Comments on: Useless: Fordham’s Foreign Language Requirement

By: Response to: “Useless: Fordham’s Foreign Language Requirement” | Polémique

Thu, 23 Oct 2014 01:18:33 +0000

[…] a Fordham Ram columnist wrote a disappointingly closed-minded article about Fordham’s language requirement. Though I’m rarely the first to sing the praises of […]

By: rossgarlick

rossgarlick — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 22:08:11 +0000

I’m sorry, Canton, but I whole-heartedly disagree. First of all, in response to your comment with the Freakonomics link, The Economist wrote a blog post which showed some of the flawed thinking behind Dubner’s rationale: http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2014/03/language-study

There is lots more I could say about this, but I can imagine you are aware of a lot of the intangible benefits of studying a language. Your article just gives the impression that you are bitter about being forced to take something you don’t particularly enjoy.

By: Canton Winer

Canton Winer — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 21:13:19 +0000

Your points are well taken, and I appreciate having as many voices as possible in this debate. I think we can agree that few people would argue Fordham’s language requirement isn’t in need of some amends. Mostly, I’m just hoping that this conversation serves to stir the pot.

Freakonomics ran an interesting piece on the benefits/disadvantages of learning a foreign language that you might find interesting. Here’s the link: http://freakonomics.com/2014/03/06/is-learning-a-foreign-language-really-worth-it-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/.

By: Jonathan Rooke

Jonathan Rooke — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:46:44 +0000

While I agree that the language requirement needs some adjustment, calling for it to be cut outright is ridiculous. Exposure to a foreign language (yes maybe not 150 hours, or at least not the 150 hours as they are used now) is incredibly important, and a useful part of forming a foundation of global citizenship, broadening the horizon of the individual mind, and ensuring a more fully-formed education. The structure of the language requirement may be inadequate, but it is not useless. The goal of the requirement is not to make students masters of whichever language, the same way that a text and contexts class wont make students master close readers, science for non-major classes wont make students master scientists, and philosophical ethics wont make students masters of morality. It’s true the language departments are understaffed, but the solution to having too few classes available is to increase the amount of professors.

It’s not perfect, but if we’re going to call for action in regards to foreign language at Fordham, let’s call for reform and not cuts. Simply put, an elite education in the 21st century is not complete without at least some language instruction.