Should Philosophy and/or Politics be taught as a formal subject on the leaving cert?

Foxhound38

A good article from Steven Lydon in todays Times calling for the teaching of Philosophy as a formal secondary school subject, or at the very least some form of proper political education component. What do ye think, is this area a gap in our childrens education, or would it be open to abuse if it was strengthened - I remember about 10 years ago teachers extolling the greatness of Irelands "dynamic" economy in Leaving Cert Business class, which turned out later to be utter propaganda and bunkem.

Could be a good idea - critical thinking is something we should definately be teaching children to do, and knowledge of the political system and basic tenets of law is a must I think - but it needs to bedone properly!

shruikan2553

Philosophy would be a good replacement of religion. CSPE is done for the junior cert and is the closest to politics we get. Maybe cut out the crap with learning about the homeless and the travelers and make it less of a joke subject

BeerWolf

Ain't that what social studies [CSPE] is in schools... ?

Chancer3001

BeerWolf wrote: »

Ain't that what social studies [CSPE] is in schools... ?

Cspe had a whole chapter on politics. How the government works, elections, different forms if government, the courts, presidents, democracy....

That's plenty

Anita Blow

CSPE is in no way adequate political education. The entire subject boils down to "Well first I'd do a poster campaign"

I'd like to see economics introduced, at an earlier stage.

Christ the Redeemer

How about Logic and critical thinking?

Nope. that would make us dangerous to the state.

HurtLocker

Anita Blow wrote: »

CSPE is in no way adequate political education. The entire subject boils down to "Well first I'd do a poster campaign"

Couldn't remember CSPE much even though it wasn't that long ago and ive an interest in politics. Your line made me laugh. I remember writing it hundreds of times.

SEPT 23 1989

Let them enjoy their youth rather than burdening them with the horrors of politics and the meaning of their pointless existance

GalwayGuy2

I'd be all for it.

Well, as long as you don't teach them your own political leanings. Hmmm, if that's even possible.

Corvo

Politics definitely. I know at the time I probably would have pulled my hair out at it, but it's something I still don't have a grasp on (i.e. I couldn't tell you how the government is made up etc.)

PhlegmyMoses

Philosophy, without a doubt. Gives people an insight into different thought processes and the idea that there are myriad other viewpoints that make sense on every subject. Would help to create more rational and dynamic thinkers.

Peregrine

BeerWolf wrote: »

Ain't that what social studies [CSPE] is in schools... ?

CSPE is one class a week from 1st to 3rd year and the action project is 60% of your total JC result. Out of the other 40% of the test, only about 10% is politics, constitution, government, EU etc.


Nobody takes anything from it, it's just a chore subject.

Dravokivich

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

How about Logic and critical thinking?

Nope. that would make us dangerous to the state.

Logic = Math

Critical Thinking = English Comprehension

If you missed that, you're not doing it right.

Sleepy

A year to study Sophie's Choice would make an ideal Philosophy course for Secondary School

Peregrine

Dravokivich wrote: »

Logic = Math

Critical Thinking = English Comprehension

If you missed that, you're not doing it right.

That's almost idealistic. You'd be surprised to see how the Leaving Cert is actually taught.

Dravokivich

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

That's almost idealistic. You'd be surprised to see how the Leaving Cert is actually taught.

This may come as a shock to you, but I've been there and done that. What stood out as problematic, were issues with the participation of fellow students. If someone doesn't want to learn, they won't.

conorhal

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Cspe had a whole chapter on politics. How the government works, elections, different forms if government, the courts, presidents, democracy....

That's plenty

Especally considering it consists of little more then ideological indoctrination.

For example, this years question on the EU

This was a question on this years CSPE exam in the Junior Cert:

(e) The European Union (EU) has supported many construction projects in Ireland. Other than
these construction projects describe TWO other advantages of membership of the European
Union for EU citizens.
First Advantage: __________________________________________________ __________
__________________________________________________ ________________________
Second Advantage: __________________________________________________ ________
__________________________________________________ __________




Hardly critical thinking is it? Typically critical thinking requires a positive and a negative?

Peregrine

Dravokivich wrote: »

This may come as a shock to you, but I've been there and done that. What stood out as problematic, were issues with the participation of fellow students. If someone doesn't want to learn, they won't.

