[Petrochemicals (OP)]

This is a question I have been thinking about for a while. I see a lot of sources quoted and searching myself for sources I see many that I think must be biased or have limited credibility. I did gcse history, learning about ww1 and 2 mainly, but the most important thing I was taught in my history gcse was evaluating sources for things such as vested interests, spectacle or other effects.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

How many people have studied history?

    In several countries and many schools it's a compulsory school subject until at least a certain age.  You said you had a GCSE which is a British qualification so I'll guess you went to a British school.  Here's an extract from the National Curriculum:

Nat-Curric.JPG (84.9 kB . 733x910 - viewed 2320 times)

[Taken from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4/the-national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4 ]

So all state funded schools are legally required to teach History to the age of 14.
   If you want an idea of how many people take a GCSE examination in History there is data on this website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/results-tables-for-gcse-as-and-a-level-results-in-england-2020

This data is from a  .gov.uk   website which you might consider as being "credable".

If you want similar data for the whole world then you need to establish your criteria....   what do you consider equivalent to a GCSE examination? ;    What if some countries don't call the subject "History" but instead offer similar subjects like "History and related Humanities"       -  The whole thing becomes more complicated.   

   Anyway, what was the discussion about? 

I see a lot of sources quoted and searching myself for sources I see many that I think must be biased or have limited credibility...

   I do not doubt it.   I don't suppose all governments in all countries collect this sort of data and even if they do, I don't imagine they are required to disclose it to the general public.
   Let's just go back to Britain for a moment:   You have some data about some examinations but nothing to show that a GCSE taken in 2021 would have been the same as the GCSE you took yourself when you were at school.   It's called "History" and the examination is called a GCSE but the syllabus will have certainly changed a bit.   You may also be aware that the GCSE results tend to improve slightly year on year.   Some would say that the GCSE's have become slightly easier as time progresses - but not everyone.   The British government are more likely to imply that teaching methods have improved and everyone is doing better at school.

Best Wishes.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Hi.

How many people have studied history?

    In several countries and many schools it's a compulsory school subject until at least a certain age.  You said you had a GCSE which is a British qualification so I'll guess you went to a British school.  Here's an extract from the National Curriculum:
 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[Taken from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4/the-national-curriculum-in-england-framework-for-key-stages-1-to-4 ]

So all state funded schools are legally required to teach History to the age of 14.
   If you want an idea of how many people take a GCSE examination in History there is data on this website:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/results-tables-for-gcse-as-and-a-level-results-in-england-2020

This data is from a  .gov.uk   website which you might consider as being "credable".

If you want similar data for the whole world then you need to establish your criteria....   what do you consider equivalent to a GCSE examination? ;    What if some countries don't call the subject "History" but instead offer similar subjects like "History and related Humanities"       -  The whole thing becomes more complicated.   

   Anyway, what was the discussion about? 

I see a lot of sources quoted and searching myself for sources I see many that I think must be biased or have limited credibility...

   I do not doubt it.   I don't suppose all governments in all countries collect this sort of data and even if they do, I don't imagine they are required to disclose it to the general public.
   Let's just go back to Britain for a moment:   You have some data about some examinations but nothing to show that a GCSE taken in 2021 would have been the same as the GCSE you took yourself when you were at school.   It's called "History" and the examination is called a GCSE but the syllabus will have certainly changed a bit.   You may also be aware that the GCSE results tend to improve slightly year on year.   Some would say that the GCSE's have become slightly easier as time progresses - but not everyone.   The British government are more likely to imply that teaching methods have improved and everyone is doing better at school.

Best Wishes.

Yep gcse is Key stage 4. I find the basics of source evaluation great for objectivity.

[alancalverd]

And yet, despite years of compulsory training in scepticism, people read the Daily Mail, elect liars to high office,  attend churches, and join anti-vax campaigns.

[alancalverd]

Some would say that the GCSE's have become slightly easier as time progresses - but not everyone. 

Not sure about history - the only exam I deliberately failed - but the Institute of Physics ran an interesting experiment some time ago.  They compared the model answers for 1966 Ordinary Level Physics with those for 1996 Advanced Level and found no significant difference.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

And yet, despite years of compulsory training in scepticism, people read the Daily Mail, elect liars to high office,  attend churches, and join anti-vax campaigns.

That is not in the right order.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

the Institute of Physics ran an interesting experiment some time ago.  They compared the model answers for 1966 Ordinary Level Physics with those for 1996 Advanced Level and found no significant difference.

     I'm not saying I disagree just that this does seem like a sweeping generalisation and something that would be very hard to determine objectively when much of the syllabus will not overlap.  I'm as concerned about what they call "grade inflation" as anyone else would be.   
     However, most academic institutions, like Universities, just shift their entry requirements steadily upward as time progresses.  So they are just recruiting the top  X %   every year irrespective of what the actual grades might be.  It makes little difference to them and they are quite capable of reading the date of the examination when a mature student applies to the institution. 

