Poll: History, an important subject?

[Captain Pancake]

I guess I should argue for it's case, but I'm missing my history class at this very moment due to illness, so anything I say will just by hypocritical. I'm not too keen on history, even though it was one of my best subjects. It's the teachers, they're either friendly but useless or have a stick up their ass.

 

[Dys]

While that's a valid point and I wouldn't ever contend that an entire subject is completely useless, what is the point in forcing someone who plans on studying medicine or engineering? What about people who plan on going into a trade?

These people will not spend 24/7 in their trade. They will be citizens, and as such, they will be called upon to be much more than just doctors or engineers or tradesmen in their lives.[/quote

It is not the job of the schools to raise children.

I disagree completely. It is not only the job of the schools to do so, it is their duty to children as it is a child's civil right in my opinion to be raised properly.

I disagree entirely, and it is most likely this fundamental difference of opinion of the role of schools is why we agree on whether history should be manditory learning for highschool students. In Australia, schools are not even close to being even. The general attitude of the Howard government, who were in power for 11 years (the sucessor government is yet to do anything so I can't really comment on them) was that if you want a good education for your children, send them to a private school. For obvious reasons this seperation of funding, teacher quality and access to learning material, not to mention the different scenarios of the different areas around (rich, poor etc), such a system would vastly benifet the richer kids from wealthy backgrounds.

It also should be questioned how much influence teachers are allowed to place on children, as the majority of teachers I had were underqualified and unintelligent, I shit you not I have friends who all but failed highschool now studying to be teachers, do we really want these people to have even more influence over the future generations? Parents should be free to raise their own children without authorities interfering (except in cases of neglect, abuse etc). Regardless of how stupid or wrong the parents may be, they have the right to raise their children however they see fit.

The parents are responsible for making sure a child grows up to be a well balanced and informed person in the real world,

False dichotomy--while parents are responsible, so are schools. It's not an either/or choice.

Just on a practical level, what are parents supposed to do: get a degree in history and philosophy and everything else that a child should learn? We've already got schools: why not put the future engineers in the history class with the history students if their parents need to make sure they learn history anyway to make sure a child grows up to be a well balanced and informed person in the real world?

Wait, so you think that only people with history or philosophy degrees have any knowledge about history or philosophy? That only people with such education are qualified to have opinions? If that's the case, why are you even discussing this with me?

I learn all the history I need outside of highschool history class. I don't recall learning about the industral revolution in school, or the communist revolution. Or avagadro or Newton, The french revolution was studied in year 12 history only (I beleive). The most significant historic events were never explored in high school history, we studied the renaissonce in some (read very little) detail (mostly Leanardo Da Vinci and Michealangelo) and vaguely mentioned that there was a war (and that mel gibson was in a movie about it).

Do most history students study Avagadro, Pythagoras and Newton? Those are the areas of history that must be known by those studying the physical sciences (among others, but I wouldn't try and list them all even if I did know all of them). How about Karl Marx or the people significant to the industry revolution (I'd name some if they'd ever bothered teaching it in highschool history). I maintain that, for me, highschool history was an absolute waste of time because we didn't study any periods relevant to modern politics or society and we most certainly didn't explore what little we did study. I see no benifet to the subject having been manditory, and still strongly maintain my time would have been better spent elsewhere.

A parent should be teaching the child right from wrong, as well as promoting growth and expression. It is the parent who should teach the child how to handle money and keep a schedule. Older children (as in teenagers) should be discussing things with their parents, when the parents don't let them do something, it should be explained why (why you can't drink at the party, why it's important to get a part time job etc). It is the role of the parent to make the child fit in with society, you can disagree with me as strongly as you like, but that's how it's worked throughout history and there's no need to put more strain on the schools (it's been working throughout recorded history) so that parents can escape responsibility.

The job of school is to prepare me for university, I would have been far better prepared if I had been given the option to focus more heavily on maths and science than arts.

You were not the only one forced to do so--everyone else was too. So if people were not forced like you to take arts, they too would have focused more heavily on maths and science. You would have been more prepared for the university you went to, but you would have gained no competitive advantage on your peers, so your university maths and science courses would have been made harder because you *all* would have been better prepared.

The rising tide floats all boats.

