Leaving Cert. 09

[Leprechaun]

Some of you may be familiar with the "Leaving Certificate" for those who aren't it is the Irish annual state exam which determines the courses available to you in college. Well anyway, I just sat my history test today and I am going to post the questions. I am doing this so we can compare what is thought as mainstream history in various countries.

First we had some short questions aobut two small 'documents' (paragraphs really, quite easy) and the compulsory question regarding these documents was:

4. How important was the Montgomery bus boycott to the American civil rights movement? (~8% of test)

The we had choices. (I'm going to but this '*' next to the topics I've studied and '*' next to the questions I answered.
ok
(note I did Later Modern History 1815-1993)
Section 2:Ireland

Answer one question from each of two topics below. (20% for each topic)

Topic 1: Ireland and the Union 1815-1870
Answer one of the folllowing questions:

1. What was Daniel O' Connell's contribution to the campaigns for Emancipation and Repeal?

2. During the period 1815-1850, waht social and economic changes took place in Ireland?

3. What did Thomas David and/or Charles Kickham contribute to Irish nationalism?

4. What was the importance of Cardinal Paul Cullen in the history of Irish Catholicism?

Topic 2: Movements for political and social reform, 1870-1914 *
Answer one of the folllowing questions:

1. Who was the more effective leader of the Home Rule movement, Butt or Parnell? Argue your case referring to both. *

2. To what extent was the Dublin strike and lockout, 1913, a success or failure?

2. What was the contribution of Michael Davitt to social and political reform?

4. What developments took place in Ulster Unionism or in the industrialisation of Belfast, 1870-1914?

Topic 3: The pursuit of sovereignty and the impact of partition, 1912-1949 *
Answer one of the folllowing questions:

1. Why were the Anglo-Irish Treaty negotiations controversial? *

2. What were the main social and economic challenges facing Northern Ireland, 1920-1945?

3. During the period 1932-1945, which did Éamnonn de Valera manage better, the economy or Anglo-Irish relations?

4. What attempts were made to promote cultural identity, North and South, during the period, 1912-1945?

Topic 4: The Irish Diaspora, 1840-1966
Answer one of the folllowing questions:

1. What factors, at home and abroad, contributed to Irish emigration durinf the period, 1840-1914?

2. Why was there anti-Irish sentiment in the US and/or Britain in the nineteenth century?

3. During the period 1922-1966, why did so many people emigrate to Britain and to what extent did they become assimilated?

4. What were the aims and achievements of the Holy Ghost mission to Nigeria, 1945-1966?

Topic 5:Politics and society in Northern Ireland, 1949-1993
Answer one of the folllowing questions:

1. Who was the mroe effective leader of Northern Ireland, Brookeborough or O' Neill? Argue your case referring to both.

2. To what extent were the activitesof the Apprentice Boys of Derry and/or the choice of Coleraine as the site of Northern Ireland's second university divisive?

3. What were the social and economic effects of the "Troubles"?

4. What was the importance of one or more of the following:the Sunningdale Agreement, 1973; the Anglo-Irish Agreement, 1985; the Downing Street Declaration, 1993?

Topic 6: Government, economy and society in the Republic of Ireland, 1949-1989
Answer one of the folllowing questions:

1. What was the contribution of T.K. Whitaker and/or Seán Lemass to economic change in Ireland?

2. How did membership of the UN and/or the EEC affect the Irish Republic?

3. During the period, 1949-1989, what changes took place in education and/or attitudes towards Irish language and culture?

4. What impact had one or more of the following on Irish society: Archbishop J.C. McQuaid; Garret FitzGerald; Mary Robinson?

I'll post section 3 (Europe) on the next page.

[Leprechaun]

Section 3: Europe and the Wider World
Answer one question from one of the topics below.


