Before we begin, much of what I say will be UK centric, but I'm sure much will apply elsewhere. Here goes nothing.
Latin.
It's one of the main reasons I started a degree, because it's impossible to learn alone. What did I want to achieve? I never wanted to be the Emily Wilson of Ovid. What I truly wanted? I visit a lot of little regional archaeological museums in Europe. Frequently, the inscriptions on the beautiful chunks of stone aren't translated, even into French, Italian etc. I just want to get the gist of a few epitaphs without needing paracetamol.
I tried, I really did try. I started university with no Latin at all. My state school and college sure as hell didn't offer it. So at university, I tried.
I failed. It was a waste of an opportunity, but I truly did my best. So I want to look at why.
Firstly, UK state schools don't teach grammar. So, as my sympathetic Latin teacher explained, she was having to teach us grammar as well as vocab. Even during my five years of secondary school German, we did not get taught what a conjugation was, or much about cases.
Secondly, my first (and so far only) module of Latin was roughly equivalent to a GCSE. It was taught in 40 contact hours over two terms. Conversely, by the time I was taking my German GCSE exams all those years ago, I'd been learning for five whole years and with about four contact hours a week over three terms. The pace of the Intro to Latin module was absolutely breakneck, and it was both bewildering and intimidating.
Thirdly, personal circumstances. My brain is no longer a teenage sponge, and I have responsibilities now. At the beginning of the module, my daughter turned three years old and I was holding down a part time job. There was simply no time to sit in a quiet room and work through exercises each week. Birkbeck being Birkbeck, many of my classmates were studying whilst holding down full time jobs. Hours per week are finite.
Fourth, the methods of assessment. My early work was good and scored well. My first assessment was an at-home translation. Open book. It was highly marked and I was jubilant. But the most heavily weighted assessment was the final exam, a pressure cooker of an assessment where you can hear nothing but your own heartbeat and the clock ticking down. No dictionaries. I had a panic attack half way through and fled, taking a compensated fail. I genuinely question the assessment method used - when, in professional life, do classicists have to translate with no notes or dictionaries, all with the added stress of a countdown? The dictionary ban forced the time-poor among the class to choose between memorising vthe vocab list or case endings. Whichever you chose, you were still screwed. However, with my lecture notes and a dictionary, I can still do a pretty good job of translating the set texts if I'm relaxed and not rushed. So am I good at Latin or not? Either way, I was strongly advised to switch from a Classics degree to Classical Studies. I don't think that the Classics community is comfortable admitting the stigma that Classical Studies has. Nevertheless, it's easier for an institution to channel students into Classical Studies rather than overhaul how they teach or assess language modules. So I changed, thinking that since my ancient history modules scored highly, I could aim for a First in Classical Studies rather than struggle to achieve a 2:1 or 2:2 with a Classics degree. Do I get top marks in every class or let my languages drag my average down like a bloody anchor?
So what matters most, the degree title or the degree classification? I have a couple of years before graduation when I'll find out, but I have my suspicions.
I'm not blaming my university. My lecturer is a force to be reckoned with and the assessments are pretty standard across the board, but I wasn't alone in failing, and other barely scraped a pass.
Any accelerated 'catch up' course will be high pressure by nature. Couple that with other modules that require time and study and you've got a reciple for stress. Stress does not generate a fondness for the task at hand. I grew to dread Latin class. My mental health suffered.
Had I stayed on a Classics track, I would not have the luxury of taking so many diverse history modules. My exposure to archaeology, philosophy, politics, religion etc may have been shelved until an MA. This is never an issue for the students who start their degree off the back of a private school education. They can leap right into advanced Latin and/or Greek and spend their credits on a raft of subjects whilst retaining their Classics degree title. So state school kids not only have a more stressful time at university, but a far more limited experience.
Will universities ever admit that more stress, difficulty and a narrower list of topics are built into the system for state school students? In a field that has historically oozed privilege, will academics ever take a hard look at whether they are doing their utmost to make sure students from all socio economic backgrounds have a fair crack at a subsequent career in the field.
Whilst writing this, I looked at what other UK institutions are doing, and I came across the Oxford Classics website. They have non language degrees in the field. That's wonderful, but let's concentrate on degrees that include ancient languages.
There are two options. Classics I has a minimum requirement of an A level in Latin and/or Greek. Classics II has no previous experience required and will teach languages from scratch. On the following admissions page, Oxford admits that at time of writing and within 6 months of graduation, 85% of Classics I students were in employment or further study, compared to only 70% of Classics II students. I can't find statistics for classification disparities, are they similarly worrying? If OXFORD can't get it right, with their vast faculty and resources...
Meanwhile, I am continuing on a Classical Studies track. I enjoy my time spent on Classics twitter, but I often feel like an outsider watching a party through a window. The Dear Evan Hansen reference in my title is deliberate. I don't get language jokes, and witty quips in ancient languages are never translated. I'm permanently on the periphery. Naturally, part of this is because I'm an undergrad, but I suspect it will continue after graduation. I watch people revel in the type of jobs I can only dream of, which does hurt. Within my cohort, it's not an issue. Most of my cohort are Studies students, and the socio economic background of any Birkbeck cohort is incredibly diverse.
