Seriously, get over yourself.
Although I would be the first to agree that the modern secondary school model in the U.S. is a failed system, I would strongly disagree that the selection of curriculum in literature is the problem.
For what appears by all rights to be a failed model, we still produce more than our fair share of movers, shakers, innovators, and people that become important for reasons other than celebrity. Jobs may be going elsewhere, but we're still finding ways of making money. It pains me to say this, but the very rap stars I despise have earned my respect; although I stand by saying that the music itself sucks, you have these guys that have solid business plans, generally know what they are doing financially (even allowing for some silliness), and even have plans for when they retire from music. And that's inner city kids, who we have failed the most.
If anything, those classrooms adopting "culturally relevant" novels like "The Outsiders" and other street culture themes have already thrown in the towel.
That SE Hinton book hasn't been relevant as a representation of society for almost since it was published. Its only relevancy has been as an exploration of the polarization of society, and how it's a failing model. You know, like intellectual elites and the rest of society...
All the talk in this thread about boring and shitty literature reminds me of the attitudes that are too common in the classrooms of our schools. The students weren't against reading great literature; they were against reading anything. Comic books had become the norm for some resigned teachers, but pictures aren't literature.
Except that a lot of the literature forced into school is boring, and comic books, somewhere along the line, became more literary.Most of the books taught in schools have no real relevancy outside of teaching the basics; there are better books, and the curriculum is decidedly non-challenging. Then again, you could easily spend a semester picking apart Lord of the Rings. At the same time, comic books at their best, just like any other form of literature, can be great, and just as most literature is average or worse, so are comics.
To ridicule Shakespeare or any other great writer as boring or irrelevant is to demonstrate disinterest in cultural diversity. These authors aren't taught in absence or place of minority writers, but alongside. They are ALL our linguistic and cultural heritage.
Too bad more minority writers aren't really taught. In fact, few of them are, or that minority writers have their own patterns of thought. Maya Angelou is taught sure, but I would like to see more Amy Tan or even Toni Morrisson. There are a number of examples, sure, but they are the exception. Admittedly this is because there are few of them comparatively, but it would be nice to see more of them.
Sadly, we live among a generation that likely cannot even tell you the meaning of the allusion "sour grapes." THAT is telling.
Yeah, because only encyclopedic knowledge of everything is an acceptable outcome of the educational system
. Sure, I know it's an allusion to the Aesop's fable, but I'd bet that few adults in general know that. That knowledge just isn't important, and thus is forgotten. It happens. Deal.
When one can explain what is irrelevant and boring about great literature with an informed and articulate argument, I'll believe that it is intellectually valid versus just an aversion to hard academic work.
Easy: James Joyce's Ullyses. A novel that is irrelevant on almost every level, takes a master's in English lit to appreciate, and makes everyone scared of reading. And when you look at the other Major Books of Lit, you see a lot of the same silliness....
RG
Ugh, OMG, stay current fuckers, it's Vo- VO -VOLDEMORT!!!1!
confuse the fuck out of them. I almost feel as though these books are taught because of what they are 
