Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

100 Schools Where Not One Pupil Studied GCSE History Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    History should be compulsory at GCSE in the same way that science is.
    Quite defensible, but irrelevant to the thread I'm afraid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twelve)
    History is facts, thats kind of the point of it. You can analyse sources and discuess what happened, but at the end of the day, what happened, happened. There's not a lot of room for debate surely?

    History was the most popular GCSE subject in my year - I think there were 3 classes of 30 pupils, out of a year of about 160. We learnt the facts, but we did have a fair bit of discussion - although obviously the emphasis was on learning what happened and why it happened.


    A lot of historians would argue that there is no such thing as a truly objective fact, that's what makes the discipline so fascinating.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I absolutely love History. I would have done it right to degree level had I not made a bad choice 7 months ago (oh well let's hope I can rectify it in the summer) by not choosing.

    But I think the problem is history GCSE was so mind numbing. We did 'medicine through time' and the american west. Everyone at our school hated it. It's also not taught in a way to enjoy it, but rather 'look at sources' analyse them and memorise a few dates. I was lucky at A Level that my teacher is so bloody passionate we have proper debates and discussions and it makes it alot more fun to learn.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cochrane)
    A lot of historians would argue that there is no such thing as a truly objective fact, that's what makes the discipline so fascinating.
    Queen Anne is dead.

    Do you consider this is open to interpretation?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kickflip)
    Among the reasons given, none mention the main reason, an 'internationalist' strategy of sidelining English history to deny us a sense of identity and national pride.
    A lot of the English history was covered in primary school - y9; I'll admit it was basic but it's not like they're denying us knowledge of our own history.
    At GCSE we covered Ireland, mining in Britain, US History - homesteaders and plains Indians and 'Medicine through the ages' :/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Queen Anne is dead.

    Do you consider this is open to interpretation?
    Ha, nice. Obviously it is accepted that such examples are fact, but it is beyond there that the real complexity lies. People like Foucault argue that there is no objective truth, and so this really applies to how 'facts' are presented. So whereas it is easy enough to state that so and so is dead (a statement that isn't particularly useful to an Historian anyway), the real challenge of History is to examine the 'truths' surrounding and influencing our perception of that fact.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I didn't do history GCSE... I turned out alright...

    Still, due to my interest in the subject I'm probably more knowledgeable than many A-Level historians...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twelve)
    History is facts, thats kind of the point of it. You can analyse sources and discuess what happened, but at the end of the day, what happened, happened. There's not a lot of room for debate surely?

    History was the most popular GCSE subject in my year - I think there were 3 classes of 30 pupils, out of a year of about 160. We learnt the facts, but we did have a fair bit of discussion - although obviously the emphasis was on learning what happened and why it happened.
    Your last phrase, "Why it happened" is the key. The study of History is not mere facts (Whatever facts may be) it is the analysis of said facts. There is usually more than one explanation of why, analysis leads you to select the one/ones with the strongest evidenc If you think of it as analogous to fixing your car, the facts are the nuts and bolts in the box, the art is assembling them so you have a car. assemble them differently you may have either a non functioning car or one different from before.

    Whilst not being au fait with English GCSE teaching, I suspect it is similar to the Scottish system of cherry picking topics-what appears to be missing is the broad timeline to slot these topics into, thus getting a wider perspective view. I strongly suspect a number of the more popular topics are selected because there are film resources etc available, hence no Wars of the Roses etc.

    I was taught history at school at a time where broad swathes of both British (mainly English) and European History were taught chronologically, I doubt anyone would like to return to knowing very little about a lot, it is a tiresome way to learn. Its one advantage is the timeline.

    Accordingly the painting in brief of a broad brush timeline at the start of third year mixed with selective topics fitted into the line is in my view the way History probably ought to be taught in schools.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Classics > History

    Nahh not really, but Classics is definitely more interesting than History... but probably more pointless as well hahaha, but I suppose I'm biased, I want to do Classics at Uni.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    I'm not a nationalist, but I agree - it's disgusting that people know who MLK was (every single bloody year) but can't name more than a handful of monarchs (if any), any wars (apart from the ones in the 20th century) etc etc.

    It's time the whole history curriculum was replaced by British history.
    because obviously no other nations history is important?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    Your last phrase, "Why it happened" is the key. The study of History is not mere facts (Whatever facts may be) it is the analysis of said facts. There is usually more than one explanation of why, analysis leads you to select the one/ones with the strongest evidenc If you think of it as analogous to fixing your car, the facts are the nuts and bolts in the box, the art is assembling them so you have a car. assemble them differently you may have either a non functioning car or one different from before.

