Is the study of history necessary?

[B. de Corbin]

Recently, in order to make room for Common Core Curriculum requirements, New York has pretty much abandoned the study of history (prior to 1750) and social studies in favor of undefined "tech" classes:

Common Core and the End of History

Is this a good thing? "Tech" may help you get a job, while history most likely won't. Is this a good exchange?

[Gleb]

Re: Is the study of history necessary?

I say that learning tech and knowing history are both important. Tech helps to get the degree, but a person who doesn't know his/her past, doesn't have future. Because without all that happened before, the present wouldn't exist. And in my opinion, we all must know our origin.

[Munin-Hugin]

Re: Is the study of history necessary?

As someone who has studied archaeology, anthropology, and was at one point contemplating becoming a history teacher, I can't see a reason why the removal of such should be done. It is through history that we see how we've come to the point that we are at, as both a species and a society. Who and what we are, as a product of all the things that has come before us, is integral to where we are going.

There will come a time when tech will fail us, be it because of a war, a natural disaster, or even a zombie apocalypse. And unfortunately, each successive generation is going to be less and less prepared for that eventuality. I can see that in my own family, looking back just to my grandparents and then at myself. If we do not hold onto where we had come from, it will be impossible to be seen that we have and can live without, not only just to survive but to have a full and rich existence.

[nbdy]

Re: Is the study of history necessary?

Common Core was a pretty good idea that went really bad in implementation. As I understood it, the original idea was that children would be exposed to the same material at the same grade level, which sort of makes sense in a society as mobile as ours is, but it quickly became an avenue for micromanaging and more standardized testing. If I were Empress of Education, I would fire about half of the administrators and replace them with teachers. Cut the standardized evaluations down to maybe two for the entirety of K-12 and use the saved money from that and the bloated administrative salaries to give all the teachers raises. The tests would not be prepared by for-profit companies but by people who have a clue about survey construction. I reviewed an SOL exam last year and there is no way to know for certain what about 1/3 of the questions were measuring. Anyway, teaching guidelines would be broad; for example, that history for a particular grade cover medieval and Renaissance periods. There, I've fixed that, too. hehe

[DanieMarie]

Re: Is the study of history necessary?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Is the study of history necessary?

Common Core was a pretty good idea that went really bad in implementation. As I understood it, the original idea was that children would be exposed to the same material at the same grade level, which sort of makes sense in a society as mobile as ours is, but it quickly became an avenue for micromanaging and more standardized testing. If I were Empress of Education, I would fire about half of the administrators and replace them with teachers. Cut the standardized evaluations down to maybe two for the entirety of K-12 and use the saved money from that and the bloated administrative salaries to give all the teachers raises. The tests would not be prepared by for-profit companies but by people who have a clue about survey construction. I reviewed an SOL exam last year and there is no way to know for certain what about 1/3 of the questions were measuring. Anyway, teaching guidelines would be broad; for example, that history for a particular grade cover medieval and Renaissance periods. There, I've fixed that, too. hehe

I agree with you on that, nbdy. Common Core has become a monstrosity, for the very reasons you describe - rather than being implemented by educators for educational purposes, it has been implemented by politicians for political reasons... like making big cash for For Profit corporations.

[MaskedOne]

Re: Is the study of history necessary?

Yes. I like the idea of students coming out of school nearly ready for certification exams in various career fields but I think this can be accomplished by fixing/replacing the high school elective courses in existence instead of replacing history.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Is the study of history necessary?

In addition to what I said before, the idea of school as a sort of job factory leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I get the idea that employers are shying away from training and then complaining about the education system not doing it for them. I'm not that old, but back in my day, school was meant to learn basic communication skills, math skills, reasoning skills, and critical thinking skills to prepare you for a job or university. University was meant to expand on those skills so that you could apply them to a broad range of jobs or move further into academia. Apprenticeships, vocational programs, and associates were meant for those professions where learning by doing is generally better than applying university-style knowledge. And after all that, you learned on the job and advanced your knowledge with each further position, because ultimately, no one can make you "ready" to work at any individual company...they all have their unique quirks and systems that you have to learn.

But now, it seems like that's all gone out the window. Employers whine and whine about skills gaps, but won't take the risk to close those gaps themselves. It's pathetic.

[Larix]

Re: Is the study of history necessary?

Yes. History is fun and exciting and interesting.

That is my vote ...............

[Ophidia]

Re: Is the study of history necessary?

I think, that while history is important, the way it's taught needs to be changed.

All through middle school & high school, there was this huge emphasis on who / what / when / where. Who fought what battle when and where. Who signed what treaty when and where. At 40, even w/all the rote memorization I put up with for a good portion of my life, I can't remember all the presidents, battles, generals, outcomes of battles, or really any of the finer details of our past. And I've never had to. Data is easy to obtain now - with the internet, and access to the internet, I can find all the US presidents (by googling 'list of all US presidents' I get a nifty banner across the top of the page). If I want to become a war geek or a General Robert E Lee fangirl, there are thousands upon thousands of websites that break down every recorded event in almost any battle.

While getting my associate's degree, I had to take a US history course. I was extremely bummed to find out that my class would not be using a Dummies Guide to US History, but instead these dense, thick books w/tiny writing and few pictures. Anyway, they turned out to be well-written and interesting. I read them as if they were novels. What kept me glued to the pages was the fact that they spoke of battles & outcomes, notable figures and important events... but instead of focusing on the dates and individuals, it tied everything together. I was able to see how history unfolded into the America we know today, all the political trends & even how the media portrays events.

I spent most of those semesters wishing that this had been the type of history I'd gotten in high school. I might have actually remembered some stuff. School kids don't need to know about what general did what to who where & when, they need to know why it's so important to vote, to stay informed & to understand why things are the way they are today - and how people changed the past through efforts both heroic and small.

(And of course, now I'm sitting here wishing I could remember the title of those textbooks :/ )

[Heka]

Ugh, this is just like ditching arts in favour of literacy and numeracy. What a load of shit.

Don't we want well rounded individuals anymore?

[satanic witch]

Re: Is the study of history necessary?

While I believe history should be taught I don't believe it's being taught correctly. History isn't somthing that can be glanced over it has to be taught in detail. I love history and enjoy learning about history therefore I do slot of research on history in my own time it also makes history class more entertaining when I know in depth the time period and it's if they would go more in depth in history class i think it would be more worth while

[anubisa]

Re: Is the study of history necessary?

I think history is important and interesting. When I was younger I never loved history like I do now, but it is important that we know what has happened in the past. If we don't then we will repeat the past.

[Munin-Hugin]

Re: Is the study of history necessary?

Ugh, this is just like ditching arts in favour of literacy and numeracy. What a load of shit.

Don't we want well rounded individuals anymore?

It all comes down to the fact that the general perception of a "successful" life is to make as much money as possible at the cost of everything else. It's quite deplorable.

[Heka]

It all comes down to the fact that the general perception of a "successful" life is to make as much money as possible at the cost of everything else. It's quite deplorable.

Well you can shove that where the sun don't shine. When are people going to realise than money doesn't buy happiness.