PDA

View Full Version : Americans' Lack of Education in History Is a Worry .



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14

numbers123
10-05-2011, 01:31 AM
Sounds like someone is a little touchy about their age :shuffle:

I would say that she has a right to be in this situation. Considering that my parents were born in the 30's, I know what age taf is and she is nowhere near the 80's age group.

Japanfan
10-05-2011, 01:44 AM
A good education should develop one's critical thinking skills, communication skills, and ability to learn new things even on one's own. In many respects, History can be an ideal subject to do this, since, when properly taught, it requires the student to examine and analyze various contributing factors, outcomes, and points of view. That's why it is such a shame that so many teachers, parents, schools, and districts, don't put more of an emphasis on a rigorous History education.

ITA. But one of the problems with history is how it is taught, with an emphasis on important figures, events and dates. History is much more interesting when looked at from the vantage point of how events impacted people's lives and the norms and values that characterize societies. I hated history in grade school because there was nothing interesting about it.

If history teachers made use of non-textbook teaching tools such as films, TV series and exhibits, history would come to life to students. I'm fascinated by historical fiction, movies, and TV series (i.e. Rome and Poldark, Philippa Gregory's work on the Tudor queens). Granted, fiction and film are not always historically accurate (which needs to be addressed if they are used as teaching tools), but they provide a window on history which really stimulates the imagination and prompts individuals to learn more about history.

And primary sources from periods can be fascinating as well.

jlai
10-05-2011, 01:55 AM
ITA. But one of the problems with history is how it is taught, with an emphasis on important figures, events and dates. History is much more interesting when looked at from the vantage point of how events impacted people's lives and the norms and values that characterize societies. I hated history in grade school because there was nothing interesting about it.

If history teachers made use of non-textbook teaching tools such as films, TV series and exhibits, history would come to life to students.

Chinese history is often taught like that. IMHO, the curriculum and content I was exposed to was okay. It's the methodology, with facts first and connecting the dots later, that I have had an issue with--for there are thousands of years of dates and places to cover, with a mental coversion to Western dates and modern place names currently running in your head. It's really really daunting.

OTOH, with history taught in the US I have more an issue with the curriculum and coverage (from politically driven textbooks and curriculum to lack of adequate world history lessons).

vesperholly
10-05-2011, 02:33 AM
I would say that she has a right to be in this situation. Considering that my parents were born in the 30's, I know what age taf is and she is nowhere near the 80's age group.

If her father served in WWII, she is most definitely NOT of that generation. :lol:

I thought the generations were loosely defined as, Greatest Generation: served in WWII. Silent Generation: born before WWII but too young to serve in it. Baby Boomers: Children of WWII vets. Between Boomer and GenX: Children of Silent Generation. Generation X: Children of Silent Generation and Boomers. Generation Y/Millennials: Children of Generation X.

I was born in 1980, and I cling to Generation X (usually defined as 1965-1982 but sometimes people cut it off at 1979) :lol: I'm not Gen Y, I'm not! *stamps feet*

jlai
10-05-2011, 02:34 AM
IME, the more recent the history, the less that will be taught about it in history class. That makes perfect sense in several ways.

I think the more recent the history the more info we have, and there's more coverage available on Empress Dowager Cixi than, errr, the author of Dao Te Ching.

But that changes when it gets, errr...too recent or too politically touchy.


I think that many older people believe that students today graduate from high school knowing nothing, while the older people in our society learned and retain so much more more.

I always wonder if people are comparing different things. An older person could be comparing what 9th graders are learning now to get an A to what they had to do to get an A in the same class in the same grade (grade inflation factor coming into play here), versus, what the young and the old are remembering at the same point in time.


I suspect one of the reasons that there is no real will to address the primary problem facing the public schools here--poverty--is that we have done very well by most measures in spite of the public schools. It was, after all, the Why Johnny Can't Read generation that put men on the moon.

Relative poverty exists in all countries though. I suspect how different countries handle disadvantaged students may be the difference here.

But then I also think formal academic education is overvalued... Or else Finland will come on top economically. :shuffle: Besides, with more knowlege comes preconceived ideas on how things happen or should happen and the cultural baggage that comes with it...

Prancer
10-05-2011, 02:48 AM
I always wonder if people are comparing different things. An older person could be comparing what 9th graders are learning now to get an A to what they had to do to get an A in the same class in the same grade (grade inflation factor coming into play here), versus, what the young and the old are remembering at the same point in time.

I think they are comparing two different things, as school bears little resemblance to school in the past.

But again, if people were so well educated before and grade inflation makes such a difference now, then older college students shouldn't be the ones taking remedial classes. Yet they are. So are far too many youngins. But the youngins as a group do a lot better in that regard than the older students do.

And again, that makes sense. But it sure doesn't support the idea that people learned more and better in the past.


Relative poverty exists in all countries though. I suspect how different countries handle disadvantaged students may be the difference here.

Of course it does, but other developed countries do not have the extremes that we have in this country and have stronger social safety nets to offset their relative poverty than we do here. The single best predictor of academic success in the US is the financial status of the family.

taf2002
10-05-2011, 04:41 AM
Sounds like someone is a little touchy about their her ;) age :shuffle:

Actually I'm not. But I really don't appreciate being told I'm a contemporary of people born in the 30's.

taf2002
10-05-2011, 04:42 AM
Sounds like someone is a little touchy about their her ;) age :shuffle:

Actually I'm not. But I really don't appreciate being told I'm a contemporary of people born in the 30's.

