what's the point of literature?

[JaskaTheOm]

I would like to start this dicussion by saying that, people have different opinions. while its true that i do not enjoy literature, i am sure that there are others out there who swear by the subject.

however, i would like to question the point of making literature mandatory in iB. there are certain people, such as myself, who enjoy logical and statistical subjects, such as physics, chemistry and math. to me ( a person who aspires to become a physicist ), the usefulness of literature is tainted. it would be more efficient if there were alternative subjects to literature as i just straight up cant see the point in literature. i dont understand where people get their ideas from, i dont care what the writer tried to convey, and dont tell me that it teaches us to empathize with others ; if you need to be taught to empathize with someone, youre doing something wrong. i would like to hear your opinions on this matter, and hopefully find something which can motivate and inspire me into enjoying literature, but as of right now, school is like living hell. sorry for poor english (do you say that here?)

 

[FChaosi_]

I totally understand your viewpoint. English Lit is my weakest subject for sure, and I'm a logic person too. I think it's a little unfair that subjects like ESS and Maths Studies exist - basically "easy" versions of the maths and science subjects - whereas literature is compulsory. (It's compulsory at my school at least). Sure, people might struggle with science or math but if they can take it at an easier level, why can't the same be done for literature?

But throughout IB, I must say, my understanding of literature has developed a lot, and with that so has my respect for it. Just as you appreciate music for its sound and its meaning, literature is an art form that expresses the human condition. You're still at the start of IB, so just because you don't "get" literature now, it doesn't mean you can't "get" it at all. I think you should put effort into your literature class, and who knows, you might start liking the books/poems you look at as you get a deeper understanding of them, and what they mean.

Edited May 15, 2016 by FChaosi_

[mac117]

I believe you fail to see the whole point of analysis in literature. It is the key to success for an English writer as well as a physicist - both of these people need to know how to analyse, read between lines, and be critical about what they're  reading. 

Physics, just like other sciences and languages, is very abstract and requires a lot of thinking and abstract thought. Literature essentially forces you to start thinking about things in a different, not-literal way. It is easy to say "the sky is blue" though blue can be associated with depression, therefore hinting at the fact the author is depressed. Sure, you might say this is all bulls*it and you don't believe it, but trust me when I say that literature will make abstract thinking easy. And it's not about interpretation but also about thinking about an issue from different points of view - something that is obviously very important in physics as well. Physicists need to argue their thesis (just like in literature) and explain why what they see and believe is correct IS actually correct (again, skill you learn in literature).

Memorising quotes for an exam might vex you, sure. And I agree with you on that. However, believing literature is pointless and unnecessary will a) make the next two years of your life more miserable with that attitude, and b) affect your experience in IBDP. You choose IB in order to be a thinker and an open-minded person, thus automatically accepting what is being thrown at you. Of course, you have the right for your own opinion, but I think that it would be easier for you to simply try and enjoy the abstract world literature has to offer.

Cheers.

Edited May 25, 2016 by mac117
typo.

[JaskaTheOm]

39 minutes ago, FChaosi_ said:

I totally understand your viewpoint. English Lit is my weakest subject for sure, and I'm a logic person too. I think it's a little unfair that subjects like ESS and Maths Studies exist - basically "easy" versions of the maths and science subjects - whereas literature is compulsory. (It's compulsory at my school at least). Sure, people might struggle with science or math but if they can take it at an easier level, why can't the same be done for literature?

But throughout IB, I must say, my understanding of literature has developed a lot, and with that so has my respect for it. Just as you appreciate music for its sound and its meaning, literature is an art form that expresses the human condition. You're still at the start of IB, so just because you don't "get" literature now, it doesn't mean you can't "get" it at all. I think you should put effort into your literature class, and who knows, you might start liking the books/poems you look at as you get a deeper understanding of them, and what they mean.

it's nice to see that im not in this alone in this situation. while i do see your point, i just completed my IGCSEs. in my school i was forced to take literature (reasons which would take me a long time to explain) for 3 whole years (yes 3, my school's wierd) and i think ive given it more than enough time to realize how much i just despise the subject. i sit there clueless wondering, how in the world is that scene 'dramatic' while others conjure some random thoughts about what the writer implied. also, wouldnt it be more efficient to spend that valuable time studying some other subject? maybe 3 years is too less of a time frame, but i guess i cant avoid it. furthermore, i dont mean to say that i dislike literature, far from it, i just dont see the point in studying it. i enjoy a good story perfectly without wondering about why 'shylock hates his daughter' when its for the sake of progression anyways.

