Required Reading || Is Academic Reading Making a Difference?

Even if you've been on this blog for only five minutes, you'd know I'm a huge reader. I have been devouring books for most of my life and have read more than 1.5k books (according to my Goodreads). But there's one fact that might surprise you.

I've been an avid reader since 6th grade, but only outside academia.

Just because I like reading doesn't mean I'll like everything. But you have to admit: there's something wrong if a student reads 200 books a year and doesn't even skim through what is needed for English classes. I won't say that all of it was bad. It's just that none of it was good.

It has been years since I graduated and I have learnt a lot of things—enough to appreciate some of what we were taught that I didn't give importance to and to have specific criticisms. I have many opinions about required reading in general and required reading in the Indian education system.

This post is inspired by an old Let's Talk Bookish prompt. I didn't think I'd ever write on this topic but the prompt got me writing down many thoughts and I had to make it a post.

The definition of required reading is "reading that must be done." This is a good explanation but also a vague one. Who gets to decide which reading must be done? Who must do it? When must it be done? Each of these questions split off into several answers that lead to more questions.

The current mandate is that required reading is done in schools. They will be a set of books (generally English classics) that the students will have to read, analyse, discuss, and write essays on. But, not all of that happens as it should and sometimes, required reading isn’t considered properly at all.

Required reading is important for the same reasons that reading is important—it broadens mindsets, teaches new things, asks questions, and gives some answers. Kids won't easily pick up books unless they're given the option to explore what books have to offer.*

Mandated reading in schools has so much potential to make a difference in students and the future of the world. It can teach them to look from different perspectives, discuss, learn to agree to disagree in cases, and realize what their boundaries are where they won’t accept the other answer. It is a powerful way to make a difference. The important part is that the material chosen for the syllabus makes a difference whether it is intended to or not. The school years are the most impressionable years and what is taught can determine the future.**

What is taught to young kids has long-term effects. Imagine if equality across races, gender, and more were taught in schools. It would have made such a difference. It's not easy to teach concepts like racism and equality though (especially since we can't even mention it publicly without backlash and ten thousand reasons on how that's wrong). That's where required reading should come in. It is much easier to learn other perspectives and vague concepts through stories.

Above all other reasons, required reading is important because it occupies a big portion of the school syllabus. Students spend a lot of time reading material—and what they read makes a difference beyond learning the structure of the language.

* But does required reading actually let students explore?

** Here's a real-world example: A subject in, I think, 5th grade had a section on littering and it was given importance. Because of it, my generation is extra cautious about littering and we go outside our way to clean up common areas and hold others (including family) accountable. And I can see the difference in my area as people who learnt it in school made their way into society.

required reading in my school

I am unsure about how it is in other places but I had language classes throughout my schooling. Our syllabus had English as the primary language, Hindi as the secondary language, and Sanskrit as the tertiary language.* The notable fact is that all of my language classes were only language grammar and comprehension classes.

We didn't technically have "required reading" (it's why I didn't think I'd write about this topic before) but we did read stories through which we'd learn grammar and sentence structure. Our textbooks were a compilation of poems, short stories and parts of plays. Although we'd analyze them sometimes, the main goal was to become fluent in the language and not to dive into the literature.

We couldn't have a lot of discussions and exploration because our learning was based on memorization. All the questions in our exams were straightforward and expected ONE answer. There is no space for interpretations or personal opinions. The English classes I read about and see on TV shows are very different compared to what I grew up with.

Other than our main textbook, we sometimes had a "supplementary book" for the year which would be an entire (maybe abridged) novel. I guess you could consider this as our only real "required reading" part but it is also there mostly for reading comprehension. The supplementary book wouldn't take up much of our grade and the questions on it also expected a straight answer. We aren't taught or encouraged to annotate, we didn't ask why or have in-depth discussions. We couldn't analyze what we read much—we were busy trying to remember the plot and the exact answers to possible questions.

