Not recently, but when I was in High School, we were taught that Shakespeare’s plays weren’t written down until later. They were cobbled together from people who could remember the lines and wrote them down later.
When I went to college I learned a) not even remotely true and b) High School is basically bullshit to keep you busy until you go to college.
I remember doing really well in high school chemistry. I learned all about the electrons orbiting the nucleous. I take chemistry in university and am immediately told that’s an outdated model from the 1900s nobody uses. Why the fuck did I study it then? Because quantum physics is complicated? So you just teach the wrong thing because the actual truth is complicated?? It’s really no wonder people have no scientific literacy when high schools explain how the world works like nobody has discovered anything new since 1913.
There’s a Pratchett quote that I always think about in this context, about “lies to children”
As humans, we have invented lots of useful kinds of lie. As well as lies-to-children (‘as much as they can understand’) there are lies-to-bosses (‘as much as they need to know’) lies-to-patients (‘they won’t worry about what they don’t know’) and, for all sorts of reasons, lies-to-ourselves.
Lies-to-children is simply a prevalent and necessary kind of lie. Universities are very familiar with bright, qualified school-leavers who arrive and then go into shock on finding that biology or physics isn’t quite what they’ve been taught so far. ‘Yes, but you needed to understand that,’ they are told, ‘so that now we can tell you why it isn’t exactly true.’
Discworld teachers know this, and use it to demonstrate why universities are truly storehouses of knowledge: students arrive from school confident that they know very nearly everything, and they leave years later certain that they know practically nothing. Where did the knowledge go in the meantime? Into the university, of course, where it is carefully dried and stored.
I could’ve cut that down more, but I like that whole chunk. I think there is a usefulness in the lies to children approach, if done well. As you highlight though, it can be frustrating when the simplified thing that’s being taught isn’t just simplified, but straight up wrong.
It’s not just high school. That’s just how chemistry is taught because it’s extremely complex and requires many simplifications to be able to teach it to a lay person in any meaningful capacity. Good instructors will mention these simplifications, but it’s likely your current understanding of certain things (especially organic compounds) is also overly simplified. It’s unfortunately the only way to teach it.
I sheepishly left a class on Shakespeare I signed up for in college because it became immediately apparent that my high school classes on the same subject did not actually prepare me for the next level and I felt like a complete fucking idiot just listening to the lecture.
Probably a jumbled up recollection of the pirated plays people would scribble down to sell to printers or to competing theatre companies.
The First Folio and other “good” sources were probably not directly from Shakespeare’s drafts either, but from revised working scripts that the King’s Men had around. Still a vast jump from there to “weren’t written down until later.”
In general, there’s a lot of needless mystery and “bardolatry” surrounding Shakespeare, when in fact he was reasonably well documented for a commoner, has had every single scrap of evidence for his life and career scoured over a dozen times, had works of uneven quality, and most of what’s unique about him jibes perfectly well with a half-educated prodigy coming in from the country and working in a milieu that was kind of edgy and open to experimentation.
Not recently, but when I was in High School, we were taught that Shakespeare’s plays weren’t written down until later. They were cobbled together from people who could remember the lines and wrote them down later.
When I went to college I learned a) not even remotely true and b) High School is basically bullshit to keep you busy until you go to college.
I hear people say the phrase “it’s high school biology” a lot. Yeah, high school biology is simplified to the point of being just plain wrong.
I remember doing really well in high school chemistry. I learned all about the electrons orbiting the nucleous. I take chemistry in university and am immediately told that’s an outdated model from the 1900s nobody uses. Why the fuck did I study it then? Because quantum physics is complicated? So you just teach the wrong thing because the actual truth is complicated?? It’s really no wonder people have no scientific literacy when high schools explain how the world works like nobody has discovered anything new since 1913.
There’s a Pratchett quote that I always think about in this context, about “lies to children”
I could’ve cut that down more, but I like that whole chunk. I think there is a usefulness in the lies to children approach, if done well. As you highlight though, it can be frustrating when the simplified thing that’s being taught isn’t just simplified, but straight up wrong.
It’s not just high school. That’s just how chemistry is taught because it’s extremely complex and requires many simplifications to be able to teach it to a lay person in any meaningful capacity. Good instructors will mention these simplifications, but it’s likely your current understanding of certain things (especially organic compounds) is also overly simplified. It’s unfortunately the only way to teach it.
I sheepishly left a class on Shakespeare I signed up for in college because it became immediately apparent that my high school classes on the same subject did not actually prepare me for the next level and I felt like a complete fucking idiot just listening to the lecture.
Probably a jumbled up recollection of the pirated plays people would scribble down to sell to printers or to competing theatre companies.
The First Folio and other “good” sources were probably not directly from Shakespeare’s drafts either, but from revised working scripts that the King’s Men had around. Still a vast jump from there to “weren’t written down until later.”
In general, there’s a lot of needless mystery and “bardolatry” surrounding Shakespeare, when in fact he was reasonably well documented for a commoner, has had every single scrap of evidence for his life and career scoured over a dozen times, had works of uneven quality, and most of what’s unique about him jibes perfectly well with a half-educated prodigy coming in from the country and working in a milieu that was kind of edgy and open to experimentation.
Maybe the thought was that even Shakespeare took themes and plots from earlier work and even from stories that come from oral traditions?