Cyn
10-05-2011, 10:43 AM
I was born in 1980, and I cling to Generation X (usually defined as 1965-1982 but sometimes people cut it off at 1979) :lol: I'm not Gen Y, I'm not! *stamps feet*

Not that it's a bastion of reliability, but Wikipedia has a page that defines the timeline of the Generations of the 20th Century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generations#List_of_generations).

According to this site (http://www.genpink.com/when-does-gen-x-end-and-gen-y-begin/), you fall on the Gen XY cusp, which is described as follows:


XY Cusp, also known as the MTV Generation or Doom Generation, was caught between the end of Generation X and start of Generation Y, mainly living out their childhood through the 80s and teen years in the mid-90s. This generation was influenced by the launch of MTV, the popularization of Web technology circa 95, segmented musical tastes, the evolution of 80s glam fashions into grunge and the remainder of Generation X, many of whom were older siblings. (1975-1985).

I was born in 1967, and I don't particularly like being lumped in with the Generation X group because for me, the term will always be associated with that stupid movie, Reality Bites :wall: .

I much prefer to refer to myself as being part of the MTV Generation, though there's a lot of debate as to what year constitutes the beginning of this group. It varies from those born in the late 60's (who were in their early teens when MTV first hit the air) to those born in 1981, when MTV first launched.

Here's a link to an article that delves into the Gen X/Gen Y debate with an analysis based on both psychology and statistics of these age ranges: A Psychographic Analysis of Generation Y College Students.(Statistical Data Included) (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-81415026/psychographic-analysis-generation-y.html). According to this, I fall into the MTV Generation (and a whole bunch of other labels :lol: ).

According to this chart (http://www.vscpa.com/content/files/vscpa/files/PDF/Gen_X_Y_Graphic.pdf), I fall into the MTV Generation (those born in 1965 through 1981), also making me part of Generation X. Those born in 1982 through 2000 are considered members of Generation Y, also known as "Echo Boomers" or the "Millennium Generation.

Do a google search - you'll find enough discussions, debates, and arguments to either help you decide which group you fit into, or leave you in a state of complete confusion :rofl: .

*******

As to the whole discussion about foreign language being taught to children, when they begin learning them, and their effects, I can't offer much to it, but my daughter's, who is now 15, and my oldest niece, who is in 2nd Grade, both started learning a foreign language starting in 1st grade (the language taught in both of their school districts is/was German). In MiniCyn's case, she studied German all five years she was in Elementary school and was part of the Honors German Program at her school, but when we moved out of Atlanta to North Georgia, I was shocked to discover that Foreign Language wasn't part of the curriculum at the Middle School, and at her High School, the only languages offered are Spanish and Latin :wall:.

It was shocking to me because the public school district I went to in Elementary School (K - 7th Grade), though I only attended it in 7th Grade (having attended a Jewish Private School through 6th Grade, in which we were taught Hebrew in 1st - 6th Grade), French was taught as part of the regular curriculum starting in 1st Grade. When I started High School (which was 8th - 12th Grades as there weren't any Middle Schools in the district at that time) in the Fall of 1980, in the same public school district, the Foreign Language Department offered French, Spanish, German, and Latin (with an Honors Program for French and Spanish).

Karina1974
10-05-2011, 02:38 PM
If her father served in WWII, she is most definitely NOT of that generation. :lol:

I thought the generations were loosely defined as, Greatest Generation: served in WWII. Silent Generation: born before WWII but too young to serve in it. Baby Boomers: Children of WWII vets. Between Boomer and GenX: Children of Silent Generation. Generation X: Children of Silent Generation and Boomers. Generation Y/Millennials: Children of Generation X.



But the problem with defining generations that way, is that there is a lot of cross-over. My father, for instance, was born in 1939. His other siblings were born in 1934, 1936, 1941, 1943 and 1948. Their father (my paternal grandfather, born 1908) served in the Pacific in WWII. To use the definitions above, aside from the 2 youngest, are they Silent Generation or Baby Boomers? And, technically, Dad (and his sister born August 1941) was born during WWII, not before it (there lies another history question: how many people out there think that WWII started with Pearl Harbor?).

Karina1974
10-05-2011, 02:57 PM
Actually I'm not. But I really don't appreciate being told I'm a contemporary of people born in the 30's.

(Seeing as how it was our exchange that seems to have prompted this) - My parents are only about 10 years older than you are, 74 and 72 (as of 11/2). That's not so much of a stretch. 1930's to 1950's - that I could understand, but 10 years? I agree with Ag, you're being touchy.

taf2002
10-05-2011, 03:00 PM
(Seeing as how it was our exchange that seems to have prompted this) - My parents are only about 10 years older than you are, 74 and 72 (as of 11/2). That's not so much of a stretch.

http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e128/michaelfsfan/bitchplease.jpg

Karina1974
10-05-2011, 03:33 PM
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e128/michaelfsfan/bitchplease.jpg

:rolleyes:

Sad to see that, at least in one case, that there is age discrimination even amongst the 60-and-over segment of the population. Equally sad that your juvenile photo link is the "best" response you could come up with.

Whatever. I'm sticking a fork in this exchange, because it's done.

taf2002
10-05-2011, 05:02 PM
Good. Most women would know instinctively that other women don't like to be thought of as older than they actually are. And I doubt anyone wants to be told they are old enough to be your mother even if it could be true.

I'm not surprised at your lack of sensitivity...after all, you mocked a woman with cancer.

Karina1974
10-05-2011, 05:25 PM
Good. Most women would know instinctively that other women don't like to be thought of as older than they actually are.

Maybe because I'm one of those women who says "who the feck cares?" I turn 40 in 3 years and 19 days. I'm not worried. I look a heel of a lot better approaching 40 than I did when I turned 30, that's for sure. I also don't waste my life keeping track of the inane things perfect strangers say online.