I never said you didn't but the way it stands now is:

English: Long course about shite nobody cares about that has to be finished before the mocks, learn as many essays off by heart as you can.

Project Maths: It should be finished in 3 years but we don't have 3 years so we'll learn to attempt every question because the paper is marked ridiculously easy.

And that's how most students get through the Leaving Cert. The biggest problem is the system, not the students. But of course there will always be students who don't care but the ones who do want to learn are being let down. The Leaving Cert has become all about cramming in all those chapters before May in 6th year and trying to churn out as many points as you can in June.

Dravokivich

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

English: Long course about shite nobody cares about that has to be finished before the mocks, learn as many essays off by heart as you can.

Forget about learning stuff off, comprehension is about;

- Do you understand
- Agree
- Object
- What's your opinion on it

Those are the main elements to critical thought.

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

Project Maths: It should be finished in 3 years but we don't have 3 years so we'll learn to attempt every question because the paper is marked ridiculously easy.

Logic is a thought process. How to connect various elements, make sense of them and what you expect to get from them. A basic example is Algebra. Applying the thought process from Algebra is how you do journey planning. There's logic for you there.

Nimrod 7 wrote: »

And that's how most students get through the Leaving Cert. The biggest problem is the system, not the students. But of course there will always be students who don't care but the ones who do want to learn are being let down. The Leaving Cert has become all about cramming in all those chapters before May in 6th year and trying to churn out as many points as you can in June.

Most of'em just thought;

- fúck it, who's got a free gaff next weekend?
- Got any spare smokes
- My bleeding lighter is out of gas

When I was in school. Which is why I referenced the need to be willing to participate.

Grayson

Dravokivich wrote: »

Logic = Math

Critical Thinking = English Comprehension

If you missed that, you're not doing it right.

maths isn't logic. It's a form of deductive reasoning, but it barely scratches the surface of logic. There are great benefits to it, but it only employs a little bit of logic.

Dravokivich

Grayson wrote: »

maths isn't logic. It's a form of deductive reasoning, but it barely scratches the surface of logic. There are great benefits to it, but it only employs a little bit of logic.

We don't expect people to come out of secondary level schools with doctorates. It aids the basics of logic, third level can expand on it.

Grayson

Dravokivich wrote: »

We don't expect people to come out of secondary level schools with doctorates. It aids the basics of logic, third level can expand on it.

maths doesn't aid the basics of logic. maths as a subject by itself is great. there's a reason everyone does it in school. But if you want to teach logic it's best to start with the basics like syllogistic logic and then move on. It's easy to teach the basics of different types of logic and examine the practical applications. Things like problem diagnosis and problem solving. they could learn how to apply different types of logical thinking to different types of problems.
And that isn't doctorate level or even degree level, it's very basic. It could be covered in 10 hours of classes.

Peregrine

Dravokivich wrote: »

Forget about learning stuff off, comprehension is about;

- Do you understand
- Agree
- Object
- What's your opinion on it

Those are the main elements to critical thought.

I agree but you have to level with me here. Most students don't understand that and there's no time to teach that properly. At the end of the day, what students want is high points on their LC to get them into the college course they want. If some don't like English, they'l give it the bare minimum attention to just pass it and make up on points elsewhere.

You can't seriously be suggesting that the current English syllabus teaches critical thought and if a student didn't get that, it's their fault for caring more about their college?

Paper 2 is 36 poems, 1 drama, 2 books and a movie, excuse them for trying to get it finished in time rather than lingering on critical thought.

Dravokivich wrote: »

Logic is a thought process. How to connect various elements, make sense of them and what you expect to get from them. A basic example is Algebra. Applying the thought process from Algebra is how you do journey planning. There's logic for you there.

Tell that to the students who's being rushed through a massive project maths syllabus without understanding half of it properly. And in the old maths syllabus was no better, it was simply learned off.

Dravokivich wrote: »

Most of'em just thought;

- fúck it, who's got a free gaff next weekend?
- Got any spare smokes
- My bleeding lighter is out of gas

When I was in school. Which is why I referenced the need to be willing to participate.

