Is making history optional for the JC a good idea?

gaffer91

Article in the IT today about making history for the JC optional?

What do you think about making history optional for the Junior cert? A good idea or not?

I think it's absolute madness to be honest. I think that a good understanding of history is of vital importance to a well functioning democracy. It allows citizens to learn from the past so as to make informed decisions about the future and prevent mistakes from re-occurring. It also gives some sense of how far we've advanced as humans over the last few thousand years and how much further we still have to go. I'd could probably even be persuaded that it should be mandatory for the LC as well never mind the JC.

EDIT: That poll should say history obviously, not Irish. Can't seem to amend it now so if a Mod could, that'd be great.

SEPT 23 1989

I would drop Irish quicker than I would History

AnonoBoy

I failed Leaving Cert history and was doomed to repeat it.

DavyD_83

My knowledge of History and Geography is extremely limited as it is; without JC in both, I doubt I'd have even a basic understanding.
JC is about giving people a broad basic level of knowledge; can't see any justification for narrowing it to be honest

Lapin

Crazy decision.

If we don't understand the past, how can we prepare for the future.

History is more important than Irish and Religion in schools.

Make them optional instead.

Dravokivich

I think the idea of "failing to learn from past mistakes," should be left to the military and civil engineers/planners. It has no bearing on day to day life for someone who's not involved in such activities.

That said, as fare as I can recollect JC history is just more detailed than the stuff you would have done in Primary School, without the folklore. So I can see where the question of making it optional comes from.

kowloon

If they can insist on keeping Irish as it's 'part of our culture' then History has as good a case, if not stronger.

gaffer91

Dravokivich wrote: »

I think the idea of "failing to learn from past mistakes," should be left to the military and civil engineers/planners. It has no bearing on day to day life for someone who's not involved in such activities.

That said, as fare as I can recollect JC history is just more detailed than the stuff you would have done in Primary School, without the folklore. So I can see where the question of making it optional comes from.

It has a bearing on how well informed an electorate is and gives people ability to make more informed decisions about who to vote for.

Oakboy

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I would drop Irish quicker than I would History

That didn't take long :rolleyes:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Bason on thi section from the article, I'd support the idea, on the basis that the replacements would be far more relevant.

What is it about Labour and wanting to downgrade history from a core subject? In the mid-1990s, Labour Minister for Education Niamh Bhreathnach proposed removing history and geography as core subjects, but introduced two new obligatory ones – civic, social and political education, and social, personal and health education.

The problem is that we focus in so much on history and the past that we forget to teach students how to handle the present and the now.

There was a thread recently about a rise in suicides in Ireland and a lot of it is down to study pressures and being unable to deal with teenage angst - on this basis I think that Bhreathnach's ideas were spot on.

The other problem I have with history is that it teaches very little. We just tell people what happaned and leave it at that. Kids don't learn it - the memorise it in order to pass an exam.

Based on that, what is more important? Filling their heads with facts that arent' relevant to them or actually giving them the tools to handle a modern and everchangign society and teaching them how to use them?

Dravokivich

gaffer91 wrote: »

It has a bearing on how well informed an electorate is and gives people ability to make more informed decisions about who to vote for.

There is CSPE for Politics separate to it. To be honest, the only political tones in JC history that I understood was Anti UK Tory 18th-19th Century and in favour of Anti Treaty Sinn Fein.

Oakboy

Lapin wrote: »

Crazy decision.

If we don't understand the past, how can we prepare for the future.

History is more important than Irish and Religion in schools.

Make them optional instead.

haha you don't see the irony of this post? The Irish language and of course Religion too being fite fuaite with our history

cson

Loved History in school. Sickened I couldn't get it for LC, couldn't get a class for it. In hindsight should have just done it myself.

That being said; it needs to go more towards the contemplative/insight type of learning rather than rote. JC is very much rote.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Oakboy wrote: »

haha you don't see the irony of this post? The Irish language and of course Religion too being fite fuaite with our history

I'd argue that all three - religion, irish and history - are more designed to impose a culture and identity onto someone rather than actually letting it develop natrually.

robman60

Have a choice between history and geography maybe.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Duggy747

They should introduce Futurism, where they just watch sci-fi stuff and have to do an exam on Terminator 2.

Question 1a: The Terminator now knows why John cries, but understands it is something that it can never do.

Discuss.