[JaskaTheOm]

38 minutes ago, mac117 said:

I believe you fail to see the whole point of analysis in literature. It is the key to success for an English writer as well as a physicist - both of these people need to know how to analyse, read between lines, and be critical about they're reading. 

Physics, just like other sciences and languages, is very abstract and requires a lot of thinking and abstract thought. Literature essentially forces you to start thinking about things in a different, not-literal way. It is easy to say "the sky is blue" though blue can be associated with depression, therefore hinting at the fact the author is depressed. Sure, you might say this is all bulls*it and you don't believe it, but trust me when I say that literature will make abstract thinking easy. And it's not about interpretation but also about thinking about an issue from different points of view - something that is obviously very important in physics as well. Physicists need to argue their thesis (just like in literature) and explain why what they see and believe is correct IS actually correct (again, skill you learn in literature).

Memorising quotes for an exam might vex you, sure. And I agree with you on that. However, believing literature is pointless and unnecessary will a) make the next two years of your life more miserable with that attitude, and b) affect your experience in IBDP. You choose IB in order to be a thinker and an open-minded person, thus automatically accepting what is being thrown at you. Of course, you have the right for your own opinion, but I think that it would be easier for you to simply try and enjoy the abstract world literature has to offer.

Cheers.

i always thought of physics as an art. not many people think of it like that. i wholeheartedly understand your point, but the thing is that i just dont see it that way. im pretty confident that there are other ways to develop the art of abstract thinking. moreover, i just dont see the rules of lit applying to logic in any way. if i were to see a blue chemical, would that imply that the chemical was sad? precisely my point. though i do see your point about the multiple perspectives,i would like to mention again that there are other ways to exercise that skill, apaert from studying literature. unfortunately i cant really do anything about my attitude about it, even though i try to remain enthusiastic about the subject. i was even contemplating shifting courses, PURELY to avoid lit. it might be me being downright stubborn, but i actually hit that low a point for this subject. thanks for your reply though. 

[Emilia1320]

I whole-heartedly agree. Literature is so useless for someone who doesn't like it. And why two languages? 

[Emmi]

8 hours ago, Emilia1320 said:

I whole-heartedly agree. Literature is so useless for someone who doesn't like it. And why two languages? 

I'm gonna flat-out disagree with you here. Literature is not useless. Sure, you may not enjoy reading or sitting down with a bunch of poems and looking for plot devices or important quotes. I don't like doing that either. But to completely dismiss it is short-sighted. It's very important to be a well-rounded person in order to succeed academically and socially.

The person who started this topic wants to study physics. Mac117 gave a great argument for why literature helps with abstract thinking. Physics, math, and anything really at its highest levels and at its core requires an enormous amount of critical thinking and abstract thinking. People who only think within the bounds of one specific subject or one small grouping of related subjects risk stunting themselves in their learning by not expanding to other areas or considering how something may or may not work if it was viewed from a different lens. I don't want to repeat his argument so I'll give a different one. Literature (and the arts) is how we express ourselves and is fundamentally human. Literature is an expression of our emotions, our imaginations, our creativity, our ability to tell a story. A world without literature would be a dull one indeed. And yes, a building is creative and an important theorem is a testament to our knowledge as humans, but you don't sit down with a building and experience the life and thoughts of a character that lived 700 years ago in a time and place vastly different from yours, giving you a whole new perspective on history and life. I would not want to live in a world devoid of literature (because the majority of scientist and engineers are bleak and boring :P)

You have to take two languages a) because the IB says so, and b) because the world is increasingly becoming more interconnected. When you learn another language, depending on how many speakers of that language there are, you just increased the number of people you can communicate with by potentially hundreds of millions. Other languages have so much history and culture in them and you don't realize how much there is until you study it. If you want to be monolingual that's fine, but the IB is trying to get you to realize that the little bubble of Earth you're from is just one small portion of it. For as much B.S. as the IB has, this I can agree with.

