3 ms·

I agree, but only for certain subjects. For example, I was able to use a note card with equations for my physics courses. Memorizing equations is absolutely poi

by tmh88j 15y ago

I agree, but only for certain subjects. For example, I was able to use a note card with equations for my physics courses. Memorizing equations is absolutely pointless; it doesn't test your comprehension of physics nor does it hint at your level intelligence. Give someone a notecard for a history exam and any sort of assessment of subject understanding is eliminated. Some courses are memorization based and there's no denying it. If your thought process for taking these types of exams is somehow comparing things in your mind, great, but you're still recalling everything from your memory. It's not like there's an equation you can plug in to know how WWII ended; it's just something you know and memorize.

blahedo 15y ago
I think you've been taking the wrong history classes. The interesting stuff is the "why" and making connections between different events; and if you're tested on that sort of thing, a notecard with names-and-dates is about as helpful as a notecard with equations in a physics exam.
- tmh88j 15y ago
  Once again, that's YOUR thought process. It seems that you happen to link events together to remember an outcome. By simply knowing a few pieces of information, it's not likely most will "solve" the outcome. This has nothing to do with writing a well crafted essay that is opinion based such as "I believe person x did this for these reasons..." 99% of the time in history classes you know the outcome, it's not your job to solve it.
- baddox 15y ago
  For an advanced history class, where students are expected to be able to make informed opinions about complex issues, this will work (and I suspect most advanced history classes don't focus much on memorization, or even tests for that matter). But for general education history courses, the notion of "why" is just as much memorization as a list of dates. What if you disagree about the "why" that the teacher/textbook claimed? You'll lose points. Besides, for all the history courses I've taken (just gen ed ones), tests weren't a big part. There were usually short quizzes on sections of the text book, which were testing for reading comprehension more than memorization. Essays and research papers were most of the grade.
kijin 15y ago
If a college-level history course is asking students to memorize and regurgitate simple historical facts and nothing else, they're doing it wrong. There are many ways to create history exams that require not only facts but also critical thinking.
baddox 15y ago
What subjects in academia does this truly not apply to? If you can use a book to get the answers on the test, you can use a book to get the answers when you need them "in real life." The only exceptions I can think of are obvious trades like police or doctors. You gave history as an example. I must ask then: what is the point of a history education? If you just like history and want to learn more about it, you'll try to learn the "real" stuff (beyond memorization) on your own. If you want to be a history teacher (especially for grade school), sure, you can probably consider the dumb memorization useful. If you actually want to work in the field (i.e. do research), the memorization won't be useful.

by tmh88j 15y ago

blahedo 15y ago

I think you've been taking the wrong history classes. The interesting stuff is the "why" and making connections between different events; and if you're tested on that sort of thing, a notecard with names-and-dates is about as helpful as a notecard with equations in a physics exam.

tmh88j 15y ago
Once again, that's YOUR thought process. It seems that you happen to link events together to remember an outcome. By simply knowing a few pieces of information, it's not likely most will "solve" the outcome. This has nothing to do with writing a well crafted essay that is opinion based such as "I believe person x did this for these reasons..." 99% of the time in history classes you know the outcome, it's not your job to solve it.
baddox 15y ago
For an advanced history class, where students are expected to be able to make informed opinions about complex issues, this will work (and I suspect most advanced history classes don't focus much on memorization, or even tests for that matter). But for general education history courses, the notion of "why" is just as much memorization as a list of dates. What if you disagree about the "why" that the teacher/textbook claimed? You'll lose points. Besides, for all the history courses I've taken (just gen ed ones), tests weren't a big part. There were usually short quizzes on sections of the text book, which were testing for reading comprehension more than memorization. Essays and research papers were most of the grade.

kijin 15y ago

If a college-level history course is asking students to memorize and regurgitate simple historical facts and nothing else, they're doing it wrong. There are many ways to create history exams that require not only facts but also critical thinking.

baddox 15y ago

What subjects in academia does this truly not apply to? If you can use a book to get the answers on the test, you can use a book to get the answers when you need them "in real life." The only exceptions I can think of are obvious trades like police or doctors. You gave history as an example. I must ask then: what is the point of a history education? If you just like history and want to learn more about it, you'll try to learn the "real" stuff (beyond memorization) on your own. If you want to be a history teacher (especially for grade school), sure, you can probably consider the dumb memorization useful. If you actually want to work in the field (i.e. do research), the memorization won't be useful.