3 ms·

Your history classes sound a lot more useful than the ones I sat through in the US - ours was mostly delivered as a set of settled fact.

by ericd 4y ago

hospitalJail 4y ago
There is a local school that is dedicating 90 minutes to math and 90 minutes to english. Splitting science and history to a mere 45 minutes each. I completely support this. Science prior to college was basically a waste. History was full of bias and axes to grind. Don't get me wrong, teach these subjects, the scientific method is great. However, the value is low compared to the tools given in Math and English.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  What tools are you given in English? And how many of the tools in Maths are you still using? Like, I’m very happy that I got to learn probability theory, but all the differential equations that broke my mind seem entirely pointless now.
  - hkatx 4y ago
    This might feel less useful for CS, but for other sciences and even engineering (mechanical, aero, materials, chem, electrical, marine) you need differential eq. And than natural sciences in general (climate, space) also have applications there. Subjects that feel useful post graduation, if they are being taught in high school early college the time gap makes it less useful. HS and early college classes fundamentals are needed for the specialized curriculum that needed for higher college and post graduate education.
- com2kid 4y ago
  > Science prior to college was basically a waste. My public school biology class involved sequencing and editing DNA to make bacteria change color. I would not call it a waste. In fact I wish I would've had more science in school, I managed to go until college until I took my first Physics class, and physics is really useful.
- rhcom2 4y ago
  I don't know how you could expect anyone to really understand literature without history. Imagine trying to explain Animal Farm without Stalin.
  - Planktonne 4y ago
    In schools where they don't teach History, Literature teachers spend a lot of time teaching History, so that they can teach Literature meaningfully.
beebeepka 4y ago
I had a couple of brilliant history teachers during elementary. Both were massive drunks
mattlondon 4y ago
We never "learnt" any facts (like who was king/queen/PM/president or whatever) - usually you'd study one very narrow period for an entire year. So one year you'd learn about the Roman empire's withdrawal from Britain, the next it was the Russian revolution, the year after it was the Wars of the Roses or whatever. Exam questions were always always always in the form of "The Roman withdrawal from Britain was inevitable. Discuss" or "The Industrial revolution led to the fall of the British Empire. Discuss". I.e. long-form essay answers, perhaps 2 or 3 essays within a single 2 or 3 hour exam. You never had to just recall naked facts on their own - you needed to know some to answer the essays of course, but you never just recited. So pros and cons - I have no idea about what order the Prime Ministers were in or Kings and Queens or if the Edwardian Era came before or after the victorian era etc. I lack historic knowledge, but I guess the skills learnt were useful? I have no idea what it is like now - my experience is a couple of decades out of date. edit: looks like things are more or less the same still. Example paper with questions specifically asking you to critique historic sources (page 3): https://cdn.savemyexams.co.uk/uploads/2023/01/1hia-11-que-20211119.pdf https://cdn.savemyexams.co.uk/uploads/2023/01/1hia-11-que-20.... Moar: https://www.savemyexams.co.uk/gcse/history/edexcel/-/pages/past-papers/ https://www.savemyexams.co.uk/gcse/history/edexcel/-/pages/p...
tombert 4y ago
You know, it's been a long time, but even growing up in Orlando Florida, I felt like a lot of my history was about "why" more than anything else. Maybe it's just because I had multiple history classes in a row taught by retired lawyers, but I actually felt like I got a fairly interesting perspective of history.
- ericd 4y ago
  Funny, almost all of my best teachers seemed to be retired from something else.
  - tombert 4y ago
    There's probably a selection bias towards people who "do things because they feel like it" and "do things for the paycheck". If you're a retired lawyer, it's likely that you're teaching just keep yourself entertained, or maybe just some supplemental income [1]. When you do things for fun, instead of out of necessity, it gives you the distinct advantage of allowing yourself to focus only on things that are actually interesting to you. It's possible that my high school history teachers started teaching history specifically because they felt like they might have a unique take on it. [1] I know that teachers are traditionally underpaid; however if it's just supplemental income, "underpaid" is still often better than "zero income". $36,000 a year isn't a ton of money, but if you're already largely retired, it might be the difference between "taking a trip this summer" or not.
IIAOPSW 4y ago
Variance on this is very high. Where your classes landed on the memorize-think axis will swing wildly from district to district, and even possibly from teacher to teacher within the same school.
- ericd 4y ago
  Yeah, definitely. A couple of my later teachers edged slightly into think territory, but I don't remember the textbooks structurally encouraging this, so memorization was the easy path. Which is a shame - since rediscovering history through podcasts that discuss this stuff in depth, I realized that I actually love history - it's kind of the study of how big groups of people act and interact with systems, which is super fascinating, and super relevant to engineering, finance, civics, politics, and life in general. I just wish I'd realized that earlier, and not wasted so much time in school absorbing a useless dehydrated version.