Not all students are like that. Some do really care, put hours of work in every week but yet they don't exactly coming out of secondary school with critical thought and a good logic.

The problem goes beyond some students not participating.

Akrasia

In Ireland we should have a second level subject called 'How to cheat lie and steal'

Basically skepticism 101 but packaged in a way that's fun and interactive. By pretending to teach the kids how to be assholes, we can protect them from the genuine assholes out there who use these techniques of deception and manipulation against us every day.

Teach people about the tricks scammers use.

Teach them about how we can be manipulated to behave against our own interests.

Teach them about misleading and false claims, and logical fallacies.

It's basically what Richard Wiseman does, he performs illusions to demonstrate how fragile our own perception is and if we're not careful, we can be easily manipulated.

If students were taught how to recognise logical fallacies, how to reason and form coherent arguments then we would go a very long way towards weeding out all the bullsh1t claims of religion, quackery, cults, conspiracy theories and political shenanigans

Chancer3001

People seem to be underestimating the amount of politics taught in CSPE....

how you get elected, make laws, partys, politics around the world, roles of government, of ministers, of courts, or presidents, how quotas work, how decisions are made, a day in the life of politicians, politics throughout history...

I mean what else do you want young teenagers to learn??

I don't see any gaping holes

Grayson

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I don't see any gaping holes

Speaking of which, has sex ed improved since I was in school (Nearly 20 years ago)

Peregrine

Chancer3001 wrote: »

People seem to be underestimating the amount of politics taught in CSPE....

how you get elected, make laws, partys, politics around the world, roles of government, of ministers, of courts, or presidents, how quotas work, how decisions are made, a day in the life of politicians, politics throughout history...

With all do respect..bullshit.

We did nothing in 1st year(She taught us more Irish instead), in 2nd year we did a project and in 3rd year we did more Junior Cert Irish and in April we learned off the faces some leaders and to identify buildings like the White House and Leinster House for the first page on the Junior Cert. The rest of the marks went to the project and common sense.

This is 1 class a week we're talking about, if any.

Go on down to the Junior Cert and Leaving Cert forum and ask them how much about politics and the state they learned in CSPE during the Junior Cert.

Chancer3001

A bad teacher hardly invalidates an entire subject

goose2005

Sleepy wrote: »

A year to study Sophie's Choice would make an ideal Philosophy course for Secondary School

I think you mean Sophie's World!!

ScumLord

I think every person in the country should have some sort of qualifications when it comes to politics. That way they have some idea of what's involved should they decide to run for election.

The needs of people are changing. You no longer need to have a databank of information stored in your head, all you need to know is how to find information and assess it for accuracy. Our education system needs to completely overhauled for a digital age.

Peregrine

Chancer3001 wrote: »

A bad teacher hardly invalidates an entire subject

Not a bad teacher at all, I think I got an A. Most people in the class got Bs.

That's all there is to the subject


The exam is 40% and the project is 60%.

In the exam, the first section is the section which contains questions on the government, elections etc. and that's just 9% of the overall mark. Section 2 involves reading 3 source papers (usually a leaflet on a charity or something) and answering questions on it, that's 21%. Section 3 is usually about organisations or events and you're given tasks like writing a letter or designing a poster or something..10%.

The books themselves have lots on leaders, the structure of government, EU, UN etc. but what comes up every year is so basic and its' such a small question.

Have a look

https://betterexaminations.ie/show?paper_id=7695&mksurl=none

Wacker The Attacker

Perhaps we should spend more time teaching our kids about real and relevant stuff.

Money and proper use of language would be of far greater benefit and significance.

Corvo Attano

CSPE is awful at teaching anything. Its common sense and famous names. The most I learned about government was the bones of how a law is passed and thats it. And that was a 30 minute video. I learned nothing else about politics here or elsewhere.

Reindeer

Learning philosophical argument couldn't hurt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Philosophical_arguments

JohnMearsheimer

The political element of CSPE is a joke. In terms of political literacy it's like teaching someone the alphabet and leaving it at that.

Foxhound38

In terms of any politics class for leaving cert, I would envisage it to be loosely based on the current political science syllibus currently taught in Universities - and presumably by a Political Science graduate with a H-Dip (like any other teacher of any other discipline) as opposed to Joe Soap the PE teacher who has been drafted in to teach the kids CSPE.