So what, we'd be stuck with a generation of professionals who are extremely well educated and really good at their jobs? I'm not really seeing a problem there.

I don't think any trend of history majors being bad with money (not entirely sure I agree with that either, btw, what makes you think that's the case?) is not likely to have anything to do with how much attention they paid to maths in highschool, it has more to do with how disciplined they are and how willing they are to sacrafice things they want to keep up with payments.

I disagree. How many people fear investing aggressively in the stock market early in life because they have no understanding of probability and mathematical risk?

I'm guessing all the people who studied maths and not economics (which, in my school, was never manditory)? Investing requires an understand of the economy, not maths. Regardless, most people go through stockbrokers. I think young people not investing agressively is because they have no capital with which to invest (most young adults I know cannot even afford to live outside their parents care). I've studied maths extensively and have no desire to invest in the stock market (I'm far more interested in property), in fact, I only know one person my age who has invested in the stock market and he was terrible at maths.

But, people who know that a subject isn't directly applicable to them in later life

No one really knows that. What if someone fails out of med school? It happens all the time to really smart people--med school is hard. You never know what's going to be applicable to you in later life.

[/quote]
Fair enough, nobody does really know. But a lot of people seem to think they do.

We were too young to comprehend any serious subjects, the majority of students didn't even have the literacy skills or even conversational skills to have any meaningful discussion.

This is true--our academic subjects are not geared towards teaching, they're geared towards getting kids to pass tests. There's a difference.

I originially had a rant here that went way off topic, but it's been removed because:
A. It's more or less me agreeing with you
B. This post has already gone on way too long
and C. It's somewhat off topic.

Heh--I don't disagree with you, I just think you're confusing a general argument about holding a student's interest with a specific one about 'why do engineers need history'.

No, I'm not confusing the argument as I think the two are linked (not specificially engineers, but proffesions who don't need knowledge of what is taught in highschool history). Our opinions are largely opposite and we are probably comparing apples to oranges as we from different schooling backgrounds (history in the form I was taught in high school is no more relevant to a history grad student than it is to an architect). Our differences on the role of schools also mean that we are never going to agree about what content should be taught.

*edit* Might just throw this in there as well, I don't beleive that the majority of the population should have tertery education. I hate that the g'ment keeps prolonging education so as to make the unemployment rates look lower.

 

[dietpeachsnapple]

Sorta, leaning towards no.

*shakes his head and sighs*

I say yes, because it is essential we create baselines, archives of data, and fields of reference by which we can assess human behavior. HOWEVER, the motto, "We must 'learn' from our mistakes, or we are destined to repeat them," Fails horribly!

We make the same mistakes as a society... as a SPECIES... repeatedly, and with no sigh of relenting.

So... Sorta... but no.

 

[silasbufu]

I think it should be in some optional class package. you know..to be chosen only by people who actually care about history. Because they're a minority

 

[thevillageidiot13]

i think the "learning from mistakes" explanation is b.s. i also think that mainstream history -- the stuff they teach you in high school -- "the founding fathers were great patriots, columbus was a hero, blah blah blah, america is great, go capitalism, commies should all die, etc." is bullshit.

if you read stuff on history that they don't teach you in high school [ie: Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the Untied States"], you learn that america has done a lot of terrible stuff as a nation.

i don't think it's any good for learning not to repeat yr mistakes. hitler probably wasn't an idiot, he managed to rule a nation for a decade, and he made the same damn mistake that napoleon made -- so no, paying attention in history doesn't always make you a genius in terms of learning from past mistakes.

however, it's a lot like looking in the mirror and asking yourself, "What the fuck am i doing? where am i headed in life? who am i?"

sure, when you're a doctor, you can survive without history. but this would be like living life without any self-reflection -- it makes you shallow, and it stunts your emotional growth.

in that same respect, without history, we have no means to look at ourselves, as an entire species, and ask ourselves, "Who are we, and where are we headed as a species? Are we doing something wrong with the gift of life? We've been blessed with complex thought, which no other known organism has, and are we using it to make the World a better place?"

and without history, we will never understand that, sometimes, the answer is "No," and, without the capacity to recognize that we're making mistakes as a nation/species/world, we will continue down any self-destructive spiral we fall into. [ie: global pollution starting from 1940 onward]

 

[Yorkshire_matt]

