3 ms·

I never appreciated history until I became a grad psych/soc researcher into tech/media and grokked method (and how most researchers don't, and if you think you

I never appreciated history until I became a grad psych/soc researcher into tech/media and grokked method (and how most researchers don't, and if you think you do, you probably don't). In high school it was all facts and figured and then I gave up the boring "learn stories" stuff up for A-level maths physics and chemistry. I wish they taught history and humanities at school in the way they teach physics and chemistry practicals. I'd have loved it then, and clever nerds would understand its value!

rplacd 14y ago
I have the luck of going through one of those analytical history courses right now - but they do one thing differently: they don't even want to stoop down to prescribe on that level. Instead they give a higher-level question: "to what extent would you consider Mao's contribution to the development of modern China over-rated?" - and ask for a good argument. That inevitably that means considering counterpoints, placing them in context (and you can't go far with that if you don't understand a mite of historiography and how that in turn arises from "mainline" history), shooting them down. It's done wonders to my writing. In fact, it's been the only opportunity in my high school program to consider and create arguments of such depth - so there's your intrinsic value.
- triplesec 14y ago
  That's really impressive. Was it your teacher, or the school that initiated this? I do think that some students might need more handholding than you in this particular question, however... (hell, I might get lost in that) but there is room for creating experimental learning with the ability to get in flow for all skill levels. But that's what good teaching is about.
  - rplacd 14y ago
    You're in luck - your guesses are just a bit too pessimistic! It's the method prescribed by my school's curriculum - they take the thing whole from a standards body. You're entirely right, though, to figure that isn't the baseline - there are plenty of "list the Xes" question that pay only lip service to considering an A line of thought versus a B line of thought. Of course, the subject's so subjectively graded that no one's guaranteed that work is proportional to the resultant grade at the highest levels - so there's remarkably little pressure and far more experimentation done than you'd expect from a high-school programme. It's a strange arrangement, but I'm lucky to have fell into it.

rplacd 14y ago

I have the luck of going through one of those analytical history courses right now - but they do one thing differently: they don't even want to stoop down to prescribe on that level. Instead they give a higher-level question: "to what extent would you consider Mao's contribution to the development of modern China over-rated?" - and ask for a good argument. That inevitably that means considering counterpoints, placing them in context (and you can't go far with that if you don't understand a mite of historiography and how that in turn arises from "mainline" history), shooting them down. It's done wonders to my writing. In fact, it's been the only opportunity in my high school program to consider and create arguments of such depth - so there's your intrinsic value.

triplesec 14y ago
That's really impressive. Was it your teacher, or the school that initiated this? I do think that some students might need more handholding than you in this particular question, however... (hell, I might get lost in that) but there is room for creating experimental learning with the ability to get in flow for all skill levels. But that's what good teaching is about.
- rplacd 14y ago
  You're in luck - your guesses are just a bit too pessimistic! It's the method prescribed by my school's curriculum - they take the thing whole from a standards body. You're entirely right, though, to figure that isn't the baseline - there are plenty of "list the Xes" question that pay only lip service to considering an A line of thought versus a B line of thought. Of course, the subject's so subjectively graded that no one's guaranteed that work is proportional to the resultant grade at the highest levels - so there's remarkably little pressure and far more experimentation done than you'd expect from a high-school programme. It's a strange arrangement, but I'm lucky to have fell into it.