Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
Fucking hell...
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
All post 1992 non Russell Group universities, if they want to focus more on vocational courses which they can attract more feepaying students for that is up to them.
The best history courses ie at Oxbridge and the Russell Group in particular are generally still doing well.
At school level every pupil has to study history until at least 14 anyway whether they like it or not so they get a basic overview of our island's story and global history
It's not just post 92, or were you unaware that Aber has lost its history department too?
History numbers have dropped off a cliff at A-level and as a result at degree level. That's the issue, far more than third rate unis* claiming superiority and cramming undergraduates onto courses they can't staff adequately.
This is going to make it worse.
It's sad you can't see that, but not unexpected given your avowed tribalism.
*Your previous absolutely asinine post drawing a false distinction confirms the view of a friend of mine who taught there that Warwick's history department is at best third rate.
However if fewer students study history at A level, inevitably fewer will also study it at degree level, that is just the market. If less demand from A level students to study history courses there needs to be less supply of history degree courses.
Warwick University's history department was in the top 10 in the UK when I studied there. It also has included some world leading historians in its time like Scarisbrick and I myself was at one stage taught by Professor Bernard Capp, a leading English civil war historian.
Oxbridge and Russell Group universities will always have thriving history departments as their graduates go on to top careers in academia, the law, the civil service, politics, journalism etc. You also need top grade A Levels to get into them.
If students only expected to get average or below average A Levels decide to study more vocational A Levels and do vocational degrees or apprenticeships which they think will make it easier to go straight into a job post university that is up to them.
If you wish to have a rant about Warwick that is your prerogative, I found my undergraduate course well taught and stimulating
Well, it clearly wasn't well taught if you think 'history is not philosophy.'
Which is actually pretty common in the Russell Group, given their lecturers are paid to research and therefore frequently farm out the teaching to postgrads. Mind you, Oxford doesn't do that, in fairness, and yet somehow it still gave a first to that retard Cummings. And I would point out, many of those 'top careers' are discharged by people clearly utterly unequal to them. Simon Case springs to mind. Too many posts in those country go to those who know the right people, not to those with brains or integrity.
As for Aber, its history degree (such as it is) is now offered via Interpol. As you would have realised had you researched it properly.
Not that you ever admit you're wrong, of course. How's the Ullapool-Inverness ferry these days? I hope you have booked your cabin for next summer.
I sense it’s building up to something bigger now. Biden and Boris may be letting allies know they can’t just sit by and watch this massacre they are going to intervene.
I hope that will help improve everyone's mood as things go on. This has been a very tough winter.
I can’t wait for the Farndale Daffodils 🌼
I went in search of some native Daffs in a local woodland today and found a few in full flower although most weren't ready yet. A week or two should do it. Farndale might be later being a bit higher up.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
Fucking hell...
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
All post 1992 non Russell Group universities, if they want to focus more on vocational courses which they can attract more feepaying students for that is up to them.
The best history courses ie at Oxbridge and the Russell Group in particular are generally still doing well.
At school level every pupil has to study history until at least 14 anyway whether they like it or not so they get a basic overview of our island's story and global history
It's not just post 92, or were you unaware that Aber has lost its history department too?
History numbers have dropped off a cliff at A-level and as a result at degree level. That's the issue, far more than third rate unis* claiming superiority and cramming undergraduates onto courses they can't staff adequately.
This is going to make it worse.
It's sad you can't see that, but not unexpected given your avowed tribalism.
*Your previous absolutely asinine post drawing a false distinction confirms the view of a friend of mine who taught there that Warwick's history department is at best third rate.
However if fewer students study history at A level, inevitably fewer will also study it at degree level, that is just the market. If less demand from A level students to study history courses there needs to be less supply of history degree courses.
Warwick University's history department was in the top 10 in the UK when I studied there. It also has included some world leading historians in its time like Scarisbrick and I myself was at one stage taught by Professor Bernard Capp, a leading English civil war historian.
Oxbridge and Russell Group universities will always have thriving history departments as their graduates go on to top careers in academia, the law, the civil service, politics, journalism etc. You also need top grade A Levels to get into them.
If students only expected to get average or below average A Levels decide to study more vocational A Levels and do vocational degrees or apprenticeships which they think will make it easier to go straight into a job post university that is up to them.
If you wish to have a rant about Warwick that is your prerogative, I found my undergraduate course well taught and stimulating
Well, it clearly wasn't well taught if you think 'history is not philosophy.'
Which is actually pretty common in the Russell Group, given their lecturers are paid to research and therefore frequently farm out the teaching to postgrads. Mind you, Oxford doesn't do that, in fairness, and yet somehow it still gave a first to that retard Cummings. And I would point out, many of those 'top careers' are discharged by people clearly utterly unequal to them. Simon Case springs to mind. Too many posts in those country go to those who know the right people, not to those with brains or integrity.
As for Aber, its history degree (such as it is) is now offered via Interpol. As you would have realised had you researched it properly.
Not that you ever admit you're wrong, of course. How's the Ullapool-Inverness ferry these days? I hope you have booked your cabin for next summer.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebacc eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
But surely insisting on teaching Our Island Story while banning Marxism or all other 'politics' is itself the complete contrary of what you are claiming.
No, as teaching British heritage not Marxism is entirely appropriate for 14s and under.
A demonstration of this Conservative majority government doing what it was elected to do
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
Fucking hell...
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
All post 1992 non Russell Group universities, if they want to focus more on vocational courses which they can attract more feepaying students for that is up to them.
The best history courses ie at Oxbridge and the Russell Group in particular are generally still doing well.
At school level every pupil has to study history until at least 14 anyway whether they like it or not so they get a basic overview of our island's story and global history
It's not just post 92, or were you unaware that Aber has lost its history department too?
History numbers have dropped off a cliff at A-level and as a result at degree level. That's the issue, far more than third rate unis* claiming superiority and cramming undergraduates onto courses they can't staff adequately.
This is going to make it worse.
It's sad you can't see that, but not unexpected given your avowed tribalism.
*Your previous absolutely asinine post drawing a false distinction confirms the view of a friend of mine who taught there that Warwick's history department is at best third rate.
However if fewer students study history at A level, inevitably fewer will also study it at degree level, that is just the market. If less demand from A level students to study history courses there needs to be less supply of history degree courses.
Warwick University's history department was in the top 10 in the UK when I studied there. It also has included some world leading historians in its time like Scarisbrick and I myself was at one stage taught by Professor Bernard Capp, a leading English civil war historian.
Oxbridge and Russell Group universities will always have thriving history departments as their graduates go on to top careers in academia, the law, the civil service, politics, journalism etc. You also need top grade A Levels to get into them.