Topic 1: Nationalism and state formation in Europe, 1815-1871
Answer one of the folllowing questions:

1. During the period 1815-1848, how successful was Metternich in preventing political change in Europe?

2. How effective a reformer was Robert Owen and/or Robert Peel?

3. How did Italy and/or Germany move towards unity in the years leading to 1871?

4. What were the achievements of Baron Haussmann and/or Victor Hugo?

Topic 2: Nation states and international tensions, 1871-1920
Answer one of the folllowing questions:

1. Who was more effective in his handling of German affairs, Bismarck or Wilhelm II? Argue your case referring to both.

2. What were the causes of the New Imperialism, and how did the New Imperialism affect Europe?

3. What was the impact of anti-Semitism in France and.or in Russia, 1971-1914?

4. What did you learn about World War I from your study of one or more of the following: Douglas Haig; Wilfred Owen; women in the workforce?

Topic 3: Dictatorship and democracy in Europe, 1920 -1945 *
Answer one of the folllowing questions:

1. Why was France unstable during the period, 1920-1940?

2. How did dictators use propaganda and/or terror to maintain thier power?

3. What were the main social and economic challenges facing Britain, 1920-1945? *

4. What did you learn about World War II fom your study of one or more of the following: wartime alliances; collaboration/resistance; technology of warfare?

Topic 4: Division and realignment in Europe, 1945-1992
Answer one of the folllowing questions:

1.What were the main crises of the Cold War which affected Europe during the period, 1945-1992?

2. How effective were the internal and external policies of Nikita Khrushchev?

3. What was the attitude of one or more of the following to the growth of European unity: Jean Monnet; Margaret Thatcher; Jacques Delors?

Topic 5: European retreat from Empire and the aftermath, 1945-1990
Answer one of the folllowing questions:

1. To what extent did Great Britain contibute to tensions in the Middle East during the period, 1945-1956?

2. During the period 1945-1990, what were the social and economic consequences for Africa of Europe's retreat from empire?

3. To what extent did race become a major issue in Britain and/or in France?

4. What were the aims and achievements of one or more of the following: Mohandas Ghandi; Ho Chi Minh; Achmad Sukarno?

[Michael]

I'd be curious about dilettante's take here since he's a student of history.

But I certainly took every high school history course available and a half-dozen more at the university level so I'm familiar with studying history.

And reading over your list, one thing that really stands out is the obsession with particular names. The extreme partisanship that this indicates/fosters disturbs me. I can't imagine a high school graduate level Canadian history exam mentioning any particular politician's name at all. That seems very weird to me.

History is about learning about various issues and topics, not for worshipping particular politicians. I really don't like academia pushing particular names like that. That just tends to foster rigid partisanship.

Secondly, some of the questions are "how do you feel about..." format which is, in my opinion, extremely poor educational policy. It tends to foster entitlement and a misplaced importance upon one's own feelings about historical/political issues at the expense of actual facts about those same historical/political issues.

In other words, teaching people about feelings is dumb. People already know how to have feelings and emotional reactions. They don't need any help or encouragement here. What people tend to lack is understanding of actual context of information - that's what schools need to teach (though they do it rarely since it is so much easier to get students interested in their own emotional reactions).

As for the questions of "Section 3", the questions all seem to be rather biased with leftwing political correctness. I have serious political issues with several of the questions. History questions should elicit responses from students, not be a listing of the political bias of the teachers. The list looks like a course in political re-education for leftism. :eek:

Btw, Section 3, Topic 3, Question 4. Did your history course cover the infamous Irish alliance with Nazi Germany? Just curious. I would expect so since the other questions show serious critiques of other nation's histories - that's one of Ireland's lowpoints in the 20th century.

[Michael]

I just want to say that I'm not entirely negative. On the whole, I'm impressed with the depth of the questions. I'm just annoyed at the content of those questions as being biased.

It think it is very interesting to see such lists and wish we had some other students doing the same. :)

[Leprechaun]

I'd be curious about dilettante's take here since he's a student of history.

But I certainly took every high school history course available and a half-dozen more at the university level so I'm familiar with studying history.

And reading over your list, one thing that really stands out is the obsession with particular names. The extreme partisanship that this indicates/fosters disturbs me. I can't imagine a high school graduate level Canadian history exam mentioning any particular politician's name at all. That seems very weird to me.

History is about learning about various issues and topics, not for worshipping particular politicians. I really don't like academia pushing particular names like that. That just tends to foster rigid partisanship.