On 5/15/2016 at 10:06 AM, JaskaTheOm said:

i just dont see the rules of lit applying to logic in any way.

This is because you're still a relatively immature (immature as in not really having REALLY learned much of anything besides what's been spoon-fed to you at school so far) student. The study of literature is highly logical. You can't make some claim or assert the author means something and expect anyone to believe it unless you've got a reasonable claim, evidence to back it up, and reasons why the evidence supports your claim. That is literally the definition of logical reasoning. Science and math aren't the only subjects that get that title.

On 5/15/2016 at 8:34 AM, JaskaTheOm said:

and dont tell me that it teaches us to empathize with others ; if you need to be taught to empathize with someone, youre doing something wrong.

See, you'd think this would be obvious, but spend five minutes talking with some people on the internet and it's clear that they cannot emphasize with anything that isn't a potato. Literature forces you to go through life (temporarily) as someone else, and it's been proven that people who read extensively and enjoy literature are more empathetic overall.

[Guest]

Let me put it this way. We can only live one life. We can only see limited things. There are things that we can never explore. That is where literature comes in. 

We live lives through the eyes of the creatives, We see things that lie beyond our imagination, We open ourselves to a brave new world.

Literature is just like a conversation between you and the author, and there is so much that can surprise you. It is really understandable, yet superficial, to say "the uesfulness of literature is tainted". What is gonna happen, if people just keep developing science and technologies like furies, without considering the catastrophic consequences? Brave new world gives us an answer. What is gonna happen, if we keep pursuing an unrealistic dream of life? The great gatsby gives us the answer. Literature opposes wars, fights racism, sexism, homophobia. It imparts knowledge, it gives us strength, it matures us, it guides us.

So when it comes to the "usefulness", I would argue that literature is just as important as sciences, if not, more. We need both literature and science, and I think the IB is doing well in this aspect. Sometimes we need that a little push, to venture out of our comfort zones and to experience new things. 

Do you know why Qin Shi Huang tried to burn all literature? Because when there is no literature, people stop thinking. 

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Guest

[Blackcurrant]

There is no "point" to studying literature, if you put it that way. No instrumental purpose. You don't make more money from it and it does not advance you in your career --at least, not in most cases. 

But for many of us, there is pleasure in reading and enjoying other people's ideas and words. I spend most of my time reading in the sciences (mainly pop science, human sciences, then some of the hardcore physical  --anthropology, archaeology. geography, biology, Physics, astronomy, genetics...) and when research articles or books are well written, the writer articulate and able to convey ideas, often in evocative ways, then it makes an enormous difference to how  I read, understand and enjoy the stuff. 

You have probably been fed a diet in the English class of "novels" and "short stories". That's a shame, because that alone does not constitute or even define literature. I you talk in terms of "the literary" or "literary non-fiction", then immediately you include a lot of the (for me, even more) interesting writing. Worlds open up. 

Think of the contributions of the likes of Feynman, Dawkins, Pat Shipman, CArl Sagan, Carl Zimmer, E.O. Wilson and others -- all write articulately, evocatively and with passion. Feynman and Sagan in particular write about the contribution of stories and literature on their lives and it all shines through in their writing and speaking: to create a highly articulate and inspiring figure.

Then there are the dull, plodding, dross which you can find by the truckful.  

 All of the scientists I mention had a solid education and solid background in the arts. And it shows. Carl Sagan is particularly eloquent on the uses of literature which is part of a well-rounded education. Literature is not "novels" or fiction only. Most of the stuff I like is literary non-fiction. Maybe this is where schools fail the scientists   --- they spend too much time reading "tales" and "stories" where in fact there should be much more emphasis on reading the classics of literary non-fiction -- like Rachel Carson, example -- or any of the natural philosophers. Anything, for that has literary qualities and is not just the ubiquitous "novel". 

Scientists should read more literature;  non-scientists much more science -- for a well-rounded education.

I doubt any of this will be terribly persuasive, but I'll let you discover Feynman and Sagan if you haven't already. Just dip into any one of their books and you'll see.