If students only expected to get average or below average A Levels decide to study more vocational A Levels and do vocational degrees or apprenticeships which they think will make it easier to go straight into a job post university that is up to them.
If you wish to have a rant about Warwick that is your prerogative, I found my undergraduate course well taught and stimulating
Well, it clearly wasn't well taught if you think 'history is not philosophy.'
Which is actually pretty common in the Russell Group, given their lecturers are paid to research and therefore frequently farm out the teaching to postgrads. Mind you, Oxford doesn't do that, in fairness, and yet somehow it still gave a first to that retard Cummings. And I would point out, many of those 'top careers' are discharged by people clearly utterly unequal to them. Simon Case springs to mind. Too many posts in those country go to those who know the right people, not to those with brains or integrity.
As for Aber, its history degree (such as it is) is now offered via Interpol. As you would have realised had you researched it properly.
Not that you ever admit you're wrong, of course. How's the Ullapool-Inverness ferry these days? I hope you have booked your cabin for next summer.
I sense it’s building up to something bigger now. Biden and Boris may be letting allies know they can’t just sit by and watch this massacre they are going to intervene.
Alternatively, the Israelis needed to see Putin for themselves to see just how far off the reservation he is.
All these politicians have egos. They all think they can negotiate. So they find it hard to take the word of others.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebacc eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
But surely insisting on teaching Our Island Story while banning Marxism or all other 'politics' is itself the complete contrary of what you are claiming.
No, as teaching British heritage not Marxism is entirely appropriate for 14s and under
Crass censorship - no better than any of the totalitarian states we claim to sneer at.
I hope that will help improve everyone's mood as things go on. This has been a very tough winter.
I can’t wait for the Farndale Daffodils 🌼
I went in search of some native Daffs in a local woodland today and found a few in full flower although most weren't ready yet. A week or two should do it. Farndale might be later being a bit higher up.
Depends on the weather, perhaps later March, mid April latest
But I’m in Chelsea now. Surrounded by ❤️ Abramovich chants 😟
Nb I don’t think that many Chelsea residents go to the games, a lot of Chelsea fans come across the river.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebacc eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
But surely insisting on teaching Our Island Story while banning Marxism or all other 'politics' is itself the complete contrary of what you are claiming.
No, as teaching British heritage not Marxism is entirely appropriate for 14s and under
Seeing as Marx wrote much of his work, including Das Kapital, in London, surely it is part of British heritage?
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
Fucking hell...
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
All post 1992 non Russell Group universities, if they want to focus more on vocational courses which they can attract more feepaying students for that is up to them.
The best history courses ie at Oxbridge and the Russell Group in particular are generally still doing well.
At school level every pupil has to study history until at least 14 anyway whether they like it or not so they get a basic overview of our island's story and global history
It's not just post 92, or were you unaware that Aber has lost its history department too?
History numbers have dropped off a cliff at A-level and as a result at degree level. That's the issue, far more than third rate unis* claiming superiority and cramming undergraduates onto courses they can't staff adequately.
This is going to make it worse.
It's sad you can't see that, but not unexpected given your avowed tribalism.
*Your previous absolutely asinine post drawing a false distinction confirms the view of a friend of mine who taught there that Warwick's history department is at best third rate.
However if fewer students study history at A level, inevitably fewer will also study it at degree level, that is just the market. If less demand from A level students to study history courses there needs to be less supply of history degree courses.
Warwick University's history department was in the top 10 in the UK when I studied there. It also has included some world leading historians in its time like Scarisbrick and I myself was at one stage taught by Professor Bernard Capp, a leading English civil war historian.
Oxbridge and Russell Group universities will always have thriving history departments as their graduates go on to top careers in academia, the law, the civil service, politics, journalism etc. You also need top grade A Levels to get into them.
If students only expected to get average or below average A Levels decide to study more vocational A Levels and do vocational degrees or apprenticeships which they think will make it easier to go straight into a job post university that is up to them.
If you wish to have a rant about Warwick that is your prerogative, I found my undergraduate course well taught and stimulating
Well, it clearly wasn't well taught if you think 'history is not philosophy.'
Which is actually pretty common in the Russell Group, given their lecturers are paid to research and therefore frequently farm out the teaching to postgrads. Mind you, Oxford doesn't do that, in fairness, and yet somehow it still gave a first to that retard Cummings. And I would point out, many of those 'top careers' are discharged by people clearly utterly unequal to them. Simon Case springs to mind. Too many posts in those country go to those who know the right people, not to those with brains or integrity.
As for Aber, its history degree (such as it is) is now offered via Interpol. As you would have realised had you researched it properly.
Not that you ever admit you're wrong, of course. How's the Ullapool-Inverness ferry these days? I hope you have booked your cabin for next summer.
Test
Shane Warne played 145 of them.
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but in only one of those were Australia forced to follow-on.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebacc eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
But surely insisting on teaching Our Island Story while banning Marxism or all other 'politics' is itself the complete contrary of what you are claiming.
No, as teaching British heritage not Marxism is entirely appropriate for 14s and under
Seeing as Marx wrote much of his work, including Das Kapital, in London, surely it is part of British heritage?
This is certainly showing elements of 'the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.'
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebacc eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
But surely insisting on teaching Our Island Story while banning Marxism or all other 'politics' is itself the complete contrary of what you are claiming.
No, as teaching British heritage not Marxism is entirely appropriate for 14s and under.
A demonstration of this Conservative majority government doing what it was elected to do
Why?
Unless of course you wish for people to not have a complete picture of the world for reasons....
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
Fucking hell...
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
All post 1992 non Russell Group universities, if they want to focus more on vocational courses which they can attract more feepaying students for that is up to them.
The best history courses ie at Oxbridge and the Russell Group in particular are generally still doing well.
At school level every pupil has to study history until at least 14 anyway whether they like it or not so they get a basic overview of our island's story and global history
It's not just post 92, or were you unaware that Aber has lost its history department too?
History numbers have dropped off a cliff at A-level and as a result at degree level. That's the issue, far more than third rate unis* claiming superiority and cramming undergraduates onto courses they can't staff adequately.
This is going to make it worse.
It's sad you can't see that, but not unexpected given your avowed tribalism.
*Your previous absolutely asinine post drawing a false distinction confirms the view of a friend of mine who taught there that Warwick's history department is at best third rate.
However if fewer students study history at A level, inevitably fewer will also study it at degree level, that is just the market. If less demand from A level students to study history courses there needs to be less supply of history degree courses.
