spent on the Gallic Wars. It'll also come in handy if you head over to the Oktoberfest. You can say the same for any of the other major European languages.
In your desire to defend Latin you haven't shown any real evidence to back up the claims that it will "[exercise] their logical abilities", either. You confuse causation with correlation, arguing that the fact that Newton and the rest learned Latin that somehow helped them to their discoveries, while conveniently ignoring the thousands (millions?) of other children that also studied Latin yet singularly failed to discover gravity, evolution, or whatever. Stalin studied to be a priest - do you also think studying Latin or Greek is a good indicator of future mass-murdering dictatorial tendencies?
I've got nothing against Latin, or ancient Greek, or Egyptian or Sumerian or whatever, indeed I think the study of history and archaeology is important at university level and beyond - I just think the time spent at school would be better used on something that has a clear use in the world we live in, with all the advantages teaching a second language brings, rather than learning a dead language and then trying to justify it using such clearly weak arguments.
The problem with that, and the thing you still haven’t answered
He did - Latin doesn't have an oral element so the time used in modern languages for that, which is rightly considerable, can be devoted to wider study of the written word.