…..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.

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.

Fair enough, although I seem to remember a fair amount of time spent reciting “hic haec hoc” in class, so I’m not quite sure how much time you’d gain. And that’s ignoring the fact that you lose the chance to learn how to pronounce a foreign language, with all those sounds we never use in English.

And that’s ignoring the fact that you lose the chance to learn how to pronounce a foreign language, with all those sounds we never use in English.

The problem still remains that, if you live in an English speaking country, whatever foreign language you learn in school is almost certainly going to be the wrong one.

I learned French in school. The only time I needed French was when I was working in France. The only reason I was working in France was because I wanted to improve my French.

I’ve also lived in other countries but I found when it came to learning the languages there I had to throw out the techniques I had been shown in school because they are not really fit for purpose.

In English speaking countries the idea of language teaching in schools needs to change. Learning an individual language is largely pointless, especially when you consider that the goal of learning the language is not to be able to communicate but to pass an exam.

The goal should be to equip pupils with the tools needed to learn a foreign language as quickly as possible. I honestly think that Latin could play a role in that although almost certainly not in the way that Latin has traditionally been taught.

Alea iacta est. It’ll be like the old days when we had to have Latin to study medicine.

I think it is beneficial as providing a base knowledge for certain European languages. A background in the classics has its uses, but there are many other subjects that should take probably take priority for the creation of wage slaves.