Warwick University's history department was in the top 10 in the UK when I studied there. It also has included some world leading historians in its time like Scarisbrick and I myself was at one stage taught by Professor Bernard Capp, a leading English civil war historian.
Oxbridge and Russell Group universities will always have thriving history departments as their graduates go on to top careers in academia, the law, the civil service, politics, journalism etc. You also need top grade A Levels to get into them.
If students only expected to get average or below average A Levels decide to study more vocational A Levels and do vocational degrees or apprenticeships which they think will make it easier to go straight into a job post university that is up to them.
If you wish to have a rant about Warwick that is your prerogative, I found my undergraduate course well taught and stimulating
Well, it clearly wasn't well taught if you think 'history is not philosophy.'
Which is actually pretty common in the Russell Group, given their lecturers are paid to research and therefore frequently farm out the teaching to postgrads. Mind you, Oxford doesn't do that, in fairness, and yet somehow it still gave a first to that retard Cummings. And I would point out, many of those 'top careers' are discharged by people clearly utterly unequal to them. Simon Case springs to mind. Too many posts in those country go to those who know the right people, not to those with brains or integrity.
As for Aber, its history degree (such as it is) is now offered via Interpol. As you would have realised had you researched it properly.
Not that you ever admit you're wrong, of course. How's the Ullapool-Inverness ferry these days? I hope you have booked your cabin for next summer.
It isn't. Most Russell Group universities and certainly Oxbridge have separate philosophy departments.
History is and should be based on learning of facts and objective analysis of those facts to understand the past. Yes that certainly includes in depth research using archives etc.
So Aber still offers an accredited history degree, thanks for confirming.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
Fucking hell...
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
All post 1992 non Russell Group universities, if they want to focus more on vocational courses which they can attract more feepaying students for that is up to them.
The best history courses ie at Oxbridge and the Russell Group in particular are generally still doing well.
At school level every pupil has to study history until at least 14 anyway whether they like it or not so they get a basic overview of our island's story and global history
It's not just post 92, or were you unaware that Aber has lost its history department too?
History numbers have dropped off a cliff at A-level and as a result at degree level. That's the issue, far more than third rate unis* claiming superiority and cramming undergraduates onto courses they can't staff adequately.
This is going to make it worse.
It's sad you can't see that, but not unexpected given your avowed tribalism.
*Your previous absolutely asinine post drawing a false distinction confirms the view of a friend of mine who taught there that Warwick's history department is at best third rate.
However if fewer students study history at A level, inevitably fewer will also study it at degree level, that is just the market. If less demand from A level students to study history courses there needs to be less supply of history degree courses.
Warwick University's history department was in the top 10 in the UK when I studied there. It also has included some world leading historians in its time like Scarisbrick and I myself was at one stage taught by Professor Bernard Capp, a leading English civil war historian.
Oxbridge and Russell Group universities will always have thriving history departments as their graduates go on to top careers in academia, the law, the civil service, politics, journalism etc. You also need top grade A Levels to get into them.
If students only expected to get average or below average A Levels decide to study more vocational A Levels and do vocational degrees or apprenticeships which they think will make it easier to go straight into a job post university that is up to them.
If you wish to have a rant about Warwick that is your prerogative, I found my undergraduate course well taught and stimulating
Well, it clearly wasn't well taught if you think 'history is not philosophy.'
Which is actually pretty common in the Russell Group, given their lecturers are paid to research and therefore frequently farm out the teaching to postgrads. Mind you, Oxford doesn't do that, in fairness, and yet somehow it still gave a first to that retard Cummings. And I would point out, many of those 'top careers' are discharged by people clearly utterly unequal to them. Simon Case springs to mind. Too many posts in those country go to those who know the right people, not to those with brains or integrity.
As for Aber, its history degree (such as it is) is now offered via Interpol. As you would have realised had you researched it properly.
Not that you ever admit you're wrong, of course. How's the Ullapool-Inverness ferry these days? I hope you have booked your cabin for next summer.
Test
Shane Warne played 145 of them.
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but in only one of those were Australia forced to follow-on.
Trent Bridge 2005?
(It nearly went wrong too, thanks to Warne's 45 off 42 and 4-31.)
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebacc eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
But surely insisting on teaching Our Island Story while banning Marxism or all other 'politics' is itself the complete contrary of what you are claiming.
No, as teaching British heritage not Marxism is entirely appropriate for 14s and under
Seeing as Marx wrote much of his work, including Das Kapital, in London, surely it is part of British heritage?
And he liked to winter on the island and enjoyed walking the downs
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebacc eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
But surely insisting on teaching Our Island Story while banning Marxism or all other 'politics' is itself the complete contrary of what you are claiming.
No, as teaching British heritage not Marxism is entirely appropriate for 14s and under.
A demonstration of this Conservative majority government doing what it was elected to do
Why?
Unless of course you wish for people to not have a complete picture of the world for reasons....
History up to 14 should give a full study of centuries of history from stone age times to the 20th century. It is does not need to include an extensive study of a far left philosophy which has been very damaging when it was tried, it should be focused on hard facts about our nation's past and some global history.
That is the type of thing this Tory government got a majority for in 2019
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
That's part of the fun of reading history. You can spend years studying something, and then come across something that makes you realise how little you actually know, and which transforms your outlook.
I can say with some confidence that I know more about the Roman Empire than 98% of the population - meaning that I know very little in reality.
A fair few incidents were hushed up during the war, and under-reported afterwards, for various reasons. How many know, for example, about the hundreds of Americans who died on Slapton Sands in Devon?
I did - I met Ken Small once, the man who retrieved the tank from the seabed, at the memorial. He was quite an interesting chap, and his book went into his depression, and how beachcombing helped.
I sense it’s building up to something bigger now. Biden and Boris may be letting allies know they can’t just sit by and watch this massacre they are going to intervene.
I don't think so. This is governments warning their citizens to leave Russia before martial law is imposed.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
Fucking hell...
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
All post 1992 non Russell Group universities, if they want to focus more on vocational courses which they can attract more feepaying students for that is up to them.
The best history courses ie at Oxbridge and the Russell Group in particular are generally still doing well.
At school level every pupil has to study history until at least 14 anyway whether they like it or not so they get a basic overview of our island's story and global history
It's not just post 92, or were you unaware that Aber has lost its history department too?
History numbers have dropped off a cliff at A-level and as a result at degree level. That's the issue, far more than third rate unis* claiming superiority and cramming undergraduates onto courses they can't staff adequately.
This is going to make it worse.
It's sad you can't see that, but not unexpected given your avowed tribalism.
