Do we really love the classics or are we just being righteous?

When I first read Dickens I couldn't shake the thought that he was just so pretentious. His extensive descriptions and elite language made me sure of it. Turns out I was wrong, seen as contextually he was actually a bit of a commoner and his target audience was the working class. That told me.

Even so, prior to 2014 I couldn't understand the hype around so many of the classics. I thought the majority of the plots in the literary canon weren't enticing enough, just the cliché boy meets girl storyline. Oh how ignorant I was. It's actually surprising to me how many classics seem to challenge the structure of society when the assumed audience of this genre are so commonly the elite, the ones that benefit from the hierarchy that's under fire and who resist revolution.

Whilst Shakespeare's metaphorical thinking is mind blowing and Orwell seems to be a psychic, it still begs the question of whether we respect the classics because of their literary greatness or because we are supposed to. It's ok to like Harry Potter but we can't put Rowling ahead of Austen because she's not good enough or because she hasn't stood the test of time?

The lack of ethnic representation in the canon clarifies my doubts on whether these books and authors really are the best of the best or whether they are purely a collection of works that the white elite have considered worthy of respect. I don't doubt the standard of writing for a minute but 'the best of the best' is always going to be a pair of boots that are too big to fill. 

Subject snobbery.

As I have just began my A levels a very frequent question I get asked is ''what are you taking?'' On more than one occasion I have felt some people have looked at me disapprovingly when I've listed one of my subjects in particular. That subject is communication and culture, which I understand is not as traditional as some subject options but I felt that it would be a subject that goes well with my other choices and a subject that helps me with my prospective career.

Some people I have told have even laughed and commented ''that's just a doss.'' Firstly, without having taken the subject how can you draw that conclusion? Secondly, although I agree everyone is entitled to their opinion I think you should use the initiative to know whether or not it is appropriate to express it. I don't believe that you should feel you have to take traditional subjects if you know the career path you want to take. Personally I don't think quadratic equations are going to be much use when you want to write an article on the EU referendum. Sadly it's not just individuals that are guilty of this snobbery but institutions as well.

As an A level student I like to be prepared so I have taken the time to research some university courses I have interest in and I have become aware that some of the most prestigious universities are culpable of restricting who can join their course based on subject choice as well as grades. This may seem fair and maybe almost obvious but what I mean is for example if I wanted to study law some universities don't state any specific essential subjects. However you are not considered for the course unless you have taken two facilitating or 'traditional' A levels. Now if there is not any essential subjects to study to be able to take a law degree I don't see why it should be necessary for you to have taken at least two traditional subjects as long as you're grades are good.

It's a shame that even by working hard at a subject you take interest in and chose to study sometimes it isn't enough and that an A* in Chemistry equates more to some people than an A* in Communication and Culture. Of course some subjects are typically more demanding and difficult than others but hard work and success should be acknowledged and valued for any subject not just some.