 

Edited May 25, 2016 by Blackcurrant

[Ditteee]

Before we went into our exams a few weeks ago, our English Lit teacher scheduled a last-minute "remember-this"-session, in which she told us as the very first point that literature is about people. We are interested in people, individuality, society and human interaction. This is why writers write and we analyse, to gain this understanding. 

In my school, literature isn't compulsory. We had Lang/Lit to chose as well, but I wanted to study literature because I am intrigued by the endless amount of meaning that can be put into just a single verse line of a poem. But while I could study this, I had to do a science and math, and because I at the time, and still not sure, didn't know what I wanted to do in the future, I took the safer road in my country, and went with Math SL and Chemistry, because that seemed the easiest to me. However, I was close to failing both of these subjects. So yes, you might have to take a literature class, but the ones of us who like the concept of studying literature, are put in the reverse situation of you, and I therefore get slightly annoyed that you seem to think that you were treated more unjustly than the rest of us, because you don't like to study literature. 

But literature is so much more than just looking at that colour and making symbolic connections. Writers use all these amazing tools which are useful in any sort of communication - appeal forms, imagery which can be used to emphasise pretty much any point you want to make. In Danish literature, we study literature in a different way, with a focus on psychology. From that, I can recognize treats of depression, anxiety, narcissism, or even schizophrenia, because the way Danish authors write is so much about the individuals' mind, and I can take this straight to the classroom and into the world and make use of this in a whole other way than I can use collision theory from chemistry or vectors from math. Studying literature is about ethics, like in TOK, humans, thinking, making connections based on valid argumentation and reasoning, and is something I used in History to improve my grade, because I in literature essays learned to structure my argumentation so efficiently, that I wrote a whole paper on Napoleon with a sole focus on propaganda as his establishment of power, and got a high 4 - in HL, because I could structure my argumentation despite having no background knowledge.

In my native language, we have a phrase that describes proper behaviour, knowledge of the world and being a good person - "almen dannelse", the general way to act and behave around other people, and the knowledge of the world that you should have in order to be an aware individual. This is what literature teaches you, whether it at this point is obvious to you or not (I'm guessing you are in Pre-IB), but if anything, literature and my visual arts course is what has affected my thinking the most in terms of society, people and interactions. Math is a good skill to have, yes - but I'll never have to know about differentiating or bionomial expansion in my everyday life, disregarding whatever I may read, until I have to help my children with their homework. What I have gained from the literature courses, however, is something I have been using constantly in my everyday life, consciously or subconsciously, and will continue using for the rest of my life.

[Scribblefish]

Lots of great points brought up above already!

I believe it is important to study literature. Studying literature has allowed me to find a new sense of appreciation for the language I use, and all the minor tidbits that I often overlook. My friends and I have a running joke that poets probably don't think about why they're putting a simile here, or consider the structure much when they're writing - do any writers go "I'm using enjambment to evoke a sense of xxx in readers"?. It perhaps comes naturally to them, meanwhile us literature students are busy scrambling to pick up every minor detail they've written down and trying to analyze their writing when really, there wasn't much thought put into it at all. It is easy to overlook how messages are conveyed by writers, but in the study of literature, you are made to look at how these underlying themes are conveyed. I don't think it's so much about how the message is conveyed sometimes as how you're made to pay attention to detail - a skill important and applicable to various other subjects! Through looking at the use of language, students are able to "sense" what others are trying to imply in cases where messages are rather ambiguous, and understand others better - I think it's more about how we communicate with others and interpret what they're saying. You mentioned you're taking physics and chemistry - think about all the lab reports you may have to do: how confident are you in terms of communicating with others clearly and in an effective way? Can you put forth your argument in a convincing way? These are all things that literature covers.

This may not apply to you, but I personally enjoy reading. The study of literature in my coursework has affected the way I read. I would previously skim and scan through parts I didn't find particularly interesting, and I might as well admit that I still do at times - though the difference now is that I pause and think about the significance of the scenes/parts I'm reading. Why is this character narrating? Why not any other character? What would things look like from another viewpoint? Stopping and pondering on the answers to these questions has allowed me to gain a deeper understanding of the works I've studied. Questioning is important not only in literature, but also in science: How valid is the method used? How can I ensure I will obtain an accurate result from doing x?