*Your previous absolutely asinine post drawing a false distinction confirms the view of a friend of mine who taught there that Warwick's history department is at best third rate.
However if fewer students study history at A level, inevitably fewer will also study it at degree level, that is just the market. If less demand from A level students to study history courses there needs to be less supply of history degree courses.
Warwick University's history department was in the top 10 in the UK when I studied there. It also has included some world leading historians in its time like Scarisbrick and I myself was at one stage taught by Professor Bernard Capp, a leading English civil war historian.
Oxbridge and Russell Group universities will always have thriving history departments as their graduates go on to top careers in academia, the law, the civil service, politics, journalism etc. You also need top grade A Levels to get into them.
If students only expected to get average or below average A Levels decide to study more vocational A Levels and do vocational degrees or apprenticeships which they think will make it easier to go straight into a job post university that is up to them.
If you wish to have a rant about Warwick that is your prerogative, I found my undergraduate course well taught and stimulating
Well, it clearly wasn't well taught if you think 'history is not philosophy.'
Which is actually pretty common in the Russell Group, given their lecturers are paid to research and therefore frequently farm out the teaching to postgrads. Mind you, Oxford doesn't do that, in fairness, and yet somehow it still gave a first to that retard Cummings. And I would point out, many of those 'top careers' are discharged by people clearly utterly unequal to them. Simon Case springs to mind. Too many posts in those country go to those who know the right people, not to those with brains or integrity.
As for Aber, its history degree (such as it is) is now offered via Interpol. As you would have realised had you researched it properly.
Not that you ever admit you're wrong, of course. How's the Ullapool-Inverness ferry these days? I hope you have booked your cabin for next summer.
Test
Shane Warne played 145 of them.
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but in only one of those were Australia forced to follow-on.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
Fucking hell...
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
All post 1992 non Russell Group universities, if they want to focus more on vocational courses which they can attract more feepaying students for that is up to them.
The best history courses ie at Oxbridge and the Russell Group in particular are generally still doing well.
At school level every pupil has to study history until at least 14 anyway whether they like it or not so they get a basic overview of our island's story and global history
It's not just post 92, or were you unaware that Aber has lost its history department too?
History numbers have dropped off a cliff at A-level and as a result at degree level. That's the issue, far more than third rate unis* claiming superiority and cramming undergraduates onto courses they can't staff adequately.
This is going to make it worse.
It's sad you can't see that, but not unexpected given your avowed tribalism.
*Your previous absolutely asinine post drawing a false distinction confirms the view of a friend of mine who taught there that Warwick's history department is at best third rate.
However if fewer students study history at A level, inevitably fewer will also study it at degree level, that is just the market. If less demand from A level students to study history courses there needs to be less supply of history degree courses.
Warwick University's history department was in the top 10 in the UK when I studied there. It also has included some world leading historians in its time like Scarisbrick and I myself was at one stage taught by Professor Bernard Capp, a leading English civil war historian.
Oxbridge and Russell Group universities will always have thriving history departments as their graduates go on to top careers in academia, the law, the civil service, politics, journalism etc. You also need top grade A Levels to get into them.
If students only expected to get average or below average A Levels decide to study more vocational A Levels and do vocational degrees or apprenticeships which they think will make it easier to go straight into a job post university that is up to them.
If you wish to have a rant about Warwick that is your prerogative, I found my undergraduate course well taught and stimulating
Well, it clearly wasn't well taught if you think 'history is not philosophy.'
Which is actually pretty common in the Russell Group, given their lecturers are paid to research and therefore frequently farm out the teaching to postgrads. Mind you, Oxford doesn't do that, in fairness, and yet somehow it still gave a first to that retard Cummings. And I would point out, many of those 'top careers' are discharged by people clearly utterly unequal to them. Simon Case springs to mind. Too many posts in those country go to those who know the right people, not to those with brains or integrity.
As for Aber, its history degree (such as it is) is now offered via Interpol. As you would have realised had you researched it properly.
Not that you ever admit you're wrong, of course. How's the Ullapool-Inverness ferry these days? I hope you have booked your cabin for next summer.
It isn't. Most Russell Group universities and certainly Oxbridge have separate philosophy departments.
History is and should be based on learning of facts and objective analysis of those facts to understand the past. Yes that certainly includes in depth research using archives etc.
So Aber still offers an accredited history degree, thanks for confirming.
I said 'department.' Or are you illiterate?
'History is and should be based on learning of facts and objective analysis of those facts to understand the past. Yes that certainly includes in depth research using archives etc.'
That is a lie. And as you have a history degree, even from a uni that isn't so hot (the 'top 10' is for research, not teaching) you know it is a lie. It is about the analysis of the past by different people and why they have come to that analysis. Because very few historians falsify facts (the likes of Fischer being an exception) the real question is why views on the same facts can be so divergent.
What is happening is an attempt by a nasty bigoted government that admits freely to being a bunch of criminals to force everyone to conform with their warped ideology. This is partly because they're ignorant, partly because they're stupid, and most of all because they're cowardly and believe their intellectual position to be unsustainable and therefore stifle criticism of it.
It is sad you will never find the courage to condemn them for it. But it is even sadder that it is no longer surprising.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
Fucking hell...
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
All post 1992 non Russell Group universities, if they want to focus more on vocational courses which they can attract more feepaying students for that is up to them.
The best history courses ie at Oxbridge and the Russell Group in particular are generally still doing well.
At school level every pupil has to study history until at least 14 anyway whether they like it or not so they get a basic overview of our island's story and global history
It's not just post 92, or were you unaware that Aber has lost its history department too?
History numbers have dropped off a cliff at A-level and as a result at degree level. That's the issue, far more than third rate unis* claiming superiority and cramming undergraduates onto courses they can't staff adequately.
This is going to make it worse.
It's sad you can't see that, but not unexpected given your avowed tribalism.
*Your previous absolutely asinine post drawing a false distinction confirms the view of a friend of mine who taught there that Warwick's history department is at best third rate.
However if fewer students study history at A level, inevitably fewer will also study it at degree level, that is just the market. If less demand from A level students to study history courses there needs to be less supply of history degree courses.
Warwick University's history department was in the top 10 in the UK when I studied there. It also has included some world leading historians in its time like Scarisbrick and I myself was at one stage taught by Professor Bernard Capp, a leading English civil war historian.
Oxbridge and Russell Group universities will always have thriving history departments as their graduates go on to top careers in academia, the law, the civil service, politics, journalism etc. You also need top grade A Levels to get into them.
If students only expected to get average or below average A Levels decide to study more vocational A Levels and do vocational degrees or apprenticeships which they think will make it easier to go straight into a job post university that is up to them.
