Should history be removed as a compulsory subject on the Junior Cert?

strobe · 12-09-2011 03:15AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. I do think though that it should be largely restructured. There is far too much emphasis on 'this happened on that date' and whatnot, which has an importance but should be the be-all and end-all. They should change the history curriculum to be a little similar to what classics is for the leaving cert (e.g. teaching about culture, politics, societal structures, etc).

If they can teach that in a way to show the young teens the sheer absurdities of how certain dictators and such got to power, of how much power the Catholic Church had in Ireland and why it was never challenged, to basically show where society went wrong, why and how it went wrong, what it took for those wrongs to be 'righted' (to differing extents) and so on, that would be a big step in the right direction. Rather than being about a series of chronological events, junior cert history should use the principle of "learn from your mistakes" and apply it to the youth, essentially allowing them to learn from the mistakes of the past.

I am 25, so I have a bit of a memory of 'Catholic, Catholic Ireland' but not as much as many on here would. Kids going into first year now though, would likely have very little idea of it at all. So, for example, if you were to teach them the ins-and-outs of it, they would likely be disgusted, intrigued, and amused (for want of a better word) at the absurdity of it all. Same for the banking crisis for another 10-15 years down the line as another example, or The Troubles to show the dangers of discrimination and better alternative routes to avoid/overcome it.

Use that to teach the dangers of demagoguery, of putting all your faith in one side, or failing to actively question the world around you, and it can avoid situations like that occurring in the future. Also, if anybody thinks situations like that would not happen in the modern world... look at the Tea Party in America . Kids are very impressionable from ages 11-16, so get about making sure the educational system actually has some impact on shaping them as people (and not vessels for statistical information) during that time.

If done right, it could also turn history from being one of the more 'boring' classes into something very interesting. Shame it will never happen though...

Apologies if that came over as rambling; it's quite late.

I'd certainly agree that History should be more about why x happened rather than just 'x happened in 18xx and Xy did this' but I think what you are suggesting leans too heavily on the side of editorialising history. 'Learn from your mistakes' sure. But the way you phrase things above implies someone is deciding what is a mistake and what isn't. If we engage in that I think we are into a real risk of teaching propaganda as opposed to teaching history.

4leto · 12-09-2011 03:18AM

History what is the point we learn nothing from it, and we will repeat it. Break it down into a lesson on futility.

Billy86 · 12-09-2011 03:18AM

re. strobe:

Well yeah, that is true as well - hence why it would be tricky to implement. I should have put that over better but I'm half asleep with my attention split between the NFL and this.

That's why classics might be a good example to go from, though it is easier to distance ourselves from what the Greeks and Romans were getting up to, as opposed to Dev & co.

Billy86 · 12-09-2011 03:21AM

4leto wrote: »

History what is the point we learn nothing from it, and we will repeat it. Break it down into a lesson on futility.

We repeat it because we are ignorant as to what caused it to happen in the first place, though. That's the big issue, imo. By the time a lot of people get around to researching into it themselves (if they do at all) they are typically a good deal older than your average JC student, and thus far more set in their ways.

4leto · 12-09-2011 03:24AM

Was there much difference just a conflict of power NOW as in when they were achieving their historical conflict or victory.

What would this be like,,,,,,,,,So long history,,,,,,,,, a human nakedness, we would probably have to be nice to each other....shudder,,,,,,,

4leto · 12-09-2011 03:30AM

To sum up the futility of history I will print one word////////Economics/// and you would have to agree, there will be more stupid bubbles and ponzi schemes.

I know I just gave a bit of history with the mention of ponzi, fret not we will see them again

History = bollox its absolutely useless in human progress if there is such a thing

strobe · 12-09-2011 03:31AM

Billy86 wrote: »

re. strobe:

Well yeah, that is true as well - hence why it would be tricky to implement. I should have put that over better but I'm half asleep with my attention split between the NFL and this.

That's why classics might be a good example to go from, though it is easier to distance ourselves from what the Greeks and Romans were getting up to, as opposed to Dev & co.

C'mon the Cowboys, show those NY pansies what football is about!

