Bellagerens is unhappy with Ed Balls. Balls has deemed that Latin is useless in schools. In response, the delightful Boris Johnson responded:

[T]here are times when a minister says something so maddening, so death-defyingly stupid, that I am glad not to be in the same room in case I should reach out, grab his tie, and end what is left of my political career with one almighty head-butt.

Something I think we'd all pay good money to see. But Balls's comments are deeply ignorant. Not so long ago, before universities had developed fully-fledged undergraduate computer science courses, classics was the preferred subject for computer software companies when selecting graduates. They found that classics graduates were better than graduates of other disciplines at thinking clearly through a problem. Must have been all those Latin sentences, I guess.

The same skills are valuable in accountancy too. Accountancy also requires precision of thought. Unpicking the debits and credits (lest we forget, words both derived from Latin) that are needed to account for a particular transaction use many of the same sorts of skills that you would use in deconstructing a Latin sentence. And just like UK accountancy’s concept of ‘true and fair’, you might be able to find several answers in Latin translation, but some of them may be better than others. Elegance has a part to play in both disciplines.

Besides, Latin is a brilliant sourcebook for determining how English grammar works and for remembering how to spell fiddly English words. It’s much more difficult for someone who has studied Latin to misspell, say, “independent”, because the Latin pendere screams out at them. Subjunctives in English? Not a problem, you probably learnt them in Latin. Nobody ever taught me them in English. They didn’t need to.

Even for a quiet, reserved boy like me, Latin’s educational payload was irresistible. By translating these texts into English, you revealed mighty battles, terrible monsters such as Scylla and Charybdis (go on then, which would you choose?) and the deception of the Trojan horse. We learned about monumentally sensible Roman ideas, such as building roads in a straight line or building heating under the floor, and some ghoulish practices such as the punishment of decimation for cowardly soldiers. Take away the Latin and the rationale for teaching these to children goes away. Why teach children rancid subjects like citizenship when you can teach them about how the Roman Senate worked? Or about what democracy meant in Roman times?

has a bee in his bonnet over the issue. Even now, it would appear that those who studied Oxford’s terrifying four-year Literae Humaniores, known affectionately as Greats, look down snippily on the lesser mortals who could only manage PPE. In the lesser camp is Balls, who one might imagine was heavy on the politics and economics and light on the philosophy, wouldn’t even have studied the most valuable element of the course.

People who read this post also read:

• Why the IFS is wrong on CGT taper relief
• Reasons not to vote Labour #62 – PPE at Oxford
• An interesting observation about Ritchie’s latest attack on corporate tax avoidance
• The anatomy of corporation tax in the UK
• The deluded and irritating world of Toby Ord

Filed under: Other blogs with tags bellagerens, boris johnson, ed balls, latin, literae humaniores, mythology, oxford university, ppe