We had books like Three Men in a Boat, The Invisible Man, Ramayana, and Mahabharata (I actually agree with the choice of the last 2 but it was in Hindi, which was excruciating to read). We had the option to read Helen Keller's The Story of My Life for one year but our school chose a different book.

Since the syllabus is set at a national level (I studied in the central board system), teachers don't have much flexibility to choose the books. They don't have the option to deviate from the syllabus, especially since even the exam is set at a national level—we never know who's forming the questions and what we'll be asked. It's even harder when our answers are evaluated by teachers in entirely different schools.**

* I have many, many thoughts about what languages were taught and the order in which they were placed—especially considering that I studied in Karnataka. I was learning three languages in school but needed to simultaneously learn three entirely different languages outside of it that were locally used. So I know 6 languages with varying degrees of fluency and absolute confidence in none.

** Since we were in the central system, our most important papers were shuffled around for fair marking.

Later when I started using more of the internet and got to know about educational systems across the world, I felt betrayed that we were robbed of good literature classes. As I grow older, the betrayal feels bigger. I started annotating years after graduating school and there are places where it is encouraged! We were robbed of having a classroom which was a safe space to discuss fictional characters and events that reflect our world. We didn't think critically about the writing, the story, or the characters.

Mainly, I feel betrayed that we were not taught anything of substance besides the mechanics of the languages.

I learnt much more from the novels I read during my free time. The syllabus was useless to the point that when my English teacher caught me reading under the desk instead of listening to her during class, she told me to feel free to read anytime in her classes. I had her the next year as well and in the first introductory class, she literally told the class that everyone's free to read like me.

The funny part is that I, an avid reader, never read the supplementary novels (except once). I wouldn't even skim them. I read the summaries online, went through old question papers, and walked into the exam room. The one time I read it was when I was bored and was done studying other things. I read The Invisible Man in one sitting and hated it.*

Ironically, the only language class that taught us more than grammar was Sanskrit. It's the one language that we don't use in casual communication and we need to memorize it more. But it was the easiest class because the exams were easy with multiple choice questions and one-word answers, and some questions could be answered in English too. But the short stories in Sanskrit were rich in morals. They were interesting. I used to come home and talk about them. I used to be interested enough to ask for my uncle's help (since he's fluent in the language) to understand the material properly.

Since we didn't have to memorize all the stories and answer "what did they do, why did they do it" exactly the way the system wants us to, we could spend time to truly understand and learn from the chapters. Only if we were interested and had time apart from the "more important" subjects, though.

The only required reading that I (now) agree with was Ramayana and Mahabharata. They were abridged versions but they were stories that each of us should know. However, they were written in hard-to-read Hindi and we were students in South India. They also weren't given much importance for exams so I don't think I even read the books entirely.

* That is the one book that we actually discussed a bit and... I had a lot of thoughts. Enough to write a book review on it on my blog in the early days, lol.

Maybe things are better in schools now and maybe they were better in other schools at the time, but the above was my experience. But there is one thing that all of us had in common—required reading did not stand a chance against STEM subjects. We are a country heavily invested in the grades of students. It doesn't matter if someone excels in sports or art if they don't do well in the "important subjects."

My English teacher in the last two years of high school actually had things to teach and tried with the strict syllabus. I would have enjoyed her class but I didn't have the time or energy to. We couldn't give our best in that class. We'd often turn in our homework late for English because of the work in other subjects. Some of my friends used to do homework for Math in English classes! How are students supposed to form reading habits if they're not given the time to read (not study) regularly?

As a society, we place way too much importance on STEM subjects and even if literature is explicitly added to the syllabus, students will be pressured to spend all their time on the "serious" subjects. We're not allowed to spend time on and enjoy literature, especially not from 9th grade which is when we can have good readings and discussions.