For those that choose it, it would be more about the Irish system of Government, basics of the legal system, introduction to the roles and interchanges of various institutions (EU, IMF, WTO, UN etc), introduction to the basics of International Relations theories, perhaps even a political thinker or 2 like Kant, Roussau, Hume and/or Marx. It would not be about the teacher pushing their political beliefs, or the book pushing a one-sided view on the EU etc or anything like it. Political Science is essentially the study of power as a commodity (amongst other things), the idea of it being a soapbox for teachers doesn't arise as long as the curriculam is designed properly.

There's no reason what is learned in first year of Political Science in University (which is absolute basics, because it isn't taught in school) couldn't be incorporated into a Leaving Cert subject for those that choose it. It's also not rocket science - interested 15 - 18 year olds could well grasp it.

They're talking about reducing the voting age to 16 (and I'm leaning in favour of this myself), it therefore behooves the State to ensure that proper political education is available for young people in the age group.

thefasteriwalk

Sleepy wrote: »

A year to study Sophie's Choice would make an ideal Philosophy course for Secondary School

Do you mean Sophie's World? If so, you could definitely design a good Introduction to Philosophy TY course around it.

Karl Stein

What exactly is critical thinking? How do you know if you're thinking critically?

Foxhound38

In terms of a Philosophy programme - teaching basic Formal Philosophical Logic (which would also be very handy for kids thinking of going on to do Computer Science or learn any sort of programming for a start!), argument structure, Ethics, theories of Rationalism and Empiricalism, again some thinkers - Spinoza, Aristotle, Habermas come to mind.

Again, this should be taught by a Philosophy graduate with a H-Dip like a teacher in any other discipline. I'm very in favour of this subject being added to the LC curriculam for those that choose to do it - Philosophy is one of those subjects that teach very transferable skills in terms of ways to think about problems that could come in very useful in a huge variety of disciplines that the student may wish to pursue post-LC, not just if they wish to continue on to do a Philosophy degree.

Czarcasm

Foxhound38 wrote: »

In terms of a Philosophy programme - teaching basic Formal Philosophical Logic (which would also be very handy for kids thinking of going on to do Computer Science or learn any sort of programming for a start!), argument structure, Ethics, theories of Rationalism and Empiricalism, again some thinkers - Spinoza, Aristotle, Habermas come to mind.

Again, this should be taught by a Philosophy graduate with a H-Dip like a teacher in any other discipline. I'm very in favour of this subject being added to the LC curriculam for those that choose to do it - Philosophy is one of those subjects that teach very transferable skills in terms of ways to think about problems that could come in very useful in a huge variety of disciplines that the student may wish to pursue post-LC, not just if they wish to continue on to do a Philosophy degree.

Curriculum! Jesus, before anyone starts talking about philosophy and political science for god's sake can we get the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic down first?

I'm not normally a spelling pedant, but in a thread about our education system, and I don't mean to particularly pick on you Foxhound, your post is just one example of basic spelling errors in this thread, I think it's pretty obvious before we go adding anything to the curriculum that we need to get the basics right first!

Foxhound38

Czarcasm wrote: »

Curriculum! Jesus, before anyone starts talking about philosophy and political science for god's sake can we get the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic down first?

I'm not normally a spelling pedant, but in a thread about our education system, and I don't mean to particularly pick on you Foxhound, your post is just one example of basic spelling errors in this thread, I think it's pretty obvious before we go adding anything to the curriculum that we need to get the basics right first!

I'm dyslexic actually - apologies for the spelling error

Czarcasm

Foxhound38 wrote: »

I'm dyslexic actually - apologies for the spelling error

Ah there's no need to apologise for it, I wasn't aware you were dyslexic Foxhound, but I think that being the case then you could appreciate all the more the necessity I feel for the curriculum to return to basics from primary school level up. I'm sure you're all too aware of the difficulties children with undiagnosed dyslexia face and how that difficulty can leave them struggling behind their classmates.

I think before you start teaching children or even young adults formal philosophical logic you should be sure they have a grasp of the basics first. Otherwise further study is meaningless and misunderstood.