It's not all sunshine and roses at school, though. The articles I am assigned frequently don't include translations of excerpts and inscriptions. These same articles would be inaccessible without institutional affiliation, so not only can I only read them if I pay thousands of pounds a year, I can't understand chunks of them and won't be able to access them after graduation.
So, that brings us to the question of who is writing the syllabi, deciding on forms of assessment, assigning reading and generally making sure that the rigged system remains rigid?
I recently saw a tweet that claims that 85% of Classics faculty in the UK are Oxbridge graduates. Assuming that they are at least my age and studied at university before catch up modules, 85% of Classics faculty learned Latin an/or Greek from the age of 11 or earlier. They have not crammed a GCSE into 40 contact hours, let alone an A level. They don't know the blind panic of taking an exam in a subject they were only introduced to seven months previously. Organising an undergraduate degree for a hopefully growing number of students who did not have that privileged secondary education will require acknowledging that their privilege exists, which people are not traditionally fond of admitting.
The stigma against Classical Studies is perpetual. It's Classics Lite, Diet Classics. Fat Free, zero calorie. 'Just.' I thought that higher education would remove the anxiety and imposter syndrome of my decades of autodidacticism, but that's not even diminishing. I've been keeping an eye on the job market in preparation. Classical Studies will likely stymie my chances at a PhD. The lack of a PhD will bar me from lecturing at university level, even for non-language courses. Still, an MA might let me teach at a lower level, right?
All of the senior school and college jobs I've seen so far require someone who can teach Latin alongside ancient history. They are not for state schools as a general rule. I recently saw a job ad for a Classics teacher that required a 2:1 or above Oxbridge Classics degree. It was to teach at a PRIMARY SCHOOL. My Classical Studies degree from a non-Oxbridge university precludes me from teaching five year olds?
Meanwhile, privately educated Oxbridge alumni can hoover up the jobs and perpetuate the system that keeps the working class from progressing past an MA. My MA will open doors, but likely not within the field. In an earlier post, I stated that I began my degree because I wanted to see if I was capable of it, and that having one would be nice for the sake of having one. These will always be true, but I can't help but feel bitter and frustrated that when I had a mid-degree chat with my tutor about career prospects, she recommended switching to archaeology. What, then, is the point of Classical Studies? Other than to mark us out as also-rans?
I'm happy for academics to prove my suspicions wrong, however I'm not alone in having these suspicions and I'm not alone falling through the cracks of a system weighted against me. This goes for any post-grads reading too, because the future will likely be changed, if it is to change, by the post-grads of today.
We all need to be honest. Those who have benefitted from the head start a private education provides need to check their privilege. Those who clung on by their fingernails as they encountered systemic obstacle after obstacle need to be open about how difficult their education was made for them, because it's not fair. Speaking out, in chorus, may just inspire a sea change in how we learn and teach. Sitting back because you 'made it' is doing a disservice to all the students coming up behind you.
We are all aware of the snobbery associated with a lack of languages. I've heard many a snide remark about reliance on translations, many a sneer about not being clever enough for languages. But if we're honest, is the difference between Classics and Classical Studies students more about disparities in intellect or socio economic backgrounds?
So even if you're not in a position to change how languages are taught and assessed at your institution, you can still protest when reviewer 2 insists you remove translations. Check the reading that you're assigning. Question whether it's right or fair that some people have exams in a subject that they've been training in for seven years, with an easy familiarity, and some have to cram those seven years into one or two in exam conditions that feel like juggling hand grenades. Accept that the unfair system will generate frustration, resentment and bitterness. Do not invalidate that anger. Do not patronise.
When you lament the lack of diversity in the field, admit that many of the barriers preventing people from lower incomes being successful classicists are still in place. Call for the transition between no previous languages to intermediate languages to be made smoother and less stress inducing. Admit that the current solutions are, to borrow a Taylor Swiftism, bandaids trying to fix bulletholes. Don't just campaign on behalf of current high school students, ask what can be done for those who left school long before Classics For All. Stop crapping on popular historians, their books and documentaries are all some of us get access to. If they don't meet your standards, you're free to reach a wider audience in between writing journal articles and monographs that 30 other people will read. Ask yourself if your stated concerns about equal access and opportunities are performative, or could be construed as patronising. Before you congratulate yourselves on how multidisciplinary Classics is, acknowledge that languages are the key to the academic castle, and most working class people without access to that key can't take the other disciplines much further than a BA. It's not enough to tell people what you've got inside the castle. It's not enough to not pull up the drawbridge, we need you to convince others to push that mother firmly down, and tell those coming after you how to get across. 'Classics' is exclusionary. You don't get to be annoyed when others get upset about it.
As for me? I'll still be angry that my career prospects were largely determined by the circumstances of my birth, and that most academics will acknowledge this with nothing more than a half-hearted shrug. But, I'm biting the bullet. My daughter starts school in a fortnight and I got made redundant because Coronavirus hamstrung the tourism industry. I have free time now. I'm going to revise what I learned, and maybe next year ask to audit the intermediate module. Maybe I can take the module as a certificate course, which for some reason is purely assessed with at-home open book translations. It won't be a Classics degree, but I'm going to salvage what I can. At the very least, I'll be able to read half an epitaph without getting a headache.