Spelling Humbug
Well, it's Friday at Plugs and Dottles. Not much happens on a Friday around here. I get even fewer hits today than I do during the rest of the week. So I thought I'd use this lull in visitation to put on the curmudgeon's mantle. I'm sure what I'm about to say is anti-child. Maybe it's anti-education. Hell, it's probably anti-American. But it's my blog, there's no one here to listen, and I don't care. So here goes...
I think success in the National Spelling Bee proves nothing about a person's ability. I disdain champion spellers. I mean so what? BFD.
This is not to say that I think spelling is unimportant. Far from it. I believe good writing skills are paramount. Grammar, punctuation, spelling, and writing style are all important skills to master as you go through school. Everyone needs to know how to write, and write well.
But who really cares that a 14-year-old can spell autochthonous correctly? Does he know what it means? Can he provide me with synonyms? Can he use it properly in a sentence? This year's National Spelling Bee winner also spelled arête, sophrosyne, sumpsimus, and serpiginous correctly on his way to capturing the spelling crown. "Sophrosyne" and "sumpsimus" aren't even listed in my American Heritage Dictionary. They are words so obscure or archaic that a major American dictionary has declined to include them. While the ancillary knowledge the winner acquired while preparing for the bee will likely be of use, I need go no further than my word processor to find the support I need to be similarly well-equipped. And just because it's a word, and just because I can spell it correctly, doesn't mean I should use it. What is wrong, you ask, with sophrosyne? No one knows, for sure. There is nothing wrong, really, with any word - all are good, but some are better than others. So much annual adulation wasted on a skill of no lasting import. Give me the technology or science fair winners. Those kids know something useful and are able to apply it.
I put champion spellers in the same category as people with high IQs, professional skiers, and Monopoly grand masters: they are at the pinnacle of an activity that is fundamentally unimportant. Fun? Sure. But important? Not at all.
My ideas may be crazy but I still have sophrosyne.
K-
I agree that, as such, the ability to spell obscure words means little. But I would imagine that kids who excell at spelling are good at other things as well because the discipline required to memorize such things is a transferable skill (similar to the way that musical training is good for academic discipline)
People have argued for years that the SAT measures nothing, but they have never been able to explain why kids who do well on it are generally smart. Nor have they been able to design any system by which smart but poor test-takers can be objectively assessed.
Some of these people hate the SAT because it reduces the ability of college admissions offices to use their discretion (which is bias) to let in the people they want.
I suspect that these kids will generally turn out to be intellectually inclined people, but I don't really think memorizing dictionaries is a good way to spend childhood.