Amirani

Geography is far less useful.

History at primary school level is a joke by the way. I seem to remember the syllabus being entirely focussed on Egyptians/Greeks/Romans. Nothing on more more recent and significant stuff like the Reformation or the Revolutionary era.

LoveLamps

It already is optional?? I didn't do History for my JC back in 2012

alleystar

History is simpe for the JC, if you're anyway clued in you'll work out the pattern. It would be a shame if they dropped it since it's easily one of the most enjoyable subjects in the junior cert.

gaffer91

Dravokivich wrote: »

There is CSPE for Politics separate to it. To be honest, the only political tones in JC history that I understood was Anti UK Tory 18th-19th Century and in favour of Anti Treaty Sinn Fein.

My recollection of CSPE is that it was a load of bollox. In fairness I will say that as I remember it, LC history focused to a far greater extent on the causes and effects of significant historical events than the JC, which was more focused on simply documenting the events.

Still though, I think understanding things like the fact that modern democracy is a relatively new (and often vulnerable) concept, how social conservatives are on the wrong side of history on practically ever social issue, how extreme nationalism is a bad thing (or nationalism in general really), and so on, are important things for an electorate to be aware of.

Alf. A. Male

No way. The grumpy old white men controlling the world would love us to be dumber and forget how we got to the point where we are wage-slaves with a veneer of democracy. Drop history and we give them even more control over our future.

Crumpets

I thought it already was optional for JC? It was compulsory in my school alright but in the lads' school next door they could do whatever 5 or 6 subjects they wanted after Maths, Irish and English.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

gaffer91 wrote: »

My recollection of CSPE is that it was a load of bollox. In fairness I will say that as I remember it, LC history focused to a far greater extent on the causes and effects of significant historical events than the JC, which was more focused on simply documenting the events.

Still though, I think understanding things like the fact that modern democracy is a relatively new (and often vulnerable) concept, how social conservatives are on the wrong side of history on practically ever social issue, how extreme nationalism is a bad thing (or nationalism in general really), and so on, are important things for an electorate to be aware of.

I know, but if it wastaught well it would be a much better idea.

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

No way. The grumpy old white men controlling the world would love us to be dumber and forget how we got to the point where we are wage-slaves with a veneer of democracy. Drop history and we give them even more control over our future.

I think you'll find that the grumpy old men keep us dumber by NOT letting us learn things that would be more useful about understanding the world today. How do we know that what kids are taught is even accurate?

Lapin

Oakboy wrote: »

haha you don't see the irony of this post? The Irish language and of course Religion too being fite fuaite with our history

I agree that Irish and Religion are interwoven in our history, but this isn't reflected in their status as subjects on the cirriculum.

History as a subject would address the roles played by the language and religion in our past.

Notorious97

Loved history in school, especially irish history, but i also am always interested in the history of other nations etc, i just find it all really interesting.

I dont think for junior cert any of them should be optional, they can already choose for leaving cert so they can drop it then if they like, just my opinion

Cantremember

We need a poll.

gaffer91

Notorious97 wrote: »

Loved history in school, especially irish history, but i also am always interested in the history of other nations etc, i just find it all really interesting.

I dont think for junior cert any of them should be optional, they can already choose for leaving cert so they can drop it then if they like, just my opinion

I certainly think that International history is very important, both for its own sake and as a comparative tool to show how backward we were in this country for so long, and still are to a certain extent, because of things such as the oppressive influence of the catholic church and general social conservatism of Irish society.

gaffer91

Cantremember wrote: »

We need a poll.

Good idea. Done.

Davarus Walrus

I loved History in school, but looking back the syllabus was all a bit covered in the dark green cloak of Irish nationalism. And in the glory of dying for your country.

conorhal

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Bason on thi section from the article, I'd support the idea, on the basis that the replacements would be far more relevant.

"What is it about Labour and wanting to downgrade history from a core subject? In the mid-1990s, Labour Minister for Education Niamh Bhreathnach proposed removing history and geography as core subjects, but introduced two new obligatory ones – civic, social and political education, and social, personal and health education."

The problem is that we focus in so much on history and the past that we forget to teach students how to handle the present and the now.

There was a thread recently about a rise in suicides in Ireland and a lot of it is down to study pressures and being unable to deal with teenage angst - on this basis I think that Bhreathnach's ideas were spot on.