While I think your ideas have some merit, I don't believe that they could be integrated into a general secondary school curriculum without at least laying the groundwork in primary school first, and even then it would be a very niche subject. I raised the idea of integrating more IT classes in the primary school my son attends (I'm a member of the board of management and also a computer science and mathematics grad, so I understand where you're coming from), but I was told that the department of education only sees IT as a tool, and not as a subject.

With that sort of blinkered vision, how likely do you think it is that they will ever introduce philosophy or political science as a subject in secondary school? That's even before we get into talking about providing resources to teach these subjects! It's hard enough to find teachers motivated, willing, and passionate enough about their subjects to teach the basics, let alone niche subjects like those, to a classroom of twenty students, when even earlier on in the thread we had someone describe English as "a long course about shìte nobody cares about".

I have an eight year old here who has already read through most of the literary classics (two of his favorite authors so far being Charles Dickens and Oscar Wilde), and he's downloaded the complete works of Shakespeare on his tablet to read through too.

My point being, that if you want to teach somebody a niche subject, you're best going outside the curriculum and teaching them on a one to one basis yourself outside school hours.

Robert McGrath

For the vast majority of the population, almost all maths in secondary school is a niche subject. 99% of people will be quite capable of excelling in their future careers by knowing how to add, subtract, divide, multiply and knowing how fractions and percentages work.

Some say that maths teaches logic, critical thinking and problem solving, which is useful to everyone. If that is the aim, then why not design a course to specifically teach these skills directly rather than hoping those skills will be an indirect by-product of maths? I simply can't believe that the basic concepts of logic could be considered more difficult to understand than, say, calculus or theorems and proofs in geometry.

By the way, and I only say this to prevent accusations that I found maths "too hard", my undergraduate degree was in maths and philosophy.

Foxhound38

Czarcasm wrote: »

Ah there's no need to apologise for it, I wasn't aware you were dyslexic Foxhound, but I think that being the case then you could appreciate all the more the necessity I feel for the curriculum to return to basics from primary school level up. I'm sure you're all too aware of the difficulties children with undiagnosed dyslexia face and how that difficulty can leave them struggling behind their classmates.

I think before you start teaching children or even young adults formal philosophical logic you should be sure they have a grasp of the basics first. Otherwise further study is meaningless and misunderstood.

While I think your ideas have some merit, I don't believe that they could be integrated into a general secondary school curriculum without at least laying the groundwork in primary school first, and even then it would be a very niche subject. I raised the idea of integrating more IT classes in the primary school my son attends (I'm a member of the board of management and also a computer science and mathematics grad, so I understand where you're coming from), but I was told that the department of education only sees IT as a tool, and not as a subject.

With that sort of blinkered vision, how likely do you think it is that they will ever introduce philosophy or political science as a subject in secondary school? That's even before we get into talking about providing resources to teach these subjects! It's hard enough to find teachers motivated, willing, and passionate enough about their subjects to teach the basics, let alone niche subjects like those, to a classroom of twenty students, when even earlier on in the thread we had someone describe English as "a long course about shìte nobody cares about".

I have an eight year old here who has already read through most of the literary classics (two of his favorite authors so far being Charles Dickens and Oscar Wilde), and he's downloaded the complete works of Shakespeare on his tablet to read through too.

My point being, that if you want to teach somebody a niche subject, you're best going outside the curriculum and teaching them on a one to one basis yourself outside school hours.

That's fair enough Czarcasm - and while I disagree with parts of your opinion on this issue, I can definately see where you are coming from in terms of practicalities.

As an aside, I'm also gladdened to see that you are obviously doing the parenting thing properly and more - taking an active interest by being a member of the board of management and introducing your child to the classics of literature, my hat honestly goes off to you on that front

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Dravokivich wrote: »

Logic = Math

Critical Thinking = English Comprehension

If you missed that, you're not doing it right.

Then most of us aren't.

The problems is, that's not what's taught in the Maths and English syllabuses. What's taught is what to say to get a good grade.

