A lesson in The Simpsons

Remove all ads!

Right, I don't know how to do that posh thing that makes the link just one word so here's the big version: Linky

So, one of the most popular and satiricle shows in the world is being taught as part of a media studies class and a lot of parents are upset. Now, is it me or are these people stupid?

 

Are you asking about the parents or the teachers?

 

These people are reactionary, not stupid. I particularily liked the following line:

I'd say actually studying it for 6 weeks intensively is not appropriate for a secondary school (the article never gives the age range for the Kingsmead Community School). I can see a desire to go back to basics first. The Simpsons is magnificant satire and I love it, and I'd love to take some of the University classes that analyze it, but before you poke fun at something you need to know about that something. For example, I think people should be exposed to Ginsberg's "Howl" before hearing Lisa's hearfelt take on it during the one Thanksgiving episode.

Put another way, a little is good, too much is problematic.

 

lets look at a simple part of this:

I cant think of a more successful media then the Simpsons, If I were teaching the class, I couldnt think of a better way of getting kids involved then teqaching things that intrest them, "a mid summer nights dream" may have interested kids years ago, but now, pointless, its just another way of putting kids to sleep in class.

now, Im not advocating simply showing kids The Simpsons for no reason, as long as the teacher is using this to get across learning points then great, if not then it is as pointless as teaching "of mice and men", "a mid summer nights dream" and all that crap.

I remember a history teacher of mine used Blackadder goes forth to teach lessons about WW1, and it worked, he would pause it at the points he was trying to discuess: we watched and we listened.

this is another incident of parents thinking they know better, theyve relied on TV to teach their kids for years, they should back off and shut up.

 

The Simpsons would cover a wide range of staple elements of English. It's an excellent way of introducing and discussing these things and the students will then be aware of them when studying more complex works later.

 

We had just the same. He'd crack out blackadder when ever he could. Certainly got people hooked (both on his classes and the show).

I don't see anything wrong with what's happening at that school. Surely using shows such as the Simpsons to teach about analysing characters, uses of language, plot lines and so forth is no different than using Power of One, Forrest Gump or Shakesphere. It's just another platform to teach the students how to use the tools that can be applied to any media (whether it be books, plays, movies or TV). What's the difference? Am I missing somewhere here? They did say it was a media module, after all.

 

Those people are stupid.

Just because Simpsons is a comedy cartoon doesn't make it directly comparable to the lightweight, brainless entertainment available in the same genre. Nothing wrong in simplifying overly complicated things a bit to (try to) illustrate them to mere mortals. Sure, you'll have to refer to other types of media to dig deeper in most cases, but giving a pointer to what there is to dig for is a feat in itself.

Also, given the average kid's attention span, getting them hooked on the subject at hand would be pretty darn hard otherwise in some cases.

 

I wonder how you can fill six weeks of course material with The Simpsons. Especially on a secondary school. My old high school never delved deep into things and would not be able to find interesting material for six weeks in The Simpsons alone. I'm assuming here they don't just use snippets as introductions to subject, but do an analysis of the show and the thought behind it. From just reading the article, I would guess they are pushing the students in too deep by doing an in depth analysis or wasting the students' time by using it as a time filler and only touching on non-important aspects.

That being said...

The Simpsons is an excellent example of a tv show that influenced language and even introduced or popularized words world wide. It might be important to look at a university level in media, social or language studies, but how much of that can you cover on high school?

 

I think this is another incident of people getting involved in an area they know nothing about, they were taught these outdated things in school and they want their kids taught it, the kids dont want to learn it, I think this is a good way of getting kids motivated to learn

 

I was just having a flick through some of the comments some people have left and there was one that started 'Hi. I've never watched The Simpsons but I understand it's a cartoon with the occasional adult joke...So why should it be taught in our schools' and then went on a bit more.

I think that this may be the type of person who has signed the petition! A few ex students have left comments saying that they did this course in the school and it's not the issue that the parents are making it out to be

 

As secondary school, they'd quite comfortably full nearly six weeks on a Shakespeare play, a movie or a book. Simpsons aren't different - if anything, there would be more material. Think - 464 episodes, each 20 minutes long. That's certainly more material than appears in one shakespeare.

 

While I am inclined to think that six weeks on the Simpsons is a bit excessive (I think the same thing about a Shakespearian play though), I see nothing wrong with the idea of teaching the Simpsons in general.

To the people who think The Simpsons is "just a cartoon", all I can say is: You don't get the show - and thus the joke is truly on you.