If you wish to have a rant about Warwick that is your prerogative, I found my undergraduate course well taught and stimulating
Well, it clearly wasn't well taught if you think 'history is not philosophy.'
Which is actually pretty common in the Russell Group, given their lecturers are paid to research and therefore frequently farm out the teaching to postgrads. Mind you, Oxford doesn't do that, in fairness, and yet somehow it still gave a first to that retard Cummings. And I would point out, many of those 'top careers' are discharged by people clearly utterly unequal to them. Simon Case springs to mind. Too many posts in those country go to those who know the right people, not to those with brains or integrity.
As for Aber, its history degree (such as it is) is now offered via Interpol. As you would have realised had you researched it properly.
Not that you ever admit you're wrong, of course. How's the Ullapool-Inverness ferry these days? I hope you have booked your cabin for next summer.
Test
Shane Warne played 145 of them.
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but in only one of those were Australia forced to follow-on.
To my sadness, I don't really 'know' any Ukrainians. (I've met some, but haven't really got to know any).
Are they all this good at trolling people?
My daughter in law and family in Vancouver are Ukrainian
There is a fascinating and rather bizarre pacifist Russo-Ukranian sect in that part of Canada, who I have long wanted to meet. They seem to be fairly communal and anarchist, rejecting priests and liturgy, and most formal education. They left Tsarist Russia to live in Canada because of conscription, but ran into a fair bit of persecution in Canada too. They do seem an awkward bunch, with an interesting tendency to nude protests.
On a complete side note....is it only me puzzled by this conscription that all dictators seem to pull putting wet behind the ears 18 year olds into combat who are likely to run at the first chance?
If I were an autocratic dictator and wanted to bolster my army I would intern all kids 18 and younger in state camps and invite their parents to volunteer. Their battalion failing in its objectives means the kids get tortured to death to give them an incentive. The plus side being is you treat the kids well meanwhile and if parents die you can feed them a lie about them valiantly defending the homeland and raise a crop of kids indoctrinated against your enemies due to their parents slaughter.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
Fucking hell...
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
All post 1992 non Russell Group universities, if they want to focus more on vocational courses which they can attract more feepaying students for that is up to them.
The best history courses ie at Oxbridge and the Russell Group in particular are generally still doing well.
At school level every pupil has to study history until at least 14 anyway whether they like it or not so they get a basic overview of our island's story and global history
It's not just post 92, or were you unaware that Aber has lost its history department too?
History numbers have dropped off a cliff at A-level and as a result at degree level. That's the issue, far more than third rate unis* claiming superiority and cramming undergraduates onto courses they can't staff adequately.
This is going to make it worse.
It's sad you can't see that, but not unexpected given your avowed tribalism.
*Your previous absolutely asinine post drawing a false distinction confirms the view of a friend of mine who taught there that Warwick's history department is at best third rate.
However if fewer students study history at A level, inevitably fewer will also study it at degree level, that is just the market. If less demand from A level students to study history courses there needs to be less supply of history degree courses.
Warwick University's history department was in the top 10 in the UK when I studied there. It also has included some world leading historians in its time like Scarisbrick and I myself was at one stage taught by Professor Bernard Capp, a leading English civil war historian.
Oxbridge and Russell Group universities will always have thriving history departments as their graduates go on to top careers in academia, the law, the civil service, politics, journalism etc. You also need top grade A Levels to get into them.
If students only expected to get average or below average A Levels decide to study more vocational A Levels and do vocational degrees or apprenticeships which they think will make it easier to go straight into a job post university that is up to them.
If you wish to have a rant about Warwick that is your prerogative, I found my undergraduate course well taught and stimulating
Well, it clearly wasn't well taught if you think 'history is not philosophy.'
Which is actually pretty common in the Russell Group, given their lecturers are paid to research and therefore frequently farm out the teaching to postgrads. Mind you, Oxford doesn't do that, in fairness, and yet somehow it still gave a first to that retard Cummings. And I would point out, many of those 'top careers' are discharged by people clearly utterly unequal to them. Simon Case springs to mind. Too many posts in those country go to those who know the right people, not to those with brains or integrity.
As for Aber, its history degree (such as it is) is now offered via Interpol. As you would have realised had you researched it properly.
Not that you ever admit you're wrong, of course. How's the Ullapool-Inverness ferry these days? I hope you have booked your cabin for next summer.
It isn't. Most Russell Group universities and certainly Oxbridge have separate philosophy departments.
History is and should be based on learning of facts and objective analysis of those facts to understand the past. Yes that certainly includes in depth research using archives etc.
So Aber still offers an accredited history degree, thanks for confirming.
I said 'department.' Or are you illiterate?
'History is and should be based on learning of facts and objective analysis of those facts to understand the past. Yes that certainly includes in depth research using archives etc.'
That is a lie. And as you have a history degree, even from a uni that isn't so hot (the 'top 10' is for research, not teaching) you know it is a lie. It is about the analysis of the past by different people and why they have come to that analysis. Because very few historians falsify facts (the likes of Fischer being an exception) the real question is why views on the same facts can be so divergent.
What is happening is an attempt by a nasty bigoted government that admits freely to being a bunch of criminals to force everyone to conform with their warped ideology. This is partly because they're ignorant, partly because they're stupid, and most of all because they're cowardly and believe their intellectual position to be unsustainable and therefore stifle criticism of it.
It is sad you will never find the courage to condemn them for it. But it is even sadder that it is no longer surprising.
It may be a lie from your leftwing perspective ie that there are no facts, only differing subjective interpretations.
Exactly the kind of Marxist history which infected many of our history departments from the 1960s. If we are now returning to fewer history departments but departments focused more on research of empirical facts, that is not necessarily a bad thing in my view.
I am a conservative and proudly so, if this government is pursuing conservative policies as it was elected to do in 2019 all to the good in my view.
You will have to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019 before you get any change, that is democracy
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebacc eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
But surely insisting on teaching Our Island Story while banning Marxism or all other 'politics' is itself the complete contrary of what you are claiming.
No, as teaching British heritage not Marxism is entirely appropriate for 14s and under.
A demonstration of this Conservative majority government doing what it was elected to do
Why?
Unless of course you wish for people to not have a complete picture of the world for reasons....
History up to 14 should give a full study of centuries of history from stone age times to the 20th century. It is does not need to include an extensive study of a far left philosophy which has been very damaging when it was tried, it should be focused on hard facts about our nation's past and some global history.