You must realise that this does not cover the entire course, they are just questions from some of course. For example Soviet Russia is studied in our course but it did not come up this year. Another example is that it says in one question "During the period 1932-1945, which did Éamnonn de Valera manage better, the economy or Anglo-Irish relations?". This may seem biased but the question could have easily been W.T Cosgrave (with different years). So I would say they aren't biased as it is really dependent on the year. It almost must be noted that it isn't really the person who is studied just what they did (as prime minister, as taoiseach etc. etc.) so effectively the question of policies etc.


Secondly, some of the questions are "how do you feel about..." format which is, in my opinion, extremely poor educational policy. It tends to foster entitlement and a misplaced importance upon one's own feelings about historical/political issues at the expense of actual facts about those same historical/political issues.

In other words, teaching people about feelings is dumb. People already know how to have feelings and emotional reactions. They don't need any help or encouragement here. What people tend to lack is understanding of actual context of information - that's what schools need to teach (though they do it rarely since it is so much easier to get students interested in their own emotional reactions).

I think the main reason for the 'why do you feel' questions is to prevent students from regurgitating facts and instead being forced to represent their 'understanding' of the period/events rather than their knowledge. There is however a certain percentage of marks for 'content' which includes relevant information so 'I think X was successful' isn't
an answer but 'X's policy of Y lead to outcome Z and in this respect he was successful in managing A'

As for the questions of "Section 3", the questions all seem to be rather biased with leftwing political correctness. I have serious political issues with several of the questions. History questions should elicit responses from students, not be a listing of the political bias of the teachers. The list looks like a course in political re-education for leftism. :eek:

Btw, Section 3, Topic 3, Question 4. Did your history course cover the infamous Irish alliance with Nazi Germany? Just curious. I would expect so since the other questions show serious critiques of other nation's histories - that's one of Ireland's lowpoints in the 20th century.

I'm not sure what you mean by left wing bias as again the questions change year to year and you don't necassarily have to agree. For example if the question what was the effectiveness of X you could say it wasn't effective and get full marks provided you supported your answer with facts and another student could say it was effective and get full marks.

What alliance with Germany? Yes, Ireland remained neutral and de Valera signed the book of condolences for Hitler but at the same time the Irish amry was drawing up plans with British troops and was interning German spies while allowing British and American ones to escape. Several Irish officers were even awarded medals from the American government but they decided against it after it was pointed out that this would embarrass the Irish Govt.

[Michael]

You must realise that this does not cover the entire course, they are just questions from some of course. For example Soviet Russia is studied in our course but it did not come up this year. Another example is that it says in one question
"During the period 1932-1945, which did Éamnonn de Valera manage better, the economy or Anglo-Irish relations?". This may seem biased but the question could have easily been W.T Cosgrave (with different years). So I would say they aren't biased as it is really dependent on the year. It almost must be noted that it isn't really the person who is studied just what they did (as prime minister, as taoiseach etc. etc.) so effectively the question of policies etc.
Sorry, I've spent too much time studying the psychology of questions and how they bias the answer. This is a fundamental aspect of political polling. The tiniest shift in the wording of the question will produce wildly different responses.

In your example, the question is phrased in the form that de Valera did manage both the economy and Anglo-Irish relations well. That is partisan propaganda, even if he did manage these things well. Questions ought not to provide the answer and the opportunity for you to 'agree or disagree'. That structure of a question is not designed to elicit a meaningful response - it is designed to get you to agree with the premise of the question. It is a very subtle but effective technique.

And yes, one has to engage in the 'facts' of the time period to address this, but the essential frame of the question is designed to instill in the student that de Valera did a good job for Ireland. I don't think history questions ought to tell you what is good for Ireland and then judge your ability to agree.

I think the main reason for the 'why do you feel' questions is to prevent students from regurgitating facts and instead being forced to represent their 'understanding' of the period/events rather than their knowledge. There is however a certain percentage of marks for 'content' which includes relevant information so 'I think X was successful' isn't
an answer but 'X's policy of Y lead to outcome Z and in this respect he was successful in managing A'
I'm aware of the theory of why they like to use that style of question - it is all about instilling self-confidence in the student. This is part of the 'child-centered-learning' theory that holds that creating self-esteem in a child is the most important function of a school's educational program.