Overheal · 12-09-2011 03:36AM

Life without a History is Insanity: You would end up trying the same things over and over again, expecting different outcomes.

Billy86 · 12-09-2011 03:36AM

Got Romo in FF (first time playing it for the NFL), but the Packers won on Thursday (serious game, that was) so I'm happy either way.

Good man, Lee.

Plautus · 12-09-2011 03:43AM

4leto wrote: »

History what is the point we learn nothing from it, and we will repeat it. Break it down into a lesson on futility.

History is to be studied for its own sake. It doesn't need to have a civic function. In fact, you'd be quite frustrated if you sat down to try and carve out irreducible 'general lessons' from historical events because those events are far too numerous and have too much variety.

Learning history doesn't stop you making new mistakes on your own terms relative to your own time. The hindsight bias is one of the easiest to succumb to: information as to the future course of events is impossible to have. And what one finds is that historical actors, just like you and I, are limited in what they know at a given moment. We can only hope to reasonably understand their predicament, and perhaps to know a little of what they didn't know, but that doesn't mean we won't be faced with their predicament ourselves. We will never have all necessary information to hand when making a decision all of the time.

If there is one 'lesson' of history (and it's more of an observation, really) it's not actually that history repeats itself per se. Instead, it's that the way in which the world is viewed can change entirely. The immutability of human 'behaviour' is really over-emphasised. A person living AD1000 could not reasonably have imagined all the technological developments of our age, a (comparatively) class-less society, or the decline of religion as an ordering discourse of the world. Hell, it would be baffling enough to him that most people in our age travel more than 50km away from home on a weekly basis.

tl:dr - **** can change. Alot. And no, not all change is good either.

randylonghorn · 12-09-2011 04:01AM

Dionysus wrote: »

Do you think history is unimportant enough to be left as an option in Irish schools for the Junior Cert? Should it really only be the preserve of those whom O'Toole argues will come from the more "educated" sections of society?

If I had my way history would be compulsory for Leaving Cert., let alone Junior Cert!

I would want to overhaul the curriculum though, and place far more emphasis on critical thinking and analytical skills than on rote learning.

It's been said a few times in this thread, but those who ignore (or know nothing about) the lessons of history are usually destined to repeat the same old mistakes.

To take just one very simple (even simplistic) example, if the Irish government (and the people of this state) had paid even the slightest heed to the lessons of economic history they would never have conned themselves into believing that house prices would continue to rise, or that the cycle would not eventually come full circle (though in saying that, I will admit, as I have admitted on Boards before, that despite my reminding people of that for several years, I was surprised by both the speed and the severity of the collapse ... like most others, I didn't have full knowledge of the amount / methods by which the balloon had been inflated, or the poor financial and central policy practices underpinning it).

I strongly suspect that you will find very few with a good knowledge of history took out massive mortgages from ~2004 onwards, or who now find themselves over-extended and with substantial negative equity.

IrishEyes19 · 12-09-2011 05:28AM

Studied History from first year secondary school up to my degree and loved it.
I understand the view point that some people dont like it, but god does it irk me when people make ignorant statements like, its useless and its in the past. That is nothing but opinion just like someone who doesnt like maths or Irish would say the same. It depends on the individual.

Having said that, I do think it should remain in the classroom. I think its really important to know your own history, not from a learning point of view, but just as a shaping your views type of experience. However I think the junior cert course needs to be revamped, theres far too much to learn, so its very diluted and there isn't enough emphasis on Irish history either. In relation to the leaving cert course which is quite intense, the same goes, the paper itself is quite tough to predict as there is so much to learn. But History in general is wonderful, you can really find any area to focus on, theres so much and with poplular history novels and factual books so readily available, never mind series like the Tudors, Rome, ect. although these programmes have many flaws and errors, history can be enjoyed by anyone in so many ways. So it would be very sad if it was scrapped.

It seems to me, that everytime there seems to be a dislike of a subject be it Irish, History in Irish schools, the first idea is lets scrap it!!!! Its such a cowardly way out, when really I think reform is the better idea, make it fun again, make it interesting. Just my two cents on it, haha.

