There is one college interview that I will never forget. Before discussing anything, the interviewer asked me to fill out a simple form explaining some of my "top three's"-interests, high school clubs, potential majors, that sort of thing-as some basic talking points.
We made some small talk, then, after looking at the form, where I had listed Latin as an interest, she attacked, "Why do you study a dead language?"
Ouch.
Glaring back at her, I rotated the "Admissions Information" pamphlet she had handed me at the beginning of our meeting. "There," I said, pointing to the heading. "'Admissions' from the Latin admittere, to admit or receive, most likely from ad meaning 'to or towards' and mittere meaning 'to send.'"
Since I began my study of Latin in seventh grade, I've met with a lot of haters and, each time, it has pained me to hear their ignorance. Even some of those who have had a brush with Latin don't fully appreciate it-after over seven years of study, I know I still don't. But that's no reason to write it off.
That's why I was positively gleeful this past Monday when I saw the New York Times commentary entitled "A Vote for Latin." In this piece, Harry Mount, author of "Carpe Diem: Put a Little Latin in Your Life," discusses his disappointment with the lack of Latin language study among the presidential hopefuls. He argues for many of its merits-a greater knowledge of history, culture, language, rhetoric, etc. Excellent call, Mr. Mount.
Although I can't say I'd necessarily rather see a classicist than a political scientist on Inauguration Day, I can say there is great value to the study of Latin. I am undoubtedly a better linguist because of it, having learned more about English grammar from my study of Latin than from "English" classes all through high school.
More than anything, though, what I've learned from Latin reaches far beyond better comprehension of passive verbs or the ability to identify cognates. I've learned precision, patience, creativity, focus and myriad other skills, mostly as a result of hours and hours of meticulous translation.
And although I'd be thrilled if all students studied Latin, I realize when taking into account what one Times reader calls the "opportunity costs" of studying Latin-namely, less time spent on math, science, English, the arts and so on-and many other factors, this will never be a reality.
But then, I also feel that all students should be required to study math through multivariable calculus. Call me a liberal artist, but I believe your average "Renaissance Man" (or Woman) is simply better prepared for life.
So although Times readers get caught up in the battle of whether or not we should instead be studying Greek or Spanish or Chinese or, for that matter, science, I don't think we should be replacing one language with another or spending so much time focusing on supposed "relevance."
Now, I know that unless I try to use the ATM in Vatican City or find myself chatting with the Pope, I'm not going to be spending a lot of time using the Latin vocabulary I've studied.
But then, I will probably not make much use of triple integrals later in life either. And my knowledge of the Civil War will only get me so far, as will many of the other things I've learned over the years.
Until I specialize in some particular career, it is the skills, the themes and the general concepts that I have acquired from Latin, math, history, art and all those other subjects that will help me in the real world. So as the semester comes to an end, and you contemplate what notebooks you can burn come Dec. 16, pause for a minute. Think about what you've learned. Take a broader perspective. Let the ideas marinate your mind. There is something to be said about learning for the sake of learning. Carpe eruditionem.
Allie Vergotz is a Trinity sophomore. This is her final column of the semester.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.