Your history classes sound a lot more useful than the ones I sat through in the US - ours was mostly delivered as a set of settled fact.

by ericd 4y ago

Your history classes sound a lot more useful than the ones I sat through in the US - ours was mostly delivered as a set of settled fact.

hospitalJail 4y ago

There is a local school that is dedicating 90 minutes to math and 90 minutes to english. Splitting science and history to a mere 45 minutes each. I completely support this. Science prior to college was basically a waste. History was full of bias and axes to grind. Don't get me wrong, teach these subjects, the scientific method is great. However, the value is low compared to the tools given in Math and English.

Aeolun 4y ago
What tools are you given in English? And how many of the tools in Maths are you still using? Like, I’m very happy that I got to learn probability theory, but all the differential equations that broke my mind seem entirely pointless now.
- hkatx 4y ago
  This might feel less useful for CS, but for other sciences and even engineering (mechanical, aero, materials, chem, electrical, marine) you need differential eq. And than natural sciences in general (climate, space) also have applications there. Subjects that feel useful post graduation, if they are being taught in high school early college the time gap makes it less useful. HS and early college classes fundamentals are needed for the specialized curriculum that needed for higher college and post graduate education.
com2kid 4y ago
> Science prior to college was basically a waste. My public school biology class involved sequencing and editing DNA to make bacteria change color. I would not call it a waste. In fact I wish I would've had more science in school, I managed to go until college until I took my first Physics class, and physics is really useful.
rhcom2 4y ago
I don't know how you could expect anyone to really understand literature without history. Imagine trying to explain Animal Farm without Stalin.
- Planktonne 4y ago
  In schools where they don't teach History, Literature teachers spend a lot of time teaching History, so that they can teach Literature meaningfully.

beebeepka 4y ago

I had a couple of brilliant history teachers during elementary. Both were massive drunks

mattlondon 4y ago

We never "learnt" any facts (like who was king/queen/PM/president or whatever) - usually you'd study one very narrow period for an entire year. So one year you'd learn about the Roman empire's withdrawal from Britain, the next it was the Russian revolution, the year after it was the Wars of the Roses or whatever. Exam questions were always always always in the form of "The Roman withdrawal from Britain was inevitable. Discuss" or "The Industrial revolution led to the fall of the British Empire. Discuss". I.e. long-form essay answers, perhaps 2 or 3 essays within a single 2 or 3 hour exam. You never had to just recall naked facts on their own - you needed to know some to answer the essays of course, but you never just recited. So pros and cons - I have no idea about what order the Prime Ministers were in or Kings and Queens or if the Edwardian Era came before or after the victorian era etc. I lack historic knowledge, but I guess the skills learnt were useful? I have no idea what it is like now - my experience is a couple of decades out of date. edit: looks like things are more or less the same still. Example paper with questions specifically asking you to critique historic sources (page 3): https://cdn.savemyexams.co.uk/uploads/2023/01/1hia-11-que-20211119.pdf https://cdn.savemyexams.co.uk/uploads/2023/01/1hia-11-que-20.... Moar: https://www.savemyexams.co.uk/gcse/history/edexcel/-/pages/past-papers/ https://www.savemyexams.co.uk/gcse/history/edexcel/-/pages/p...

tombert 4y ago

You know, it's been a long time, but even growing up in Orlando Florida, I felt like a lot of my history was about "why" more than anything else. Maybe it's just because I had multiple history classes in a row taught by retired lawyers, but I actually felt like I got a fairly interesting perspective of history.

ericd 4y ago
Funny, almost all of my best teachers seemed to be retired from something else.
- tombert 4y ago
  There's probably a selection bias towards people who "do things because they feel like it" and "do things for the paycheck". If you're a retired lawyer, it's likely that you're teaching just keep yourself entertained, or maybe just some supplemental income [1]. When you do things for fun, instead of out of necessity, it gives you the distinct advantage of allowing yourself to focus only on things that are actually interesting to you. It's possible that my high school history teachers started teaching history specifically because they felt like they might have a unique take on it. [1] I know that teachers are traditionally underpaid; however if it's just supplemental income, "underpaid" is still often better than "zero income". $36,000 a year isn't a ton of money, but if you're already largely retired, it might be the difference between "taking a trip this summer" or not.

IIAOPSW 4y ago

Variance on this is very high. Where your classes landed on the memorize-think axis will swing wildly from district to district, and even possibly from teacher to teacher within the same school.

ericd 4y ago
Yeah, definitely. A couple of my later teachers edged slightly into think territory, but I don't remember the textbooks structurally encouraging this, so memorization was the easy path. Which is a shame - since rediscovering history through podcasts that discuss this stuff in depth, I realized that I actually love history - it's kind of the study of how big groups of people act and interact with systems, which is super fascinating, and super relevant to engineering, finance, civics, politics, and life in general. I just wish I'd realized that earlier, and not wasted so much time in school absorbing a useless dehydrated version.