12-09-2011 06:41AM

I like history.. Can't remember anything I've ever studied though.

kowloon · 12-09-2011 08:24AM

I don't understand how on the one hand they can keep Irish compulsory on the (shaky) grounds that it's an essential link to our past and culture when on the other hand they can consider removing the subject that actually studies our past and culture.

A little consistency would be appreciated.

I consider History much more relevant to a general education, which is what the junior cert is supposed to be. It would be nice to keep Irish too.

Nothing should be compulsory for the leaving cert as long as doing it is optional. A leaving cert student is old enough to be allowed play to their strengths and choose their own subjects.

Dionysus · 12-09-2011 08:50AM

doovdela wrote: »

I see no point in removing History as a compulsory subject for the Junior Cert to be honest 'cause they would have to do the same for Geography. They couldn't have one on or not without the other.

They are proposing the same for Geography. See earlier post.

Dionysus · 12-09-2011 09:01AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

we should get rid of all the suedo-mythical Irish history parts and focus more on the actual facts of our past but aside from that it should very much stay on the curriculum

Where's that on the curriculum, Cookie? The only pseudo history which kids are taught is taught as precisely that, namely Leabhar Gabhála Éireann (The Book of the Invasions) and is used to think about the sources used for it and the sources used for history based on primary sources. Leabhar Gabhála Éireann serves a good function and is worthy of studying in history because it was a very influential text in shaping late medieval Irish identity - e.g. Dónall Ó Néill's 1317 Remonstrance depends hugely on it for his contention that the Milesian invasion was "the last legitimate conquest of Ireland".

Dionysus · 12-09-2011 09:06AM

randylonghorn wrote: »

If I had my way history would be compulsory for Leaving Cert., let alone Junior Cert!

I would want to overhaul the curriculum though, and place far more emphasis on critical thinking and analytical skills than on rote learning.

It's been said a few times in this thread, but those who ignore (or know nothing about) the lessons of history are usually destined to repeat the same old mistakes.

To take just one very simple (even simplistic) example, if the Irish government (and the people of this state) had paid even the slightest heed to the lessons of economic history they would never have conned themselves into believing that house prices would continue to rise, or that the cycle would not eventually come full circle (though in saying that, I will admit, as I have admitted on Boards before, that despite my reminding people of that for several years, I was surprised by both the speed and the severity of the collapse ... like most others, I didn't have full knowledge of the amount / methods by which the balloon had been inflated, or the poor financial and central policy practices underpinning it).

I strongly suspect that you will find very few with a good knowledge of history took out massive mortgages from ~2004 onwards, or who now find themselves over-extended and with substantial negative equity.

Good post. I'd tend to go along with you about the importance of history being compulsory - at least for those students who are sitting an academic Leaving Cert, rather than the LCA or such like. However, the number of students taking LC history has declined steeply in recent years because students see it as being harder to get good marks in it. Why choose something like history when you can gets points handier in another subject? Yet another negative aspect of the points system as it's currently set up.

the groutch · 14-09-2011 01:09PM

they should make the Junior Cert history

stovelid · 14-09-2011 01:12PM

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

I got an A in Junior Cert History, three years later and I honestly can't remember a single thing. It's a waste of time, as is Geography.

I can't remember being born but it was a pretty important event.

If some people had their way, all schools and universities would teach is a moronic honed down cheat-sheet for getting snazzy jobs.

Don't people have any kind of intellectual curiosity or interest in the world they live in, anymore?

Scuid Mhór · 14-09-2011 02:24PM

Stinicker wrote: »

No they should remove Irish instead.

no they shouldn't

Temptamperu · 14-09-2011 03:28PM

Scuid Mhór wrote: »

no they shouldn't

It should be at least optional, it wastes everyones time if there are people that dont want to learn it. The people who dont care just disrupt the rest of the class when they could be doing something more productive.

Besides its a dead language that no one uses unless they are in a very small section of the country.

Orando Broom · 14-09-2011 03:47PM

AnneElizabeth wrote: »

I got an A in Junior Cert History, three years later and I honestly can't remember a single thing. It's a waste of time, as is Geography.