Fact of the matter is that the technique doesn't actually work in producing the desired 'self-esteem' (the technique tends to foster belief in one's entitlement to esteem, rather than 'self-esteem'). The real downside is that focusing upon this tends to involve a lower retention level of information.

Studies routinely show that newer generations of students are increasingly ignorant of large aspects of history in comparison with earlier generations who learned under different educational systems (this phenomena is a largely 'western' one with the USA furthest along this curve).

I'm not sure what you mean by left wing bias as again the questions change year to year and you don't necassarily have to agree. For example if the question what was the effectiveness of X you could say it wasn't effective and get full marks provided you supported your answer with facts and another student could say it was effective and get full marks.


Section 3, Topic 5.

1. To what extent did Great Britain contibute to tensions in the Middle East during the period, 1945-1956?
By definition, the question states that Great Britain contributed to an increase in tensions in the Middle East. The implied reference to Israel is duly noted.

And the Suez Crisis was driven by France and Egypt as much as by Britain.

In other words, it takes a very specific ideological bias to hold that Britain's engagements with the Middle East during this period was by defintion "a cause of increased tensions".

Who's tensions were increased?

2. During the period 1945-1990, what were the social and economic consequences for Africa of Europe's retreat from empire?
Again, this question defines European colonialism in Africa as "empire" (which means "imperialism"). That again is pure propaganda.

Yes one may reasonably argue that British or French (or Belgian for that matter) colonial policies were in fact imperialist.

But the education system has no business dictating that particular political interpretation as the definition of the topic. That's propaganda.

What alliance with Germany? Yes, Ireland remained neutral and de Valera signed the book of condolences for Hitler but at the same time the Irish amry was drawing up plans with British troops and was interning German spies while allowing British and American ones to escape. Several Irish officers were even awarded medals from the American government but they decided against it after it was pointed out that this would embarrass the Irish Govt.
No formal alliance, but lots of official connections and issues/accusations of collaboration with the Nazis. The IRA in particular have very strong Nazi connections in the 1922-1939 period. Lots of quiet support for the Nazis there in the early years. Ireland was also a major conduit for Nazi spies into and out of Britain. Also lots of issues involving German U-boats, shore signalling and secret supply bases there.

Not a big issue - clearly a small one in the context of WW2, I was just curious if your history classes touched upon it during the coverage of WW2 and collaboration/resistance topic since it seems relevant.

[Michael]

With regard to the last point, I certainly don't want to accuse Ireland of warcrimes or being allied to or supportive of Hitler's Nazi regime. That's not my point at all.

Rather, my question is about whether your high school history courses were addressing any 'questionable' or controversial episodes in Irish history?

For example, I know that contemporary high school level Canadian history does address the issue of the (ugly) treatment of Native peoples by the Canadian government in the past. Similarly, with respect to WW2, mention is made about the ongoing controversy about the morality of the Allied Bombing campaign that Canada was very much a part of. Though, I admit they are quite unlikely to 'test' knowledge on this aspect. Rather this is just a topic raised in the context of studying the larger issues involved.

[Leprechaun]

With regard to de Valera a good student's answer would be that he didn't manage the economy well at all and so it is actually quite a trick question. If one was to agree then one would be hard-pushed to get full marks and so while it might subtly lean one towards a certain direction it would be the wrong one. With regard to the middle-east etc. I didn't do that part of the course so I can't determine how the course portrays the situation but I can imagine that if one did not mention France they would receive poor grades.
The course does cover bad periods in Irish history too such as the executions and atrocities during the civil war and it does cover Ireland's situation in world war two but you seem to have quite a weird understanding of it. Most of the submarines landings etc. were during WWI prior to the 1916 rising and the Nazi connections were only the IRA who had been marginalised by the time. The section also covers censorship et al. and internment hadly glorious epsiodes of Irish past. We also study events such as bloody sunday during which the 'Squad' attacked the 'Cairo Gang' and shot men in front of their families some of them were not even part of the intelligence forces. Or perhaps the brutality towards and executions of suspected spies or the violence used to keep order. Also the collaberation/resistance topic only covers countries that were occupied (and some groups in germany eg. Die Rote Kapelle etc. and is actually quite a small part of the course).