That is the type of thing this Tory government got a majority for in 2019
It is astonishing how little people know about the chronology of how the world came to be. I did a degree in history at a Russell Group uni, got a first, but somehow got through the whole thing without knowing much at all about the pre 20th Century world. I had to teach this to myself over the past 5 or so years, after becoming interested how civilisation came to be and pondering on its fate.
I have taught my 5 year old son a lot already, and we actually learn together. We went around the local town museum and he was guessing which era the artifacts on display belonged to. I fear that, were I not to teach him myself, he would never get this knowledge.
I wouldn't try and get involved in the debate going on about how to teach history, and have no doubt that whatever politicians have come up with is flawed and needs to be challenged. But I am also sympathetic to the idea that these subjects get hijacked by political agendas; and particularly with history there should be a minimal level of chronology and facts that children should leave school with.
I sense it’s building up to something bigger now. Biden and Boris may be letting allies know they can’t just sit by and watch this massacre they are going to intervene.
I don't think so. This is governments warning their citizens to leave Russia before martial law is imposed.
Yes. It must be agony for dual nationality families living in Russia, of which there are many. Can't leave as a family because of visa rules (courtesy of the home office), plus Russians may have difficulties exiting the country anyway. My heart breaks when I think about it.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebac eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
Should that include a ban on teaching about Marxism?
You can teach about the Russian revolution and the Cold War but history is not philosophy.
Fucking hell...
Incidentally the 'history is dying' bit is linked to this;
All post 1992 non Russell Group universities, if they want to focus more on vocational courses which they can attract more feepaying students for that is up to them.
The best history courses ie at Oxbridge and the Russell Group in particular are generally still doing well.
At school level every pupil has to study history until at least 14 anyway whether they like it or not so they get a basic overview of our island's story and global history
It's not just post 92, or were you unaware that Aber has lost its history department too?
History numbers have dropped off a cliff at A-level and as a result at degree level. That's the issue, far more than third rate unis* claiming superiority and cramming undergraduates onto courses they can't staff adequately.
This is going to make it worse.
It's sad you can't see that, but not unexpected given your avowed tribalism.
*Your previous absolutely asinine post drawing a false distinction confirms the view of a friend of mine who taught there that Warwick's history department is at best third rate.
However if fewer students study history at A level, inevitably fewer will also study it at degree level, that is just the market. If less demand from A level students to study history courses there needs to be less supply of history degree courses.
Warwick University's history department was in the top 10 in the UK when I studied there. It also has included some world leading historians in its time like Scarisbrick and I myself was at one stage taught by Professor Bernard Capp, a leading English civil war historian.
Oxbridge and Russell Group universities will always have thriving history departments as their graduates go on to top careers in academia, the law, the civil service, politics, journalism etc. You also need top grade A Levels to get into them.
If students only expected to get average or below average A Levels decide to study more vocational A Levels and do vocational degrees or apprenticeships which they think will make it easier to go straight into a job post university that is up to them.
If you wish to have a rant about Warwick that is your prerogative, I found my undergraduate course well taught and stimulating
Well, it clearly wasn't well taught if you think 'history is not philosophy.'
Which is actually pretty common in the Russell Group, given their lecturers are paid to research and therefore frequently farm out the teaching to postgrads. Mind you, Oxford doesn't do that, in fairness, and yet somehow it still gave a first to that retard Cummings. And I would point out, many of those 'top careers' are discharged by people clearly utterly unequal to them. Simon Case springs to mind. Too many posts in those country go to those who know the right people, not to those with brains or integrity.
As for Aber, its history degree (such as it is) is now offered via Interpol. As you would have realised had you researched it properly.
Not that you ever admit you're wrong, of course. How's the Ullapool-Inverness ferry these days? I hope you have booked your cabin for next summer.
It isn't. Most Russell Group universities and certainly Oxbridge have separate philosophy departments.
History is and should be based on learning of facts and objective analysis of those facts to understand the past. Yes that certainly includes in depth research using archives etc.
So Aber still offers an accredited history degree, thanks for confirming.
I said 'department.' Or are you illiterate?
'History is and should be based on learning of facts and objective analysis of those facts to understand the past. Yes that certainly includes in depth research using archives etc.'
That is a lie. And as you have a history degree, even from a uni that isn't so hot (the 'top 10' is for research, not teaching) you know it is a lie. It is about the analysis of the past by different people and why they have come to that analysis. Because very few historians falsify facts (the likes of Fischer being an exception) the real question is why views on the same facts can be so divergent.
What is happening is an attempt by a nasty bigoted government that admits freely to being a bunch of criminals to force everyone to conform with their warped ideology. This is partly because they're ignorant, partly because they're stupid, and most of all because they're cowardly and believe their intellectual position to be unsustainable and therefore stifle criticism of it.
It is sad you will never find the courage to condemn them for it. But it is even sadder that it is no longer surprising.
It may be a lie from your leftwing perspective ie that there are no facts, only differing subjective interpretations.
Exactly the kind of Marxist history which infected many of our history departments from the 1960s. If we are now returning to fewer history departments but departments focused more on research of empirical facts, that is not necessarily a bad thing in my view.
I am a conservative and proudly so, if this government is pursuing conservative policies as it was elected to do in 2019 all to the good in my view.
You will have to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019 before you get any change, that is democracy
Whether you're a conservative is secondary is secondary to your being an ignorant fool.
What I have told you is the truth. Based on years of teaching in unis and schools, publishing, and being intelligent. I am an expert. And a good one.
If you can prove that you are any of those, I'll listen to your views. But you can't, because you're not. You're a typically arrogant public school bully with a condescending manner. And that means your views while you may hold them passionately are both wrong and worthless.
And I would remind you I voted for Hague, Cameron, and May. That hardly makes me 'left wing.' I just don't vote for lying criminals, as you are happy to.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebacc eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
But surely insisting on teaching Our Island Story while banning Marxism or all other 'politics' is itself the complete contrary of what you are claiming.
No, as teaching British heritage not Marxism is entirely appropriate for 14s and under
Seeing as Marx wrote much of his work, including Das Kapital, in London, surely it is part of British heritage?
And he liked to winter on the island and enjoyed walking the downs
He also had a rather grudging respect for 'English gradualism' as a possible alternative to revolution.
https://twitter.com/Charles_Lister/status/1500159184389787659 "In the last 24hrs, #Ukraine has *definitely* downed x10 #Russia aircraft: - 1 Su-30SM jet - 2 Su-34 jets - 2 Su-25 jets - 2 Mi-24/35 attack helicopters - 2 Mi-8 transport helicopter - 1 Orlan-10 drone Per @oryxspioenkop, who’s the best there is on visually confirmed data."