    Whilst not being au fait with English GCSE teaching, I suspect it is similar to the Scottish system of cherry picking topics-what appears to be missing is the broad timeline to slot these topics into, thus getting a wider perspective view. I strongly suspect a number of the more popular topics are selected because there are film resources etc available, hence no Wars of the Roses etc.

    I was taught history at school at a time where broad swathes of both British (mainly English) and European History were taught chronologically, I doubt anyone would like to return to knowing very little about a lot, it is a tiresome way to learn. Its one advantage is the timeline.

    Accordingly the painting in brief of a broad brush timeline at the start of third year mixed with selective topics fitted into the line is in my view the way History probably ought to be taught in schools.
    But if you do this, then you don't get as much detail in each topic.

    I personally studied Vietnam, Jack the Ripper, Medicine through time, and Chartism, the vote etc - i think the topic was Britain in the 1830s to 1850s or something. Can't remember the dates now haha! It gave us a pretty broad spread of topics, but we got a lot of detail into quite a bit of it.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kickflip)
    Among the reasons given, none mention the main reason, an 'internationalist' strategy of sidelining English history to deny us a sense of identity and national pride.
    I alway enjoyed History and was going to take it at GCSE until I found out it was just going to be years of WWII. I personally find Modern History to be unbelievably dull, and WWII has been so overexposed that it's like playing a record on a thirty second loop over, and over, and over, and OVER AGAIN. That's why I didn't take it at GCSE, but I did Ancient History at A-Level - if they had GCSE Ancient or Medieval History (especially the latter) then I'd have taken it in a heartbeat, but you honestly couldn't pay me to do a GCSE in Modern History (which should be renamed - "Someone Droning On About Hitler").
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cochrane)
    Ha, nice. Obviously it is accepted that such examples are fact, but it is beyond there that the real complexity lies. People like Foucault argue that there is no objective truth, and so this really applies to how 'facts' are presented. So whereas it is easy enough to state that so and so is dead (a statement that isn't particularly useful to an Historian anyway), the real challenge of History is to examine the 'truths' surrounding and influencing our perception of that fact.
    I am afraid I simply glaze over to all this post-modernist stuff.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, it's you again.

    At GCSE History, I learnt about American Indians and the history of medicine. Not much English history to sideline.

    Go away.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cochrane)
    A lot of historians would argue that there is no such thing as a truly objective fact, that's what makes the discipline so fascinating.
    There's also the fact that the victor's tend to write history, and each side will be biased. In war, who's "facts" are right, and who's "facts" are wrong?

    Who's to say that countries don't whitewash history? Every single country in the world is probably guilty of this
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by twelve)
    History is facts, thats kind of the point of it. You can analyse sources and discuess what happened, but at the end of the day, what happened, happened. There's not a lot of room for debate surely?
    It's totally the opposite, which is what makes it so exciting, especially ancient history :coma: It's the detective work.

    Plus, history builds your vocabulary :fyi: I've learnt so many words purely because of history lessons.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hothedgehog)
    This is so true. Schools are crap. It's much more fun going somewhere and learning about its history whilst you're there. We did that with all the stuff happening around Northern Greece, Bulgaria, FYROM etc. this summer. It was awesome.
    (Original post by TheMagicRat)
    I agree. Ancient history is painfully neglected. I think I only really did it in year 7 and obviously a bit when I did the history of medicine.

    In my experience of talking to people about history, even those who aren't a fan of the subject seem to have at least some fascination for ancient civilisations.

    In short, more ancient history taught in schools!
    Yep, ancient history is great! But it's not even just the history, it's the whole world of classics that gets overlooked. It's a shame that some kids are missing out on developing a real love for history/ancient history/classics tbh
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Religious Studies is compulsary in a lot of schools. Surely History is far more important?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Harlequinn Mask)
    Religious Studies is compulsary in a lot of schools. Surely History is far more important?
    Would those schools happen to be faith schools by any chance?

    Because that seems like a fairly sensible thing to be compulsory if they are.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by History-Student)
    Would those schools happen to be faith schools by any chance?

    Because that seems like a fairly sensible thing to be compulsory if they are.
    Or, it may be that they teach RE to show how different religions view things and how they are different, but the people are almost ultimately the same ie: all religions have the same core tenets at the end of the day. Unlike France, there is less tensions to people of x religion etc..
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.