[Michael]

With regard to de Valera a good student's answer would be that he didn't manage the economy well at all and so it is actually quite a trick question. If one was to agree then one would be hard-pushed to get full marks and so while it might subtly lean one towards a certain direction it would be the wrong one. With regard to the middle-east etc. I didn't do that part of the course so I can't determine how the course portrays the situation but I can imagine that if one did not mention France they would receive poor grades.
I admit that I don't know de Valera's domestic politics much at all so I'm not really making any comment about that, rather I'm saying that the focus on personality instead of policy in the questions on Irish history strike me as very different than the kind of history tests I've ever had.

I particularly don't like 'great man' theory of history at all and I seeing those questions laid out like that strikes me that this view of history is probably fairly common in the Irish education departments.

The course does cover bad periods in Irish history too such as the executions and atrocities during the civil war and it does cover Ireland's situation in world war two but you seem to have quite a weird understanding of it. Most of the submarines landings etc. were during WWI prior to the 1916 rising and the Nazi connections were only the IRA who had been marginalised by the time. The section also covers censorship et al. and internment hadly glorious epsiodes of Irish past. We also study events such as bloody sunday during which the 'Squad' attacked the 'Cairo Gang' and shot men in front of their families some of them were not even part of the intelligence forces. Or perhaps the brutality towards and executions of suspected spies or the violence used to keep order. Also the collaberation/resistance topic only covers countries that were occupied (and some groups in germany eg. Die Rote Kapelle etc. and is actually quite a small part of the course).
I'm rather glad to hear this. Far too many nations do engage in 'airbrushing' their history books. There's been some changes made here in the last few decades in some countries, but not in others. I was curious if Ireland was one or the other. I think it is always best to look at history with warts and all.

As for the Irish-German connections 1919-1945, the best internet material is behind academic pay-walls - Oxford history stuff. The topic is contemporary and ongoing though - I see a couple of recent publications listed but can't access them for reference here.

[Leprechaun]

Well although it does mention single figures it more often refers to their 'reign' as it were and often it substitutes 'de Valera' for example with 'Fianna Fáil'. One also has to consider that the Irish Republic was only declared in 1949 while the Irish Free State was formed in 1922 so these fgures are essentialyl our 'founding fathers'. We also have to realise that this is a secondary level two year course and so is hardly 'in depth' and students study at least 5 other subjects at the same time. Your comments are duly noted though.
Anyway, the reason why I started this was to get a discussion going to compare different courses internationally and to suggest things that should/shouldn't be on the course.

[Michael]

Well although it does mention single figures it more often refers to their 'reign' as it were and often it substitutes 'de Valera' for example with 'Fianna Fáil'. One also has to consider that the Irish Republic was only declared in 1949 while the Irish Free State was formed in 1922 so these fgures are essentialyl our 'founding fathers'. We also have to realise that this is a secondary level two year course and so is hardly 'in depth' and students study at least 5 other subjects at the same time. Your comments are duly noted though.
Yes, 'founding fathers' are a reasonable exception to the rule, I'll grant that.

Anyway, the reason why I started this was to get a discussion going to compare different courses internationally and to suggest things that should/shouldn't be on the course.
Yes, that would be quite interesting - all we need is a few other history students of comparable level. Most of my memory of history class curriculum is at the university level so not very applicable.

For the high school level, I think the focus upon one's own country history ought to be the priority, with 20th century international history being secondary but still important. I can't imagine expecting high school history classes to go beyond those two areas in any meaningful way.