Aside from this, I strongly believe that you can only become "good" at a language (The word good is within a quotation mark, for there isn't a black and white standard for whether someone is good at a language) once you've studied many works in the language in question - the literature course does exactly that. It opens students up to a wide range of works, and broadens students' perspectives on various topics - you are able to enter the minds of those who are patriotic, who are suffering from depression, entering into the eyes of people in war; the list goes on. There is so much you can study in literature that you can transfer such knowledge across many other subjects.

 

Edited May 27, 2016 by Scribblefish

[aTeddy]

Ah, a very interesting question, I think I'll try and answer it from my perspective. I believe in my heart that Literature is the most important subject to study and is at the core of "learning" whatever that might mean to you. I hope I can try to justify that. I do agree that traditional (and maybe IB) styles of teaching literature is perhaps a little predictable, when the answer is X or Y and the structure and experience is shaped by test requirements. However, the meaning of literature is still something profound.

Firstly, I believe Literature study is very important because it is passionate and affecting. My favourite author is Orwell and to me, his literature speaks volumes to me about the state of the world and offers a perspective that is rare. I remember reading "1984"  and I truly believe it changed the way I view the government and the way that my world is a result of a lot of manufactured "facts". A lot of students have read the novel "A Catcher in the Rye" in Literature and it has made a similar imprint on them. I feel like an intention of studying literature is to find something that truly effects you and to place this in an educational context, to teach students in a less structured, emotional fashion.

Secondly, I think that Literature study creates perspective. Once again, I bring reference to "1984" which I love as a novel. It aids me to understand the inner psychology of totalitarian states and the effect it could have on people (something we are far removed from in liberal democracies). The IB does a fair job of this, mandating foreign translated texts to understand the way language is effected by cultural contexts and gives perspective to events that we might not ever experience. This perspective allows a person to think on the global scale and allow intercultural understanding (which I believe is increasingly relevant/important). 

Finally, it is in the purest sense of the word, creative and analytical. These themes are sort of far removed from each other in most subjects. Sciences are analytical, but not creative. Art is creative but not very analytical. However, Literature combines critical analysis with creative thinking and amalgamates these into something you can't really get anywhere else. To me, the concept of open interpretation is very appealing, but what adds more appeal is the requisite of justifying these interpretations.

So, yes, the answer is, I believe there is certainly a point to literature, however, this is strictly my own experience/view.

[Emilia1320]

On May 25, 2016 at 2:04 AM, Emmi said:

I'm gonna flat-out disagree with you here. Literature is not useless. Sure, you may not enjoy reading or sitting down with a bunch of poems and looking for plot devices or important quotes. I don't like doing that either. But to completely dismiss it is short-sighted. It's very important to be a well-rounded person in order to succeed academically and socially.

The person who started this topic wants to study physics. Mac117 gave a great argument for why literature helps with abstract thinking. Physics, math, and anything really at its highest levels and at its core requires an enormous amount of critical thinking and abstract thinking. People who only think within the bounds of one specific subject or one small grouping of related subjects risk stunting themselves in their learning by not expanding to other areas or considering how something may or may not work if it was viewed from a different lens. I don't want to repeat his argument so I'll give a different one. Literature (and the arts) is how we express ourselves and is fundamentally human. Literature is an expression of our emotions, our imaginations, our creativity, our ability to tell a story. A world without literature would be a dull one indeed. And yes, a building is creative and an important theorem is a testament to our knowledge as humans, but you don't sit down with a building and experience the life and thoughts of a character that lived 700 years ago in a time and place vastly different from yours, giving you a whole new perspective on history and life. I would not want to live in a world devoid of literature (because the majority of scientist and engineers are bleak and boring :P)

You have to take two languages a) because the IB says so, and b) because the world is increasingly becoming more interconnected. When you learn another language, depending on how many speakers of that language there are, you just increased the number of people you can communicate with by potentially hundreds of millions. Other languages have so much history and culture in them and you don't realize how much there is until you study it. If you want to be monolingual that's fine, but the IB is trying to get you to realize that the little bubble of Earth you're from is just one small portion of it. For as much B.S. as the IB has, this I can agree with.