The other problem I have with history is that it teaches very little. We just tell people what happaned and leave it at that. Kids don't learn it - the memorise it in order to pass an exam.

Based on that, what is more important? Filling their heads with facts that arent' relevant to them or actually giving them the tools to handle a modern and everchangign society and teaching them how to use them?

Ah Niamh Bhreathnach, another middle class cultural marxist that's eager to ensure we're indoctrinated with their future and denied the context of a past that might cause some to question the direction such odious creatures wish to usher us towards.

gaffer91

Davarus Walrus wrote: »

I loved History in school, but looking back the syllabus was all a bit covered in the dark green cloak of Irish nationalism. And in the glory of dying for your country.

Definitely in primary school there was bit too much of the "800 years of oppression" narrative, some of it true, some of it not, but the JC curriculum was less biased and more focused on international history. The LC more so again.

jmayo

Dravokivich wrote: »

I think the idea of "failing to learn from past mistakes," should be left to the military and civil engineers/planners. It has no bearing on day to day life for someone who's not involved in such activities.

Perish the thought someone would have a knowledge of their nations, their race, their areas or even mankinds past.

Half the things you do in school has no direct bearing on ones day to day life.
I don't usually quote much poetry during the day or actually do much long division.
I don't find the need to do much integration or use my knowlegde to make ethanol.
I don't have the need to understand an ordance survey map, converse in French or Irish, or let someone know the difference between reflection and refraction most days.

Feck it I wasted most of my young life leanring sh** that I don't use every single day.
I should just have waited for google and wikpedia.

Diego Simeone wrote: »

Geography is far less useful.

History at primary school level is a joke by the way. I seem to remember the syllabus being entirely focussed on Egyptians/Greeks/Romans. Nothing on more more recent and significant stuff like the Reformation or the Revolutionary era.

We just leaned about how cromwell sent every fecker to Connacht, how the English left us to starve, how they killed our priests, how they transported anyone that dare rebell to Australia and how we would do a much better job of running the place.
Sometimes I think if only that type of English rule was around a little bit longer there wouldn't be some priests around to abuse so many children and it would be much cheaper to get to Australia.

Davarus Walrus

gaffer91 wrote: »

Definitely in primary school there was bit too much of the "800 years of oppression" narrative, some of it true, some of it not, but the JC curriculum was less biased and more focused on international history. The LC more so again.

Ah, it's has been a few years since I sat the Junior Cert, so they might have changed that. It's one of these subjects that could be open to ideological bias on the part of a teacher though.

I know I'd be wary of letting my child attend a history class given by someone called Stiofán Ó Conghaile. All leather patches on the coat, and a large chip on his shoulder about the tyranny of the soldiers of Sassenach. The poor auld daycent people of Ireland under the yoke until proud James Connolly came along.

Lapin

Cantremember wrote: »

We need a poll.

gaffer91 wrote: »

Good idea. Done.

Thread title asks if History should be optional.

Poll asks if Irish should.

Is consistancy optional too?

crockholm

IIRC leaving cert history was chopped up into 2 sections when I was doing it.Euro history was from 1453 (fall of Constantinople) to,I Think 1648 (end of the 30 year war) or 1618 (start of aforementioned war) and then picking up again in 1848.

I forget the extent of the Irish history timeframes.

Looking back now,I realise how inept the whole syllabus was,even apart from a whole 200 year fag break where absolutely nothing of historical consequence ever happened.

I did my essay on Girolamo Savonarola-and by essay,I meant copy almost Verbatim what encyclopaedia Britannica had written about him,just his Life story and got 80/80 for it,stupid rote Learning system pays off again.

gaffer91

Lapin wrote: »

Thread title asks if History should be optional.

Poll asks if Irish should.

Is consistancy optional too?

No, but "consistency" is!

My bad though.

Alf. A. Male

Dravokivich wrote: »

I think the idea of "failing to learn from past mistakes," should be left to the military and civil engineers/planners. It has no bearing on day to day life for someone who's not involved in such activities.

You've got to be joking, right? I am affected by everything the government, bankers, trade unions, military, police and all the mechanisms of economy and state do all day every day. I am well entitled to know how they've behaved in the past and how I should expect them to behave in the future. That sort of willful ignorance of the past is an abdication of responsibility for the future we all share and the power to affect it.