It's quite offten the stuff that happens around a major event that makes it the major event in the first place.
And historically most of the big breakthroughs in medicine are linked to some massive world crisis

 

[Nickolai77]

History is important (History undergraduate here, so i will be a bit bias) like many other subjects such as geography, art and the sciences. What makes history worthy of study in schools is because it helps people understand the culture and society we live in now. If you want to know why there is political correctness in the UK along with immigration for instance, you would have the study slavery and British Empire (rise and fall off). If you want to know why and how America came into existance you would have to study European colinisation, the American Revelutionary War, and the Founding Farthers. If you want to understand why the Celtic nations of the British Isles distrust the English, you would have to know about the Roman Conquest, the Anglo-Saxon invasion, King Edward I's conquest of Wales and invasion of Scotland etc... History explains how and why the world is the way it is today.

I think one problem of teaching history though (at a high school level) is that there is so much of it that it is impossible to give all the important areas of history (Greek philosophical thought, Roman Empire, Middle Ages, Charlemagene's Empire, Industrial Revelution, Norman Invasion etc the warrented study they all equally deserve.

 

[ninjaman 420]

i really hope your kidding.

 

[mrhappyface]

Yes it is. Not knowing the past of a country is like not knowing anything about a person beyond first impressions. If kids grow up not knowing anything about their country, then they would care less about their country and not have a lower chance of becoming productive members of society. Also, knowing about how history shaped the world today is important because large events effect you in many different ways.

 

[AndyVale]

The education system isn't tailor made for you. They have to try cover a broad range of subjects so that they bring up an educated population and so that everyone can find something they enjoy. If you don't like it then live with it, everyone else did.

To be frank, if you're at the point where history is a compulsory subject then you're probably a good number of years away from being a doctor. It's no guarantee you will make it and you may change your mind in the intervening years. If you did well in history it shows that you are probably reasonably smart and can apply yourself to things even if you don't like them. That will go down well on any CV.

As for the subject itself I am prepared to wager that many wars could've been averted if the populations involved had a greater understanding of history. Germany would've understood that Hitler was just the right man picking his moment when they were down, we would've known to stay out of Iraq and people may have understood WHY 9/11 happened. As it is most people don't have a great knowledge/understanding of history so they make knee-jerk decisions and responses without knowing what led to that situation in the first place.

Basically, you can never know too much. Some kids walk miles through soldier infested jungles to get a basic education, some never even had that option. History would've taught you that.

 

[teisjm]

Learning about the past is not as important as learning about the present.

I still don't get why (in Denmark) history is the most important class along with Danish (not learnign the language, but learning how to intepretate over-rated books and poems)

What i seriously don't get is why ancient history (ancient rome/greece) is obligatory, while the class that teaches you about our current society isn't... thats just plain retarded.

 

[BringBackBuck]

How would you make sense of these discussion boards if you didn't know aboutirates, Ninjas, or Hitler

 

[Arkhangelsk]

It's necessary to learn from our past mistakes as a species, and to remember the good things that gave us the opportunity to be where we are now.

 

[Dys]

We're arguaing about 5 different things here under the premese of how useful history is...awsome

My understanding, what I've been told by various teachers (as I regularly contested the need for my being in school, at school) when asked "why do we do this" is because "it is to prepare you for a career or university". Now, I'm going to have to assume you are from somewhere that isn't Australia (probably Britain or the USA) and that schools have fundamentally different goals. Where I'm from it is not the schools responsibility to raise children, teachers here are not paid or respected anywhere near enough to want that responsibility, they are not taught schooling when they attend university, they are taught whatever subject they plan to teach (there are, of course teachers who teach for the love of teaching, but they are a minority). They are also powerless to discipline children and have very, very little control over students who choose to misbehave.

While society seems to be moving towards more responsibility for teachers (well, the g'ment want it to, a lot of teachers and parents write into local newspapers all around here complaining about it). In the not very distant past, there were technical high schools all around the state which did not teach subjects like history at all. One is not legally obliged to remain in school past year 8 or 9 (I can't remember which, the earliest I've known anyone to finish school without going to another place of education is the end of year 9), And these people were all fine to vote and raise children.