AnneElizabeth: Driving the Knowledge Economy.

moonflower · 14-09-2011 04:16PM

History should definitely be kept as a compulsory subject up to Junior Cert. I didn't like history in school, my teacher was awful and had such a think country accent that I had no clue what she was saying half the time. I didn't do well in History, but I'm suprised by how much of it I remember now.

They way it's taught should be changed though, I remember the book we had being so boring that it just put most of us off the subject.

alabandical · 14-09-2011 04:26PM

This country has never needed the study of History as much as it needs it now.

The greatest asset the study of History can give to students is the development of their critical skills. Teenagers today have a world full of information at their fingertips but how can they discriminate without these skills?

Countries that have 'downgraded' History recently like the UK, Australia and the USA have movements pursuing to reinstate the subject as they realise how important it is to have those skills, and, like our own, placing importance of the events that created and shaped their countries, and its people.

Computer Sci · 14-09-2011 04:30PM

No

It is a very interesting subject, in a way it is like sitting in on storytelling while been in history classes, as opposed to feeling like a chore which can feel like the case for some other subjects. However, I don’t see the necessity in it been compulsory, the only subjects which should be mandatory in any year should be Maths, English and maybe a language.

randylonghorn · 14-09-2011 07:03PM

This thread is about HISTORY, not Irish (the clue is in the title!!).

kowloon · 15-09-2011 12:48AM

randylonghorn wrote: »

This thread is about HISTORY, not Irish (the clue is in the title!!).

I was just comparing History with another subject which is compulsory right up to the leaving cert. The justification for having compulsory Irish should more than justify the same for History.

Although I feel, seeing as the leaving cert is optional to begin with, I don't think anything should forced on anyone at leaving cert level.

No need to get angry about it.

randylonghorn · 15-09-2011 01:04AM

kowloon wrote: »

No need to get angry about it.

I'm not angry, and I wasn't talking to just you.

(EDIT: Actually, looking back at your post, yes, you were making a clear and logical link / argument ... far more so than others).

However, there are more than enough threads re: whether Irish should be compulsory, let's keep this one on the original topic rather than it veering off into another one.

Niles · 15-09-2011 01:52AM

I agree with the view that it is important for people to learn about their past. As for comments that it is useless, well, when it really comes down to it, how useful are many of our subjects? How often do we quote Shakespeare or use Calculus in our day to day lives? Not much. But does that mean we should make English and Maths optional too? I don't think so. Not everything has to have an immediate discernible use in life, sometimes the fact that these subjects get us to engage the various parts of our brain, be it critically or otherwise, is useful in itself. History certainly has much to offer, otherwise many might grow up with little or no knowledge of their country's social, cultural and political past, or indeed wider world events. Is that really what we want? It also teaches the concept of cause and effect, it has the potential to encourage people to use critical analysis when it comes to events. Surely these are useful skills to have in life?

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

It seems to me, that everytime there seems to be a dislike of a subject be it Irish, History in Irish schools, the first idea is lets scrap it!!!! Its such a cowardly way out, when really I think reform is the better idea, make it fun again, make it interesting. Just my two cents on it, haha.

Excellent point. I can't understand the mentality whereby people are suggesting scrapping a subject/making it optional before considering the concept of reworking the subject to make it more accessible to students. It seems to be a case of kill rather than cure, sadly.

Amirani · 15-09-2011 02:01AM

Teutorix wrote: »

It may be in the curriculum but the majority of marks still go for all that sh!te. At most it will be 50 marks of the whole exam for a functional piece of english (excluding the essay if you choose a speech or something)

There is no "functional" english on the Leaving Cert apart from the personal writing section. You're thinking of Junior Cert. Anyone who doesn't have the level of English required to write a CV or a letter by the time they're doing they're doing their Leaving Cert clearly has been doing something wrong. Absolutely nothing wrong with doing Shakespearean plays or Romantic poems at an academic level that expects a fairly good knowledge of the language.

Should history be removed as a compulsory subject on the Junior Cert?

Comments