[The Drunk Guy]

For the high school level, I think the focus upon one's own country history ought to be the priority, with 20th century international history being secondary but still important. I can't imagine expecting high school history classes to go beyond those two areas in any meaningful way.
I feel that Roman, Greek, Arabian, Egyptian, Indian, and Oriental histories have tons of great info, but classroom relevance is locked away behind "date and figure" boundaries. What I find amazing is that I've had more history classes than anything else and I still can't remember names and dates.:ummm:

[Michael]

I feel that Roman, Greek, Arabian, Egyptian, Indian, and Oriental histories have tons of great info, but classroom relevance is locked away behind "date and figure" boundaries. What I find amazing is that I've had more history classes than anything else and I still can't remember names and dates.:ummm:
Well yes, Roman, Greek, Arabian, Egyptian, Indian and Oriental/Asian histories are worthy of studying, but I don't think they ought to be considered required knowledge for graduating high school do you?

They make great 'elective' type courses at that level, but I think domestic history and international 20th century history are the most relevant topics to expect a high school graduate to know something about. The battle lines of WW2 (for example) pretty much defines our present world powers today - including the structure and formation of the UN. The UN makes no sense unless you understand WW2 that created it.

As for names & dates, I read an enormous amount of history and I never remember exact dates (or many names) - I focus on the events themselves and the decades and half-centuries in history. I can almost always place any given historical event or historical figure to the correct decade and definitely to the half-century. It helps to have a general chronology in one's head so that any event can be accurately guessed at. Memorizing specific items of knowledge is such a wasteful and inefficient process (and an impossibly large task). Far better to learn the pattern and then make educated guesses at the particular details. :)

[The Drunk Guy]

Well yes, Roman, Greek, Arabian, Egyptian, Indian and Oriental/Asian histories are worthy of studying, but I don't think they ought to be considered required knowledge for graduating high school do you?

They make great 'elective' type courses at that level, but I think domestic history and international 20th century history are the most relevant topics to expect a high school graduate to know something about. The battle lines of WW2 (for example) pretty much defines our present world powers today - including the structure and formation of the UN. The UN makes no sense unless you understand WW2 that created it.

As for names & dates, I read an enormous amount of history and I never remember exact dates (or many names) - I focus on the events themselves and the decades and half-centuries in history. I can almost always place any given historical event or historical figure to the correct decade and definitely to the half-century. It helps to have a general chronology in one's head so that any event can be accurately guessed at. Memorizing specific items of knowledge is such a wasteful and inefficient process (and an impossibly large task). Far better to learn the pattern and then make educated guesses at the particular details. :)
As I was saying, the name and date approach ruins the educational value. With that age group, I would also not focus on specific details, but rather the ideological ramifications of the events. Some how, some way, high school students need a dash of philosophical and political education before being tossed out as a legal voter.

[Dominick]

I would expect anyone coming out of school to know the general history of every single place or culture on the planet at least to a level one can present a continuous talk from the Stone Age to today in broad terms. That's what I and everyone that went to high school with me got. That involves no exact dates nor names of individuals unless they're absolutely crucial.
What have we become if we deem that too difficult ? :shrug:

[Michael]

I would expect anyone coming out of school to know the general history of every single place or culture on the planet at least to a level one can present a continuous talk from the Stone Age to today in broad terms. That's what I and everyone that went to high school with me got. That involves no exact dates nor names of individuals unless they're absolutely crucial.
What have we become if we deem that too difficult ? :shrug:

You telling me that you learned about every single culture on the planet from Stone Age to present? In 12 years of public school?

That's mindboggling and very hard to believe. Sure I got a rudimentary gloss over Sumer and the Hittites as a setup for the Hykos over-running the old Egyptian dynasty, but that's about it. Oh yeah, we did a fair bit of study of Canada's native indian bands as well (relevant local history in my opinion). Nothing on India, Africa or China at all other than acknowledging that they existed. Did a bit on those places in geography classes.

Besides which, anything prior to 3000 BC (arbitrarily chosen date of the advent of written history) is not history - it is pre-history and thus always represents a high level of pure speculation. Stone Age 'history' is highly controversial and there is no widespread contemporary consensus on issues relating to Neanderthal vs Cro Magnon. How do you teach what we don't know? And to teach this stuff to kids? Why?