I'm starting to understand why RuAF were so hesitant to join in.
I wonder if the call for a no fly zone was staged.
It isn't as if Zelenskyy hasn't been talking to NATO throughout. The response was already known.
He pretends to be desperate, and meanwhile we've been shipping in some proper anti-aircraft kit which will effectively turn the place into a no fly zone for Russians without any Eurofighters required.
You have to remember that Zelenskyy also has a domestic audience - Ukrainians currently being hit by bombs from Russian planes.
On the one hand he wants to reassure Ukrainians that they are not alone - they have the support of the West who are providing them with weapons. But on the other hand he wants to make it clear to Ukrainians that he is asking the West to do more.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebacc eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
But surely insisting on teaching Our Island Story while banning Marxism or all other 'politics' is itself the complete contrary of what you are claiming.
No, as teaching British heritage not Marxism is entirely appropriate for 14s and under
Seeing as Marx wrote much of his work, including Das Kapital, in London, surely it is part of British heritage?
And he liked to winter on the island and enjoyed walking the downs
I didn't know that! Any good Marxist sights on the Island?
Engels was the son of a Manchester industrialist too, so very British. Then of course there are plenty of influential British radicals, from the Lollards, the Levellers, the Diggers, the Chartists, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Peterloo massacre, the Luddites, the Swing rioters, Tom Paine, William Cobbett, Robert Owen and so on, even before we get to the Twentieth Century. British history is far more than memorising lists of Royalty, and how can you discuss these movements without understanding what motivated them?
I sense it’s building up to something bigger now. Biden and Boris may be letting allies know they can’t just sit by and watch this massacre they are going to intervene.
Alternatively, the Israelis needed to see Putin for themselves to see just how far off the reservation he is.
All these politicians have egos. They all think they can negotiate. So they find it hard to take the word of others.
“Did you see him? What have you to report.” ‘He thinks he’s Batman today. He was hanging from the ceiling using suction boots. We were sat at empty table for twenty minutes before we realised he was there. So we thought, best be safe, take everyone of our nationals out the country.”
Whatever your quibbles about the UK, the EU, even the US, it's deeply moving that the people of Ukraine would fight so hard to replicate our systems of government and join our alliances.
I can't remember a time when the West has felt so self-confident. I was a child when Iraq commenced, so I'm not familiar with this feeling of unity and dispelling of cynicism. London 2012 is the only thing that comes close.
If we do go out in a blaze of nuclear armageddon, at least we will know we were the good ones.
Not covered at my school (women won WW2 was the main message) and I don’t recall coming across it since.
Covering World War Two in anything but the most superficial way would be far beyond the average school curriculum. You could spend 50 years studying it in depth and still only have learned about half of it in detail with a general knowledge of the rest.
I know, and I’m being a bit harsh, but a few years later a friend who studied history at uni ranted to me for about five minutes about how appalling our history lessons at school were.
Well, a lot of them are. But when you get to postgrad level, you'll find quite a lot of stuff at undergrad was rubbish as well.
It is very difficult to teach history well, partly because it's such a vast subject and partly because as a discipline it demands the mastery of a large quantity of complex material and willingness to consider a wide variety of viewpoints in their philosophical and frequently linguistic context. It can't really be done in (usually less than) an hour a week frequently by non-specialists.
What you have to do instead is make compromises on both content and approach. Your teachers clearly went for a feminist interpretation based on the industrial economy of wartime Britain. As did the first school I taught in, which was an all girls grammar. At the school where I was Head of History, I devised a curriculum largely around the war in the Far East because 40% of our students were from that area but for political reasons knew fuck all about it. At my current school, the interest of the Head of History is particularly in racial matters so I've just finished redoing the unit on the Holocaust - doubly important because Holocaust denial is unfortunately a bit of a problem among too many parents.
Now, if I had five hours a week and every member of staff with an MA or a doctorate, I could cover the lot, in detail, with units on the historiography to boot. But I haven't, and I will never get them.
And finally, even if I could, I wouldn't, because that would screw the students in our shockingly badly written GCSE and A-level system where you are not allowed to teach about historiography or anything at vaguely degree level standard. We've only just got an exemption from Zahawi's utterly ridiculous ban on teaching Marxism for the Politics unit on Socialism.
So everything makes it really, really hard and frankly currently unpleasant to teach history, in schools. There is a reason it is a dying subject.
That's separate from the Covid bullshit by those lying drunks at the DfE and House of Commons who have increased my workload 40% without more pay while awarding themselves fecking massive pay rises for 'the extra work they do' (which would frankly even if it had been done have been better left undone) which is simultaneously driving me out of the profession and to far more strong drink than is healthy. But it is bloody annoying.
History is compulsory until 14 and one of the Ebacc eligible subjects so hardly dying.
There is also nothing wrong with a Conservative Government elected with a majority insisting that teachers teach in an objective and factual manner ie cover all sides of the argument not just a left or liberal one
But surely insisting on teaching Our Island Story while banning Marxism or all other 'politics' is itself the complete contrary of what you are claiming.
No, as teaching British heritage not Marxism is entirely appropriate for 14s and under
Seeing as Marx wrote much of his work, including Das Kapital, in London, surely it is part of British heritage?
And he liked to winter on the island and enjoyed walking the downs
I didn't know that! Any good Marxist sights on the Island?
Engels was the son of a Manchester industrialist too, so very British. Then of course there are plenty of influential British radicals, from the Lollards, the Levellers, the Diggers, the Chartists, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Peterloo massacre, the Luddites, the Swing rioters, Tom Paine, William Cobbett, Robert Owen and so on, even before we get to the Twentieth Century. British history is far more than memorising lists of Royalty, and how can you discuss these movements without understanding what motivated them?
Engels wasn't. He and his parents were German (didn't yet exist as a state of course), his father was an industrialist and Engels came over to England to run the Manchester branch of the family firm. He and Marx were products of German radicalism and German philosophy. They cut their political teeth as agitators and journalists in the 1848 revolutions. Interestingly e was a member of the Cheshire Hunt and led a classic haute bourgeoise life style including having a mistress.
Well calling on my history teaching at school I wonder whether one analogy we should be thinking about for Russia is 1917?
You might be right but it also has strong similarities to the abortive revolutionary upheaval of 1905 following Russia's humiliating defeat in the war with Japan. My own guess is that a group in the elite will stage a coup. Hopefully they will then take the path of reform and opening up rather than psychopathic nationalism.
