Dear Economist,

I have a big problem with my school. In Italian schools the study of Latin is required, with priority given even over studying English. The reasons given: it is the language of our ancestors, and it helps us to improve our logical capacities.

I find that this is useless because we could study Chinese, which would improve our logical capacity and also help us to achieve something in the future. What do you think?

Andrea Rocchetto (age 15), Rome

.......................................................................................................................................

Dear Andrea,

It does seem puzzling. Knowing Latin appears to convey no practical benefit. Even in the politest society it is less a display of erudition, more a demonstration of a misspent youth, like being able to recite too many Monty Python sketches.

You correctly observe that Chinese would serve just as well as mental exercise, and conveys the additional advantage of being able to talk to people other than the Pope. The technical term for this is that learning Latin is a “weakly dominated” strategy: it is never superior to learning Chinese, and sometimes inferior.

Unfortunately, you are up against politics here. Public-choice theory suggests that a small group with much to gain from a policy will tend to prevail against a large group who stand to each lose a small amount. The small group knows the stakes and is better organised - which is why we have trade tariffs, which help a small number of people while imposing poorly understood costs on a diffuse majority.

In your case, the scattered victims are millions of suffering students, while the victors are likely to be a well-established lobby of Latin teachers. Simply ask yourself, cui bono? Or as they say in China, dui shei you hao chu?

Questions to: economist@ft.com