I had 12 years of English, 8 years of Hindi, and 5 years of Sanskrit and yet, none of them made a big impression on me. I wouldn't attribute my interest in literature to any of my classes. Nothing from the syllabus made us want to read more—and that is a travesty.

what needs to change

We have language classes every year till we graduate high school. No matter the language, I think there's wasted opportunity because we don't need all those years only for grammatical understanding.*

I would love to see required reading look like the following:

• Books or stories set in the CURRENT times. Sure, classics and old poems can be good but we're in India. We cannot have the same syllabus as the UK because English is NOT our only language and we honestly don't have the time to explore all of the different types of literature—especially when all of them are not set in India. The easiest way to disinterest students is to make them read stories that they can't relate to while they're still grasping the language.** Students can't spend extra time browsing social media for books. We needed books set in the current society or related to the current life. I wish we properly read our epics and other stories from our history (without it being a history lesson). I wish we read stories that highlight the traditions and cultures of where we live. There are so many good stories in our families and I'm lowkey ashamed that we only read stories by people from first-world countries. All those classics weren’t classics for us—they were boring and annoying. We couldn’t relate to the characters at all and we forgot the stories soon after our exams.
• Books that facilitate good discussions. The class shouldn't be only about the language itself. The point is to discuss things through the language. Academia should include interesting books or stories without pigeonholing the syllabus only to reading comprehension and grammar. Rote-learning what happens in the story doesn't help us become fluent but explaining our opinions on the topic can.
• Accepting multiple answers. I wish that academia in India wasn't hell-bent on conforming all students into one mould. We're very different and forcing us to give the same answer does not raise creative people. Requiring one answer makes sense in science subjects but not in art subjects.
• A syllabus that is regularly evaluated and updated. A lot of our reading material is the same as two decades ago. We need to evaluate what is in the textbooks and whether they make sense in the current day. And there needs to be a proper discussion on whether English classics should be taught at all in India, especially if the focus is not on English literature. Not because they're boring or hard to read—because they make no sense to us. Imagine how weird it is for an Indian teenager in Bangalore to read a story by a White man in some European country speaking old English (while simultaneously learning how the British absolutely ruined our country in history classes). We're barely fluent in regular English, why would we read "where art thou?" with seriousness?*** Chapters like this defeated the point of at least teaching proper grammar and fluency in the language. A lot of students scoffed over the syllabus due to such chapters. We could care less about those stories or poems.

Honestly, most students aren't confidently fluent in the languages as well, despite all those years. There's something very wrong about the syllabus as a whole. There are chapters that are clearly meant for analysis and discussion but we rote learnt the answers. We don't become fluent in the languages because we're too focused on memorising things. Languages need to be given more importance in academia in the first place. With the way it is right now, sometimes even 12 years of classes isn't enough for someone to be confidently fluent in the language. Because we simply don't study or try enough.

Which languages are taught is also important, especially in a country like India. It doesn't help to learn languages completely out of sync with what is being spoken locally. Students could easily dismiss the language classes, study to just pass (by rote learning), and never be fluent because they are speaking different languages outside the classroom. (The discussion on language is much bigger. If I start on that, this post will never end.)

* If done well.

** My classmates and I did not care about what we read in school. Most of us were pretty good with the language but even then, we couldn't understand why we had to study what we studied.

*** Since we're on the subject—is Shakespeare taught across the world because his works are good and enjoyable by all or because they were forced on everyone through colonization?

Over everything else, I want required reading to be an actual concept in Indian academia. No matter the languages taught, I want classes to be about more than reading comprehension and basic understanding. Reading novels should be encouraged more and students should be given the time to read things other than STEM materials.

Much of what I know now was learnt outside of school, even if it was mentioned in the syllabus. I learnt through friends, the internet, and mainly novels. I read better classics years after graduation. It’s a travesty that academia couldn’t interest even a reader like me. I enjoyed only the history material a little but even that felt like propaganda many times.

We need required reading to be good because reading is a radical act and we should be raising radicals who make change and come up with new ideas, not robots who think the same and do the same things.* Right now, academic reading is not making a difference.

* It's funny how AI systems write novels and make art and compose music nowadays. Whatever happened to "don't spend time on the arts, it's not profitable" and how does it magically not apply to AI?

what do you think?

What did required reading look like for you? What would you change? Do you have any viewpoints to add that I totally missed? Tell me in the comments!