Right, next point. Of course parents are not always more qualified than teachers, though more often than not they are. There is a very serious teacher shortage in Australia at the moment and no serious action has been taken to reverse it, universities have been forced to drop the one high standard teachers of teaching students to attract people to the course. Given the rising rates of education, and the wealth of better jobs available to educated people, teaching is getting the scraps. What's worse, is most teachers don't intend to stay teachers.

...they are supported by an earlier DEST study that showed up to 25 percent of teachers left the profession within five years of starting teaching.

Worrying to say the least.

I do agree that children are always going to be at the mercy of someone, and if the caliber of teachers was closer to what it should be then it wouldn't even be a serious issue for me. I can't control, or vote on who gets to have kids nor can they have any influence of my children. It's a situation I cannot do anything about, the influence of teachers, however, is more within my control.

Again, I don't have any problem with history being offered all through highschool, I just don't think it should be manditory after it stopped being about the history of my country. The renaissonce and world war 1 focus history had in highschool was because the education deparment decided it should be taught, and while they are not uninteresting topics, the issues explored (especially at junior highschool level) do not add anything to the students ability to fit in within society. A more relevant form of history would be less detestable, but as we have a skills shortage in Australia (and I think most of the western world does as well at the moment) we should be getting tradespeople out of classes that are effectively filler (or reworking the classes so as to make them relivent). It is the job of the schools to teach this content because that's what the guideline set by the education department is, so it isn't a question of effectiveness, it is a question of content. The schools/teachers are powerless to change this, as a giant wall of beaurocracy stands between them and common sense.

You think it makes practical sense to further burden an already failing system? There are not enough teachers, there are far too many students, teachers have relatively little control over students (they can no longer suspend or expel students without several warnings, I think a minimum of 3 suspentions are necissary before a child can be expelled). I don't think it makes practical sense at all. Maybe in a perfect world where basic literacy and numeracy skills are not lower than they were 40 years ago it could be considered, but for now I think parents should either take responsibility for raising their kids or invest in an abortion.

Most doctors of medicine have very well informed opinions on medical issues that have no systematic answer, because they are exposed to it. They see the suffering of patients who are campagning for euthanasia, they see the young girls who can't care for their children and so, they are really the most informed people with such opinions (I can't be bothered rewording that so as it's less loaded, I don't mean to imply that they are for euthanasia and pro choice). Even for non-medical issues that they are expected to vote on (though really, our system isn't vote for a policy, but vote for a package of policies so voters can get away with not knowing most of a governments policies) I can't see them being any more uninformed than the general public just because they never studied history (or arts) in highschool. As I said before a great many people do those degrees not because they want to learn, but because they want to show future employers they are dedicated enough to get a degree. Moreso, most people do those subjects in high school because they have to and no matter how effective the teachers are, and how relivent the content is to the real world, they simply will not keep up with current affairs and will remain uninformed.

The young investors point, because this post was nowhere near off topic enough
There are a great many reasons why young people are cautious, I couldn't find anything in google suggesting that it was because young people didn't understand probability and risks. I still maintain it's because young people have very little capital to invest in stocks and that they are more interested in surviving than planning for the future (as well as investing in property). I should also point out that not everyone who is good with money invests in shares, nor does everyone who's bad with money avoid investing in shares.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

History is meant to teach others of there past.To see how far they have come and to use it as a refrence point in the case they run into a similar problems.

 

[Xanadeas]

The question is not whether or not it needs to be important but whether or not it needs to be so dull. I'd have had no problem learning history if my teachers had at least made it /interesting/. As it was I fell asleep almost every day in my highschool history class. Teacher would turn off the lights and so would I.

More OT: It is and isn't. Without learning from our past mistakes and successes we end up repeating things over and over again. Even if it's something minor it can turn into something very important. Yet at the same time... there are some things that are just utterly insignificant. What do I care what the meso-americans did?

 

[HerrBobo]

War, rebellion, revolution, back-stabbing, double-dealing, liars, cheats, murder, affairs, famine, heroic last stands, weapon advancement, might Empires, incest, shocking blunders, genocide, kidnappings, seiges, plague, pestilence, ninjas, pirates, buried treasure, oracles, space travel, constant defeat of France, formation and break up of Nations, terrorists, heresy, Spanish Inqustion, torture, castles, prostitution, excommunication, civil wars and the internet.

To name but a few.

How the hell is History boring?