Dravokivich

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

You've got to be joking, right? I am affected by everything the government, bankers, trade unions, military, police and all the mechanisms of economy and state do all day every day. I am well entitled to know how they've behaved in the past and how I should expect them to behave in the future. That sort of willful ignorance of the past is an abdication of responsibility for the future we all share and the power to affect it.

Your issues there are for the most part either Economics, or Politics. Neither of which are involved for the most part in JC History and little mention in LC history other than Fascism in Germany/Italy and Communism in Russia.

gaffer91 wrote: »

My recollection of CSPE is that it was a load of bollox. In fairness I will say that as I remember it, LC history focused to a far greater extent on the causes and effects of significant historical events than the JC, which was more focused on simply documenting the events.

Still though, I think understanding things like the fact that modern democracy is a relatively new (and often vulnerable) concept, how social conservatives are on the wrong side of history on practically ever social issue, how extreme nationalism is a bad thing (or nationalism in general really), and so on, are important things for an electorate to be aware of.

If there's an issue in how CSPE is taught along with the content of it, CSPE needs to be reviewed and sorted out. You can't lump that stuff into History when it's not even relevant for the most part to that course.

jmayo wrote: »

Perish the thought someone would have a knowledge of their nations, their race, their areas or even mankinds past.

Half the things you do in school has no direct bearing on ones day to day life.
I don't usually quote much poetry during the day or actually do much long division.
I don't find the need to do much integration or use my knowlegde to make ethanol.
I don't have the need to understand an ordance survey map, converse in French or Irish, or let someone know the difference between reflection and refraction most days.

Feck it I wasted most of my young life leanring sh** that I don't use every single day.
I should just have waited for google and wikpedia.

You only learn of events of the past with History. That tells you nothing of the people of today. The other stuff are skills, so what if they aren't relevant to you now, this is about whether or not it's a bad idea for History to be optional. Not discontinuing it.

Alf. A. Male

Dravokivich wrote: »

Your issues there are for the most part either Economics, or Politics. Neither of which are involved for the most part in JC History and little mention in LC history other than Fascism in Germany/Italy and Communism in Russia.

And where do you think the current organisation of economies and democracies in Europe stems from? And if they don't learn the first phase of the curriclum at JC, how are they going to develop an understanding at LC or third level? If a population isn't given some understanding, who do we leave it to to control the understanding?
The idea of removing a subject as important as this from the hands of the majority should make people suspicious, not see them walking blindly into it.

Dravokivich

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

And where do you think the current organisation of economies and democracies in Europe stems from? And if they don't learn the first phase of the curriclum at JC, how are they going to develop an understanding at LC or third level? If a population isn't given some understanding, who do we leave it to to control the understanding?
The idea of removing a subject as important as this from the hands of the majority should make people suspicious, not see them walking blindly into it.

It's not removing, it's being suggested to make it optional. Had you seen my replies earlier? It's not touched at all in the JC and the LC doesn't go into much more detail either other than Fascism and Communism. And then again that just a gloss over Italy/Germany and Russia. For the lead up to WW2 and an overview of the Cold War.

c_man

The JC history syllabus was a joke back when I was doing it (2000). Writing essays about what Roman and Greek children wore, learning off common incorrect facts (e.g. the function of a vomitorium!), skipping past WW1 (think it got a paragraph or two, but it was in relation to Home Rule) and hilariously out of date textbooks. I know the last one is the school/teacher's fault rather than the system but c'mon, ours was published after the Gulf War but before the fall of the Soviet Union. So it was referenced as a current power. Heh.


I don't think it should go though. More important than some of the other subjects forced on the kids.

Alf. A. Male

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's not removing, it's being suggested to make it optional. Had you seen my replies earlier? It's not touched at all in the JC and the LC doesn't go into much more detail either other than Fascism and Communism. And then again that just a gloss over Italy/Germany and Russia. For the lead up to WW2 and an overview of the Cold War.

Making it optional is still reducing the knowledge of the majority of the events that led us to where we are now. Yes, I did read your replies. Not agreeing with you doesn't mean I didn't see them or don't understand, it means I disagree.
The idea you proposed, that historical knowledge should only be in the hands of people you see as somehow more in need of it, is frankly ludicrous. And I also understood your point that the JC course is limited. Again, I'm saying that without that first phase, the second phase would be pointless. You start maths with basic counting, you finish with calculus, alegbra or whatever, that's how knowledge and understanding is built, brick by brick. Reduce kids learning of history, you reduce all learning of history and you reduce our ability to avoid the same mistakes.

