Everybody cites this study on how 2/3rds of English majors cannot understand the first paragraph of Bleak House—I strongly recommend reading the study itself. It is very enlightening on why the students are failing.
A huge amount of the problem is simply that students do not seem to have been trained to look up unfamiliar words in dictionaries as they read.
The instructors explicitly allow the students to do this as part of the task but almost none of them do so. *I* had to look up a word in the dictionary--Micahelmas--when I first read the opening passage in question
Thinking about just that opening paragraph. To understand it you need to:
1) Recognize some terms more common in Britain than in America: Michaelmas, Lord Chancelor, Holborn Hill.
2) Recognize antiquated terms ("chimney pot" instead of "chimney" or "chimney stack")
3) Know the Bible well enough to catch the allusion to the flood and understand why a 19th c author would be putting a dinosaur before the flood
4) Have some understanding that industrializing Britain created enough smog to block out the sun
5) Able to interpret figurative language (the ashflakes as snowflakes wearing mourning colors for the "death" of the sun, just a poetic and clever way to describe #4)
6) Deal with many claused sentences, especially those with parentheticals or asides that seem to negate part of the main clause ("if this day ever broke").
7) Understand financial terms like "compound interest"
So in the study they have the students read out loud and interpret what they are reading as they go. Very revealing.
Here is one student who misreads the passage because she does not recognize the word "Megolasarus" and does not look it up.
The poor readers also tend to simplify the meaning of sentences when asked to interpret it
Compare this to how one of the successful readers does it:
The study author's comments on this last example are useful:
For many students of English literature studied, reading seems very vibes based. You get a general vibe based idea of how the passage *feels* .... and then you read sparknotes to fill in the gaps.
There is an entire way of teaching reading that goes something like "you need to get really good at guessing the meaning of words from context instead of looking them up."
The allusion is to this ANTEDILUVIAN Biblical passage:
I have been thinking a lot about what you could do with eighth and ninth graders to reverse this trend.
I think my old solution of focusing their education on poems, essays, and short stories is probably the right approach:
focus on incredibly close readings, make them memorize reams of poetry to build up their store of literary allusions and to get them used to interpreting figurative language, spend obscene amounts of time parsing sentences and identifying paragraph level literary techniques.
People keep saying that but folks I am not talking about childhood. Looking up words should be a *lifelong* habit. I probably looked up more than 200 words when I read Blood Meridian this year.
I don't really think he has. rump's position is "the war must end, we cannot afford for the war to not end."
What has changed is Trump and his advisor's assessment of *how* to end it. When Trump came into office he, and many close to him, believed that American intransigence [1]
was the main obstacle in the way of peace. Thus Trump's accommodative tone with the Russians.
This was not sufficient to create peace. So Trump is now pivoting towards a very different strategy for forcing an end to the war.
But the end is the same.
fwiw I predicted this would happen back in January. Was clear to me then that the admin's foreign policy was going to be focused in the first year on resolving three big problems: Russia, Iran, trade.
This essay--a dissection of the ongoing PLA purge--is one of the best pieces of a "Pekingology" I have ever read. Well argued, well written, complete command of the biographies of the Chinese elite married to a solid and clear eyed analytic framework.
Next time somebody asks me "what does a good analyses of Chinese political fights look like?" I will send them this piece. Gold standard for how this should be done.
1) Chinese industrial policy is often run out of cities and smaller localities who are *competing against each other* for both market share and central government support.
Very few US states have their own industrial policies (much less major cities). Far from being a cutthroat competition our industrial policy impulse is to prop up the biggest firm and leave it at that.
"Until contacted by AP in August, biotech giant Thermo Fisher Scientific’s website marketed DNA kits to the Chinese police as “designed” for the Chinese population, including “ethnic minorities like Uyghurs and Tibetans.”"
Bullshit. Charlie Kirk organized a 850 chapter, 300,000 man opposition machine & regularly broadcast to 7 million+ followers. The Biden government allowed him to do this. The Trump government allows the same to its opposition. The two regimes are not comparable.
If Charlie Kirk was Chinese he would have been "invited for tea" back in 2013. He would never have been banned from Weibo with the other Big Vs in 2014. If he persisted in organized action he would have disappeared or placed under house arrest the minute he announced a campus
campus tour, a tour whose promotion and existence would be scrubbed from the web. He would not have been allowed to say one thousandth of the critical things he said of Obama, Biden, and the left.
He might be alive--but only because he would have been a powerless nobody.
There are several reasons why Charlie Kirk’s assassination will not create the sort of culture change dynamic as the George Floyd death in 2020.
Attempting to do so will likely be self defeating.
In politics the question is never “what is the right thing to do?” or “does this make me feel like I am doing justice.” Thr question is always “what can actually be accomplished and what will be the likely cost and consequences of accomplishing it?”
I don’t mean that in the squishy sense of norms or “don’t create tools the enemy will use against us” sense, though sometimes those are useful questions to think through.