This is because you're still a relatively immature (immature as in not really having REALLY learned much of anything besides what's been spoon-fed to you at school so far) student. The study of literature is highly logical. You can't make some claim or assert the author means something and expect anyone to believe it unless you've got a reasonable claim, evidence to back it up, and reasons why the evidence supports your claim. That is literally the definition of logical reasoning. Science and math aren't the only subjects that get that title.

See, you'd think this would be obvious, but spend five minutes talking with some people on the internet and it's clear that they cannot emphasize with anything that isn't a potato. Literature forces you to go through life (temporarily) as someone else, and it's been proven that people who read extensively and enjoy literature are more empathetic overall.

I guess we need to agree to disagree then  

I understand how literaure and art are not only there for entertainment but also play role in politics, culture, etc. and how art is a form of self-expression to some people. However, politics and culture are two things that couldn't interest me less. I know there is a huge world out there, and people have wide varietes of cultures. However, their cultures don't really interest me. I'm libertarian; in my opinion everyone should have right to practice their culture as long as it doesn't harm others. Why however I need to learn about those cultures, my own or foreign is beyond me. I know art can carry messages, but wouldn't it be much easier to just write the message what person wants to say? To a fact-text. It would save everyone from so much work. Lastly, I understand many people hugely enjoy art and Literature. That is fine. I don't think math or science should be mandatory either; those who don't like them should have choice, and so should likes of me. If not for Literature there would be space in my Diploma for Further math, which would be considerably more useful than Literature, in my case that is.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Emilia1320 said:

I guess we need to agree to disagree then  

I understand how literaure and art are not only there for entertainment but also play role in politics, culture, etc. and how art is a form of self-expression to some people. However, politics and culture are two things that couldn't interest me less. I know there is a huge world out there, and people have wide varietes of cultures. However, their cultures don't really interest me. I'm libertarian; in my opinion everyone should have right to practice their culture as long as it doesn't harm others. Why however I need to learn about those cultures, my own or foreign is beyond me. I know art can carry messages, but wouldn't it be much easier to just write the message what person wants to say? To a fact-text. It would save everyone from so much work. Lastly, I understand many people hugely enjoy art and Literature. That is fine. I don't think math or science should be mandatory either; those who don't like them should have choice, and so should likes of me. If not for Literature there would be space in my Diploma for Further math, which would be considerably more useful than Literature, in my case that is.

 

Your first argument: Cultures don't interest you. 

Cultures may not be fascinating for some, but it doesn't mean that they carry no values. Cultures affect perception, behavior, personalities etc. They carry wisdom that should be preserved. Literature is how humans have been keeping our civilization alive and is thus intrinsically important to the development of a country, as well as contributing to the open-mindedness of the readers (It is not merely confined to tolerating other cultures, but many other aspects of life.) Moreover, observing other cultures helps you to notice the virtues of your own culture, thus giving you a better appreciation of your culture. I do not understand your argument here. Just because something isn't interesting (to you) doesn't mean that it is "pointless". You are missing the point of the question. 

Second argument: Easier to just write the message.

If you were to ask me to summarize brave new world (I always use this book as an example cuz it is just my favorite), it would be "Sciences are not always good". However, how convincing does that sound? How much does that change the way you think about the sciences? Of course it is "easier to just write the message", and that is exactly the point. Authors do not find an "easy" way to convey messages, they employ a range of literary devices, their imagination and creativity, so that we can fully grasp the complex messages that cannot be stored in a few sentences. I mean, yes, some novels are rather lengthy, but those are usually the bad ones. Good novels are concise, to the point, thought-provoking, and can always strike an echoing chord in so many readers.  

I sometimes feel like I am wasting my time when I am typing posts like this, because people get all defensive when others don't agree with them (including myself, working on that) and hardly think for a second. However, you said sciences and maths shouldn't be mandatory, but is it really the case? Can one really succeed in life without knowing, say global warming is happening, or do not have any algebra skills? Same goes to literature. The IB is just a high school program, it doesn't require you to be an expert in a subject. In language A, the IB just wants you to be able to read and interpret novels, and express your thoughts in decent english. Is it really too much to ask for? Also, don't you think AOKs are somehow inherently linked? Don't you think it gives you a huge advantage if you can apply the knowledge from other fields to your own field? I know you are a science person, but just by looking at your posts, maybe reading literature can help you build stronger argument, which is also an essential skill in life. 