    Let's also put some counter-balance on the idea that it's a bad thing for exams to change and grade inflation to occur:
      The job of exams is not to be hard, it is not to be easy, it is most certainly not to provide the top five percent of students with a flashy qualification they can use to get into Oxford. The job of exams is to test learning and produce adequate differentiation across the full range of candidates......... The job of an exam is not to let clever people show off, it is to actually assess people, and that means differentiating between D and E grade candidates just as much as it means differentiating between A and B grade candidates. Complaining that exams are getting easier is just a socially acceptable way of complaining that we're no longer restricting education to a privileged elite.

[Taken from the blog of Daniel Hemmens.  Reprinted in the Guardian newspaper:  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jun/21/have-gcses-got-easier ]

Best Wishes.

[evan_au]

Those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it

This probably applies to someone majoring in Arts at university, but not at high school...

[Bored chemist]

And yet, despite years of compulsory training in scepticism, people read the Daily Mail, elect liars to high office,  attend churches, and join anti-vax campaigns.

That is not in the right order.

I'm more worried about missing out brexit, than what order they are in.

Do you actually need to study history to learn about

evaluating sources for things such as vested interests, spectacle or other effects.

I learned them in science.

[alancalverd]

Those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it

This probably applies to someone majoring in Arts at university, but not at high school...

Not sure what qualifications Putin may have, but he seems to have learned nothing from the history of Afghanistan. Successful generals include Eisenhower and Schwarzkopf, both keen historians.

[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey]

masters (Hopefully soon to be PhD) in history, Syracuse University. Bam!

[IsmaelPanaderos2]

I was a bad student in history and every time I ordered an essay to get a good grade. I generally think that history is an unnecessary subject. why not spend the time that is devoted to studying history on mathematics? knowing about any events that are not related to my profession does not give me anything. so I will answer your question - I did not study history, because it does not interest me.

[LisaShafer]

I had a history course, but my knowledges are not good. My professor was not the best, and I wasn't interested at all

[paul cotter]

Here in Ireland grade inflation is on an exponential rise and will soon surpass that of the Weimar financial inflation(see-I know a bit of history too!)

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

Those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it

This probably applies to someone majoring in Arts at university, but not at high school...

Not sure what qualifications Putin may have, but he seems to have learned nothing from the history of Afghanistan. Successful generals include Eisenhower and Schwarzkopf, both keen historians.

I watched the General Patton film recently. Reading about him was an eye opener, he could probably have lectured in it.

[alancalverd]

Indeed. Or on anything. Nothing can match the opening line of his address to the troops:

"No goddam sunofabitch ever won a war by dying for his country. You win wars by making your enemy die for his country."

Now how can I work that into a physics seminar?

[JesWade21]

It all depends on which period of history you're interested in. Certain periods of history may be more useful than others. Knowledge of how America was founded, for example, provides a great deal of insight into what values people at the time held, their reasons for rebelling, and thus you'd have a good understanding of the context of the writing of the constitution, what the language in it means, and the motivations for each clause. I'm sure lawyers would benefit greatly from this knowledge.

[alancalverd]

As would the intended future victims of mass shootings.

[Petrochemicals (OP)]

It all depends on which period of history you're interested in. Certain periods of history may be more useful than others. Knowledge of how America was founded, for example, provides a great deal of insight into what values people at the time held, their reasons for rebelling, and thus you'd have a good understanding of the context of the writing of the constitution, what the language in it means, and the motivations for each clause. I'm sure lawyers would benefit greatly from this knowledge.

"Founded" equals ideas from Europe such as John Locke etc.. The "war of independence" was an upper class war over who got to control the profits from slaves.

[evan_au]

I was interested during COVID that people who were academic historians tended to focus on Politics: who was in power, who started the wars (and why), and who won the wars.

Many seemed abysmally ignorant about the other major components of the apocalypse - disease, famine and death
- Plagues like black death and smallpox killed something like 30% of the population (until we got a cure)
- Polio was a mild disease in most people (much like COVID), but killed a percent of infected children, and left another percent with lifelong disabilities. It was only controlled with universal vaccination (which seems to be declining now)
- The previous big pandemic was the 1917 flu, accompanied by quarantine, and mask-wearing
- The most comparable previous pandemic was probably the 1889 "Russian Flu", which was almost certainly the introduction of the OC43 coronavirus into the human population; it continued to have outbreaks for 6 years
- Epidemiology in its modern form has been around since John Snow, in the 1850s
- Quarantine has been around since (at least) the Torah