Dravokivich

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

Making it optional is still reducing the knowledge of the majority of the events that led us to where we are now. Yes, I did read your replies. Not agreeing with you doesn't mean I didn't see them or don't understand, it means I disagree.
The idea you proposed, that historical knowledge should only be in the hands of people you see as somehow more in need of it, is frankly ludicrous. And I also understood your point that the JC course is limited. Again, I'm saying that without that first phase, the second phase would be pointless. You start maths with basic counting, you finish with calculus, alegbra or whatever, that's how knowledge and understanding is built, brick by brick. Reduce kids learning of history, you reduce all learning of history and you reduce our ability to avoid the same mistakes.

What mistakes, other than political have there been over the last 100 years that'd be relevant in history? Politics which isn't touched at all in the History curriculum, but should be with CSPE.

kowloon

I remember how out of date some of the books were, History wasn't even the worst offender. Somehow there were new editions published all the time but they repeated the same mistakes. It's almost like they only published the new editions to kill the second hand book market on purpose.

Alf. A. Male

Dravokivich wrote: »

What mistakes, other than political have there been over the last 100 years that'd be relevant in history?

Allowing the Catholic Church free reign in many countries and not moving quickly enough to deal with issues as they came to light, allowing police forces and armies too many unfettered powers, allowing property/speculation bubbles to develop, allowing the people with the vested interests to control the solution to their losses and making the majority the scapegoats for their mistakes, and many, many more. Far from supporting your position, your quote above is a perfect example of why a reduction in the teaching of history, any reduction, leaves us all more vulnerable.

Dravokivich

Alf. A. Male wrote: »

Allowing the Catholic Church free reign in many countries and not moving quickly enough to deal with issues as they came to light, allowing police forces and armies too many unfettered powers, allowing property/speculation bubbles to develop, allowing the people with the vested interests to control the solution to their losses and making the majority the scapegoats for their mistakes, and many, many more. Far from supporting your position, your quote above is a perfect example of why a reduction in the teaching of history, any reduction, leaves us all more vulnerable.

But hardly any of that is touched in JC/LC history today as many of what you are stipulating it is current affairs. When it comes to a state giving a high amount of control to Police/Armed forces, you are discussing Politics. The stuff about industry speculation and property bubbles is much better suited with Economics or Business Studies curriculums as it is highly subjective and topical to them. Just because it happened prior to the present, doesn't make it a topic for JC or even LC History which is not intended to be so specialised for topics that would require more depth.

PropJoe10

Everyone should have a basic understanding and appreciation of both Irish history and European/world history. Making history optional would be absolutely ridiculous

iDave

Lets not make history history!

conorhal

crockholm wrote: »

IIRC leaving cert history was chopped up into 2 sections when I was doing it.Euro history was from 1453 (fall of Constantinople) to,I Think 1648 (end of the 30 year war) or 1618 (start of aforementioned war) and then picking up again in 1848.

I forget the extent of the Irish history timeframes.

Looking back now,I realise how inept the whole syllabus was,even apart from a whole 200 year fag break where absolutely nothing of historical consequence ever happened.

I did my essay on Girolamo Savonarola-and by essay,I meant copy almost Verbatim what encyclopaedia Britannica had written about him,just his Life story and got 80/80 for it,stupid rote Learning system pays off again.

Was Quinn your teacher by any chance? He seems to think of himself as a sort of secular Savonarola in hias approach to education, everything must go! (With the exception of one little red book...)

heroics

I hated history in school dropped it for the leaving cert. Always found the exams were like an English test writing essay after essay for an answer. Much preferred physics/chemistry/maths I don't agree that we need history as a required subject to prevent mistakes of the past being remade. I remember none of the history I did in school. Any history I know about now would be related to military history and most of that is from discovery channel.

Its like any subject though some people like them some don't. I always did better in the subjects I liked and did way worse in the ones I didn't like. Students should have to do Maths/English and another language. after that they should be able to pick the rest of the subjects they do for the exams.
I believe a subject like IT, an actual basic knowledge of the different areas of IT not just an ECDL type class should be a requirement and would benefit the student better in the real world than history. (I could be biased though).