Overall, you chose the IB, the IB didn't choose you. You made the choice, and you knew the IB is about making you a well-rounded person, you knew how the IB program is structured. So why complain now? Cuz it is not helping at all.

Please don't turn it into a fight.

Edited June 1, 2016 by Guest

[Emilia1320]

1 hour ago, Kay Torbjørn said:

 

Your first argument: Cultures don't interest you. 

Cultures may not be fascinating for some, but it doesn't mean that they carry no values. Cultures affect perception, behavior, personalities etc. They carry wisdom that should be preserved. Literature is how humans have been keeping our civilization alive and is thus intrinsically important to the development of a country, as well as contributing to the open-mindedness of the readers (It is not merely confined to tolerating other cultures, but many other aspects of life.) Moreover, observing other cultures helps you to notice the virtues of your own culture, thus giving you a better appreciation of your culture. I do not understand your argument here. Just because something isn't interesting (to you) doesn't mean that it is "pointless". You are missing the point of the question. 

Second argument: Easier to just write the message.

If you were to ask me to summarize brave new world (I always use this book as an example cuz it is just my favorite), it would be "Sciences are not always good". However, how convincing does that sound? How much does that change the way you think about the sciences? Of course it is "easier to just write the message", and that is exactly the point. Authors do not find an "easy" way to convey messages, they employ a range of literary devices, they imagination and creativity, so that we can fully grasp the complex messages that cannot be stored in a few sentences. I mean, yes, some novels are rather lengthy, but those are usually the bad ones. Good novels are concise, to the point and thought provoking, and can always strike an echoing chord in so many readers.  

I sometimes feel like I am wasting my time when I am typing posts like this, because people get all defensive when others don't agree with them (including myself, working on that) and hardly think for a second. However, you said sciences and maths shouldn't be mandatory, but is it really the case? Can one really succeed in life without knowing that, say global warming is happening, or do not have some algebra skills? Same goes to literature. The IB is just a high school program, it doesn't require you to be an expert in a subject. In literature, the IB just want you to be able to read and interpret novels, and express your thoughts in decent english. Is it really too much to ask for? Also, don't you think AOKs are somehow inherently linked? Don't you think it gives you a huge advantage if you can use the knowledge from other fields in your own field? I know you are a science person, but just by looking at your posts, maybe reading literature can help you build stronger argument, which is also a very important skill in life. 

Overall, you chose the IB, the IB didn't choose you. You made the choice, and you knew the IB is about making you a well-rounded person, you knew how the IB program is structured. So why complain now? Cuz it is not helping at all.

Please don't turn it into a fight.

My first argument is actually that not everyone is interested in cultures, just like not everyone is interested in math or physics or whatever thing X. I know I could have worded it better thou, I realize now that it can easily be misunderstood. My argument is that if everyone had better freedom to choose it would be more effective. I would not have to study Literature, I could study so much more useful Further math. If those who are into humanities wouldn't need to study that mandatory biology they could pick something more useful for them. I do understand you think broader education is better, which is totally fine. Its good that there are variable viewpoints. I would however like to add that people have some education, often quite broad before they come to high school. High school could be more specialized to increase people's motivation and let them gain optimal skills for their future.

My argument wasn't that culture is pointless. Sorry for wording it badly. My argument was that excessive knowledge about culture isn't necessity for being a member of said culture. I would argue enough to be a member of society is learned by being member of society.

About your counterargument to my second argument, alright, I understand that some people find messages trough stories like "Brave new world" more convincing than if it was just written on easy form. However, isn't there really a risk of misunderstanding? If author really meant to say "science isn't always good" he failed to carry over the message such a way that I would understand it. Perhaps I'm stupid, but on one sentence I would have understood. I have also read "Brave new world" and what I read was that "If you fail to adapt you'll be removed". *BNW SPOILER*  John Savage failed to adapt, and he died in the end. He was unhappy because the leap was too sudden. The people of the The World State didn't mind it because they were adapted. *BNW SPOILER OVER*. We both interpretated same book totally differently! How is that effective communication? 

Thirdly, my parents chose IB ;D and I love it except for Literature.