And keep in mind that the amount of time/resources devoted to schoolwork is limited and zero-sum - vastly increasing history teaching means cutting out something else. So what should be cut in order to devote a full hour or two per day on history for twelve years?

As far as I can see, physical education and the English language, spelling, composition and grammer are topics that have been generally cut back over the last twenty-thirty years (in North America) to make room for all the new (politically correct) cultural and/or civic studies courses.

And how does one fit that kind of an agenda in with the fact that in many cases, teaching English language proficiency as a second language is the overwhelming priority for some 10-15% of all students in our public schools. We're talking about kids showing up at school unable to speak more than a couple words of English. And you are suggesting that we teach these kids about Mayan culture and Neanderthals?

[Dominick]

You telling me that you learned about every single culture on the planet from Stone Age to present? In 12 years of public school?
Pretty much. But as I said, in a broad contextual manner. We didn't get a full annotated Gibbon to read if that's what you think :D


That's mindboggling.
Why ? Every kid got that and most succeeded in the exams.


Besides which, anything prior to 3000 BC (arbitrarily chosen date of the advent of written history) is not history - it is pre-history and thus always represents a high level of pure speculation. Stone Age 'history' is highly controversial and there is no widespread contemporary consensus on issues relating to Neanderthal vs Cro Magnon. How do you teach what we don't know? And to teach this stuff to kids? Why?
If you'd only teach that which contains no speculation at all, you'd be finished in a single day, Mr. Subjectivity ;)


And keep in mind that the amount of time/resources devoted to schoolwork is limited and zero-sum - vastly increasing history teaching means cutting out something else. So what should be cut in order to devote a full hour or two per day on history for twelve years?
History was one hour a week. That's plenty sufficient for what was done. Why on earth would you need 10 hours a week for that ?


As far as I can see, physical education and the English language, spelling, composition and grammer are topics that have been generally cut back over the last twenty-thirty years (in North America) to make room for all the new (politically correct) cultural and/or civic studies courses.
How many hours are there in a typical NA curriculum and what are they devoted to ?

[Michael]

How many hours are there in a typical NA curriculum and what are they devoted to ?
The answer to the number of hours per day and number of days per year is apparently different in every State and Province in North America. Further variations are found at the county level.

And I don't see much point or purpose in me doing a whole lot of research to answer this question.

Like, what difference would it make if I reported that students in Ontario average 3 hours of math per week or 5 hours?

[Michael]

Here's an interesting article on the subject of the academic study of history.

The shift in focus began in the late 1960s and early ’70s, when a generation of academics began looking into the roles of people generally missing from history books — women, minorities, immigrants, workers. Social and cultural history, often referred to as bottom-up history, offered fresh subjects. Diplomatic historians, by contrast, generally work from the top down, diving into official archives and concentrating on people in power, an approach often tagged as elitist and old-fashioned.

Source-NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/books/11hist.html?_r=1)

This is what put me off doing a degree in history. I went to university in order to get a Ph.D. in History. I found the field to be intellectually dead and totally dominated by 'politically correct' ideology so I pretty much bailed out and switched over to politics and philosophy after just one year of that navel-gazing drivel.

And over the years, I've discovered that the one field where history is the most useful of all is the one field that is almost completely ignored by modern history departments - economic history.

[The Drunk Girl]

Here's an interesting article on the subject of the academic study of history.



Source-NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/books/11hist.html?_r=1)

This is what put me off doing a degree in history. I went to university in order to get a Ph.D. in History. I found the field to be intellectually dead and totally dominated by 'politically correct' ideology so I pretty much bailed out and switched over to politics and philosophy after just one year of that navel-gazing drivel.

And over the years, I've discovered that the one field where history is the most useful of all is the one field that is almost completely ignored by modern history departments - economic history.

Well, what put me off was taking a class on the history of the Ottoman Turks, and the fact that the all three books required for the course were written by my professor (but that has been 5-6 years ago). It's hard to engage in a class discussion when your own opinions/thoughts/ideas are going to be wrong a majority of the time.

Also, could it be that the reason why the number of particular historians have fell is due to a cross-over with other courses?