I've been saying philosophy should be taught from day one for a while now. Simple little ethical problems as oppose to religion. How to think laterally and solve problems, not using maths equations but using different apporaches. How to debate and formulate a point and get it across. The problem is, ou're going to havea generaton of kids who will actually think for themselves and say, "**** this, I'm not doing Irish/Shakespear/LC maths" and be able to tell you why. And that's the last thing a governemtn wants.

Sucette!

Just to add to the whole CSPE side of it, adding my experience to the previous students who've posted.

CSPE is a waste of time the way the course is now.

I completed the Junior Cert 2 years ago now, and we spent 1st-3rd year using that one class a week to work on History (as we had the same teacher for both and our SPHE class on history actually, but that's another story)

We flicked through the book, had CSPE maybe 3 times in a term (max), did the project in 2nd year and coming up to the mocks learned the politicians faces and the famous buildings and that was it.

Through common sense and being able to write 'Barak Obama' 'Enda Kenny' and 'Queen Elizabeth 2' under their faces, I got 97% in the mocks and an A in the Junior Cert.

I remember the actual exam itself, Government buildings came up and you had to label them with corresponding names, The White House, Westminster, Leinster House and Aras an Uachtarain. In the picture of The White House there was an American flag clearly in the picture, Westminster a British flag and Aras and Leinster house an Irish. Who cant just match the flags?

That's my experience anyway and I honestly can't say I learnt much.

Czarcasm

Robert McGrath wrote: »

For the vast majority of the population, almost all maths in secondary school is a niche subject. 99% of people will be quite capable of excelling in their future careers by knowing how to add, subtract, divide, multiply and knowing how fractions and percentages work.

Some say that maths teaches logic, critical thinking and problem solving, which is useful to everyone. If that is the aim, then why not design a course to specifically teach these skills directly rather than hoping those skills will be an indirect by-product of maths? I simply can't believe that the basic concepts of logic could be considered more difficult to understand than, say, calculus or theorems and proofs in geometry.

By the way, and I only say this to prevent accusations that I found maths "too hard", my undergraduate degree was in maths and philosophy.

The problem though with your theory is that it's too individualistic an approach. Some students have a more natural aptitude for mathematics, some have a natural aptitude for languages, some for arts, etc. The educational curriculum is intended to provide a STANDARD of education that accommodates and promotes both a child's intellectual and social development as well as their physical education.

By creating more specialised curriculums (everyone will have their own ideas about what children and young people should be learning), you will be creating a very fragmented and confusing curriculum, and as for subjects that will enable people to excel in their future careers, I would suggest that more important than the subjects themselves, would be career guidance from an early age so that those 99% of students will have a more defined career path so that they won't be playing pin the tail on the donkey with their CAO forms, only to drop out after the Christmas because they didn't like the course they chose.

Robert McGrath

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Then most of us aren't.

The problems is, that's not what's taught in the Maths and English syllabuses. What's taught is what to say to get a good grade.

I've been saying philosophy should be taught from day one for a while now. Simple little ethical problems as oppose to religion. How to think laterally and solve problems, not using maths equations but using different apporaches. How to debate and formulate a point and get it across. The problem is, ou're going to havea generaton of kids who will actually think for themselves and say, "**** this, I'm not doing Irish/Shakespear/LC maths" and be able to tell you why. And that's the last thing a governemtn wants.

This is a much better version of what I was trying to say ... Thanks Princess C.

Apart from the last couple of sentences. There's no conspiracy here, just inertia.

cloudatlas

From what I remember students had difficulty analysing the subtext of an english poem so I'd say introducing Aristotle, Plato, Kant and co. would be a disaster. If we had fewer subjects like the A-levels then maybe.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

cloudatlas wrote: »

From what I remember students had difficulty analysing the subtext of an english poem so I'd say introducing Aristotle, Plato, Kant and co. would be a disaster. If we had fewer subjects like the A-levels then maybe.

Depends on how you intorduce it. If the go with philosophy in order to pass an exam, yeah - same bloody problems. If they go with the idea of actually educating (now there's an idea: God forbid!!) the kids then it'll work. If they go with the practical applications of the ideas, you'll get intelligent kids with considered ideas. Although whether people want that, as I said earlier, is debatebale.

If they jsut go with the history of philosophy and just teach philsophers and their ideas, it's doomed.