Do you have a history?

Legs.Eleven

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No? I didn't do it for the Junior Cert?

Eh.....maybe you didn't hear about the exam?

Iwasfrozen

Corkfeen wrote: »

Erm..... History classes in secondary education tends to be biased in most countries. It's not unique to Ireland.

Yeah but we can't change the history lessons offered in other countries.

Iwasfrozen

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Eh.....maybe you didn't hear about the exam?

Pretty sure I would have.

Prodigious

Corkfeen wrote: »

Erm..... History classes in secondary education tends to be biased in most countries. It's not unique to Ireland.

Ah, grand so.

Legs.Eleven

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Pretty sure I would have.

Not being smart but twas compulsory in my day (1822)

joebloggs32

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Up till the Junior Cert is was, was it not?

it was up to the individual school to decide

Legs.Eleven

joebloggs32 wrote: »

it was up to the individual school to decide

You sure?

Gran Hermano

My history is here http://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=91412&sort=newest

Corkfeen

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yeah but we can't change the history lessons offered in other countries.

I agree that the manner in which it is taught is awful. I'd prefer that students didn't simply learn off dates and events but instead learnt of how there are numerous different interpretations of most historical events so that students can weigh up the merits of the arguments. It would benefit them in terms of critical thinking at the very least. What changes would you propose?

joebloggs32

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

You sure?

ya. I'm a history teacher

Iwasfrozen

Corkfeen wrote: »

I agree that the manner in which it is taught is awful. I'd prefer that students didn't simply learn off dates and events but instead learnt of how there are numerous different interpretations of most historical events so that students can weigh up the merits of the arguments. It would benefit them in terms of critical thinking at the very least. What changes would you propose?

I'd prefer a more balanced view of the world. At the moment history tends to be very hiberno-centric and focused on the big bad English invading poor defenseless Ireland. It's very black and white and I'd rather they thought more about the root causes of colonialism and it's effects on the wider world scale. Analyze why things happened instead of just saying they did.

Wade in the Sea

kilkenny12 wrote: »

Another "anti Irish language" thread..

History always repeats itself.
Irish is great craic.
If ya want to bash a useless subject, get rid of art.

First off - I am not anti Irish/Gaelic. Irish has a use, but better as a 3rd level Arts subject. My point is how can you choose to retain Irish as a compulsory subject but reject History?

You make my point. Only those who do not learn from history repeat it. There are rediculously identical events taking place today that took place in the 1920s ands 30s in Europe. And only a few can see it. The next step in the absence of strong leadership will be auto-cratic systems that will promise and in the short term, deliver solutions but at the expense of others. But the Labour party want our children focused on a language spoken less widely than Clingon!

Cody Pomeray

Corkfeen wrote: »

I agree that the manner in which it is taught is awful. I'd prefer that students didn't simply learn off dates and events but instead learnt of how there are numerous different interpretations of most historical events so that students can weigh up the merits of the arguments.

If you did LC history since 2005 (?) when the new curriculum came in you'll know that it has changed dramatically from repeating dates.

Even before this new curriculum, the old exam was something like 4 essays and a research topic, so I'm not even sure when history was last " learning off dates and events".

You really have to know your stuff and be able to make coherent points for the history course. I'd be satisfied that anyone getting an A or a high B in history would feel comfortable studying it at University.

Also, yes history is not compulsory. It was an option since 1st year in my school anyway....

dxhound2005

joebloggs32 wrote: »

it was up to the individual school to decide

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

You sure?

Wade in the Sea wrote: »

First off - I am not anti Irish/Gaelic. Irish has a use, but better as a 3rd level Arts subject. My point is how can you choose to retain Irish as a compulsory subject but reject History?

You make my point. Only those who do not learn from history repeat it. There are rediculously identical events taking place today that took place in the 1920s ands 30s in Europe. And only a few can see it. The next step in the absence of strong leadership will be auto-cratic systems that will promise and in the short term, deliver solutions but at the expense of others. But the Labour party want our children focused on a language spoken less widely than Clingon!

You are not learning from the history of this thread. History is not a compulsory subject either on the Junior or Senior cycle. But like geography which is also not compulsory I expect that most schools will teach it. So whatever rat you are smelling is somewhat contrived I think.

Wade in the Sea

Corkfeen wrote: »

I agree that the manner in which it is taught is awful. I'd prefer that students didn't simply learn off dates and events but instead learnt of how there are numerous different interpretations of most historical events so that students can weigh up the merits of the arguments. It would benefit them in terms of critical thinking at the very least. What changes would you propose?

History is about why not what

Damn you Irish times for making that sound cliche!!!!!!

Corkfeen

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

If you did LC history since 2005 (?) when the new curriculum came in you'll know that it has changed dramatically from repeating dates.

Even before this new curriculum, the old exam was something like 4 essays and a research topic, so I'm not even sure when history was last " learning off dates and events".

You really have to know your stuff and be able to make coherent points for the history course. I'd be satisfied that anyone getting an A or a high B in history would feel comfortable studying it at University.

Also, yes history is not compulsory. It was an option since 1st year in my school anyway....

I actually only got as far as Junior Cert history, I am currently finishing my history undergrad though.:pac: I have found that many people in my course who had studied Leaving Cert history, struggled with adapting the way in which they analysed it. It tends to be one of the major complaints of history lecturers.

tdv123

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yeah but we can't change the history lessons offered in other countries.

Why not?

Legs.Eleven

joebloggs32 wrote: »

ya. I'm a history teacher

Oh. Is it compulsory at honours level or am I talking like an auld one like she would the ha'penny and penny farthing?

Cody Pomeray

Corkfeen wrote: »

I actually only got as far as Junior Cert history, I am currently finishing my history undergrad though.:pac: I have found that many people in my course who had studied Leaving Cert history, struggled with adapting the way in which they analysed it. It tends to be one of the major complaints of history lecturers.

I can't imagine why, my understanding is the course was specifically designed to construct a natural lead-in to third level programmes.

It has a large research component and a big emphasis on critical awareness and making balanced judgement calls.

I presumed everyone was very happy with the syllabus. Not sure how someone would, or should, go about improving it.

Skid X

There was an After Hours thread recently where someone (too young to remember) said that the Troubles in Northern Ireland, weren't that bad, and there weren't any bombs as bad as the one in Boston recently.

If ever there was evidence that History should be compulsory, that was it.

Wade in the Sea

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'd prefer a more balanced view of the world. At the moment history tends to be very hiberno-centric and focused on the big bad English invading poor defenseless Ireland. It's very black and white and I'd rather they thought more about the root causes of colonialism and it's effects on the wider world scale. Analyze why things happened instead of just saying they did.

Couldn't agree more! Though I think, in fairness, history, and particularly Irish History is being thought in a much less biased way today. That's the beauty of the subject - you can form your own opinion based on the facts - there are few other subject that open a students mind like History to the possibilties of what was, and look at it retrospectively with a modern eye. Yes that is reviisionism but so long as you don't distort the facts you alway have a case. Today, you ask a child "who was the most evil man in history" and they'll tell you Hitler. Evil?.. yeah but a minow compared to Stalin or Mao who killed mulitiples of what the Austrian Corporal managed. That's revisionism.

And then I ask myself, how would a socialist party reveering Moa and Stalin deal with that. Much as Stalin and Moa did. Block Historical teaching!!!!!!!

Cody Pomeray

Skid X wrote: »

There was an After Hours thread recently where someone (too young to remember) said that the Troubles in Northern Ireland, weren't that bad, and there weren't any bombs as bad as the one in Boston recently.

If ever there was evidence that History should be compulsory, that was it.

Unfortunately making it compulsory doesn't really guarantee any effect.


Most of the country had compulsory Irish.

I'd be willing to bet 90% of the population wouldn't be able to order a pint of beer and tell the bargirl to keep the change, trí Ghaeilge.

Wade in the Sea

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You are not learning from the history of this thread. History is not a compulsory subject either on the Junior or Senior cycle. But like geography which is also not compulsory I expect that most schools will teach it. So whatever rat you are smelling is somewhat contrived I think.

As with History - check your facts - before casting an opinon

Skid X

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Unfortunately making it compulsory doesn't really guarantee any effect.


Most of the country had compulsory Irish.

I'd be willing to bet 90% of the population wouldn't be able to order a pint of beer and tell the bargirl to keep the change, trí Ghaeilge.

There are no guarantees, but it's a good start. I wouldn't be a fan of Irish, but most people retain some basic level of knowledge of the subject despite how much they protest.

Legs.Eleven

Wade in the Sea wrote: »

Couldn't agree more! Though I think, in fairness, history, and particularly Irish History is being thought in a much less biased way today. That's the beauty of the subject - you can form your own opinion based on the facts - there are few other subject that open a students mind like History to the possibilties of what was, and look at it retrospectively with a modern eye. Yes that is reviisionism but so long as you don't distort the facts you alway have a case. Today, you ask a child "who was the most evil man in history" and they'll tell you Hitler. Evil?.. yeah but a minow compared to Stalin or Mao who killed mulitiples of what the Austrian Corporal managed. That's revisionism.

And then I ask myself, how would a socialist party reveering Moa and Stalin deal with that. Much as Stalin and Moa did. Block Historical teaching!!!!!!!

Moa!!! Haha!


I'm drunk btw.

Wade in the Sea

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I can't imagine why, my understanding is the course was specifically designed to construct a natural lead-in to third level programmes.

It has a large research component and a big emphasis on critical awareness and making balanced judgement calls.

I presumed everyone was very happy with the syllabus. Not sure how someone would, or should, go about improving it.

Sounds like learned teaching as opposed to intuitive guidance. The difference between a nice pension and a vocation to me!

TheUsual

Labour Party (Democratic Left / O.I.R.A. / Worker's Party) want to stop Irish History being taught.

I agree, it's too difficult to keep up with the changing loyalties of these these Political chameleons.
32 counties ?
26 counties ?
United workers Party.
United British & Irish Labour Party.
United Kingdom and Knighthoods for all the boys !!! Huzzahhh !!!!

Cody Pomeray

Skid X wrote: »

There are no guarantees, but it's a good start. I wouldn't be a fan of Irish, but most people retain some basic level of knowledge of the subject despite how much they protest.

If you stopped 100 people on Grafton Street, how many do you think would be able to say important, basic phrases like "I'm thirsty", "my girlfriend is in labour" and "Can I pay by credit card"?

I'd say you'd be lucky if you got 5.

dxhound2005

Skid X wrote: »

There was an After Hours thread recently where someone (too young to remember) said that the Troubles in Northern Ireland, weren't that bad, and there weren't any bombs as bad as the one in Boston recently.

If ever there was evidence that History should be compulsory, that was it.

I do not regard that as sufficient evidence. People say mad things on the internet all the time. And some of them may even have university degrees.

kilkenny12

dxhound2005 wrote: »

I do not regard that as sufficient evidence. People say mad things on the internet all the time. And some of them may even have university degrees.

Honestly some people haven't a clue about the extent of damage caused by the troubles. And that's very recent history.