The point has been made before, but it is perhaps worth repeating. The trouble here is that everyone is getting their news on this conflict from one side. I may be wrong, but I think it is a big error to start believing that Ukraine are pushing back Russia. They are perhaps delaying the advance, but in response the Russians are resorting to more destructive forms of attack, and are unconcerned about incurring significant losses in doing so. The real fight will take place after Russia have 'won', and attempt to implement its goal of a subservient regime in Ukraine. It is likely to be a terrible war that involves a lot of death, and lasting for years. Better to be prepared for that, than hold on to the hope that the victory will happen next week, however seductive that idea is.
While I'm sure there's an element of that, it's also fairly definitely the case that Russia has captured perhaps two of Ukraine's dozen largest cities, and outside the South of Ukraine, progress has been extremely slow.
Russia has the resources to keep grinding, particularly in the East of the country. But it is by no means clear that they have the resources to garrison Kyiv and the Eastern cities, and to continue their thrust deep into the West of the country towards Lviv.
Furthermore, Russia probably has some fairly serious resupply issues. There are the obvious ones like fuel, ammunition and food. But there is also the question of how easily losses of planes and helicopters can be replaced.
There is an absolutely enormous advantage to being the defender. You don't need petrol. You don't need tanks or trucks. You don't need to patrol streets. All you need is a hiding place, some tinned food, and some crude weapons. And right now the Ukrainian defender have a lot more than crude weapons.
Britain has frozen more Russian bank assets than any other country as part of international wave of sanctions against Putin’s Kremlin — £258.8 billion of bank assets, versus £240 billion by the US and £33.8 billion by the EU. Still needs to hit many more oligarchs.
Although the slight rejoinder to that is that we were keener to accept oligarch money. (If I'd been an oligarch, it wouldn't have been the risk of sanctions that would kept me from Deutsche Bank!)
Comments
Which is actually pretty common in the Russell Group, given their lecturers are paid to research and therefore frequently farm out the teaching to postgrads. Mind you, Oxford doesn't do that, in fairness, and yet somehow it still gave a first to that retard Cummings. And I would point out, many of those 'top careers' are discharged by people clearly utterly unequal to them. Simon Case springs to mind. Too many posts in those country go to those who know the right people, not to those with brains or integrity.
As for Aber, its history degree (such as it is) is now offered via Interpol. As you would have realised had you researched it properly.
Not that you ever admit you're wrong, of course. How's the Ullapool-Inverness ferry these days? I hope you have booked your cabin for next summer.
A demonstration of this Conservative majority government doing what it was elected to do
All these politicians have egos. They all think they can negotiate. So they find it hard to take the word of others.
Smacks of Section 28 all over again.
But I’m in Chelsea now. Surrounded by ❤️ Abramovich chants 😟
Nb I don’t think that many Chelsea residents go to the games, a lot of Chelsea fans come across the river.
Unless of course you wish for people to not have a complete picture of the world for reasons....
History is and should be based on learning of facts and objective analysis of those facts to understand the past. Yes that certainly includes in depth research using archives etc.
So Aber still offers an accredited history degree, thanks for confirming.
(It nearly went wrong too, thanks to Warne's 45 off 42 and 4-31.)
(I'm hoping that glow on the horizon signals the dying sun, not the dying civilisation.
That is the type of thing this Tory government got a majority for in 2019
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barking_Creek
Trent Bridge, 2005.
'History is and should be based on learning of facts and objective analysis of those facts to understand the past. Yes that certainly includes in depth research using archives etc.'
That is a lie. And as you have a history degree, even from a uni that isn't so hot (the 'top 10' is for research, not teaching) you know it is a lie. It is about the analysis of the past by different people and why they have come to that analysis. Because very few historians falsify facts (the likes of Fischer being an exception) the real question is why views on the same facts can be so divergent.
What is happening is an attempt by a nasty bigoted government that admits freely to being a bunch of criminals to force everyone to conform with their warped ideology. This is partly because they're ignorant, partly because they're stupid, and most of all because they're cowardly and believe their intellectual position to be unsustainable and therefore stifle criticism of it.
It is sad you will never find the courage to condemn them for it. But it is even sadder that it is no longer surprising.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doukhobors
If I were an autocratic dictator and wanted to bolster my army I would intern all kids 18 and younger in state camps and invite their parents to volunteer. Their battalion failing in its objectives means the kids get tortured to death to give them an incentive. The plus side being is you treat the kids well meanwhile and if parents die you can feed them a lie about them valiantly defending the homeland and raise a crop of kids indoctrinated against your enemies due to their parents slaughter.
https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/history/
It may be a lie from your leftwing perspective ie that there are no facts, only differing subjective interpretations.
Exactly the kind of Marxist history which infected many of our history departments from the 1960s. If we are now returning to fewer history departments but departments focused more on research of empirical facts, that is not necessarily a bad thing in my view.
I am a conservative and proudly so, if this government is pursuing conservative policies as it was elected to do in 2019 all to the good in my view.
You will have to elect a Labour led government as you failed to do in 2019 before you get any change, that is democracy
I have taught my 5 year old son a lot already, and we actually learn together. We went around the local town museum and he was guessing which era the artifacts on display belonged to. I fear that, were I not to teach him myself, he would never get this knowledge.
I wouldn't try and get involved in the debate going on about how to teach history, and have no doubt that whatever politicians have come up with is flawed and needs to be challenged. But I am also sympathetic to the idea that these subjects get hijacked by political agendas; and particularly with history there should be a minimal level of chronology and facts that children should leave school with.
What I have told you is the truth. Based on years of teaching in unis and schools, publishing, and being intelligent. I am an expert. And a good one.
If you can prove that you are any of those, I'll listen to your views. But you can't, because you're not. You're a typically arrogant public school bully with a condescending manner. And that means your views while you may hold them passionately are both wrong and worthless.
And I would remind you I voted for Hague, Cameron, and May. That hardly makes me 'left wing.' I just don't vote for lying criminals, as you are happy to.
Perhaps he knew a few LibDems.
On the one hand he wants to reassure Ukrainians that they are not alone - they have the support of the West who are providing them with weapons. But on the other hand he wants to make it clear to Ukrainians that he is asking the West to do more.
Engels was the son of a Manchester industrialist too, so very British. Then of course there are plenty of influential British radicals, from the Lollards, the Levellers, the Diggers, the Chartists, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the Peterloo massacre, the Luddites, the Swing rioters, Tom Paine, William Cobbett, Robert Owen and so on, even before we get to the Twentieth Century. British history is far more than memorising lists of Royalty, and how can you discuss these movements without understanding what motivated them?
‘He thinks he’s Batman today. He was hanging from the ceiling using suction boots. We were sat at empty table for twenty minutes before we realised he was there. So we thought, best be safe, take everyone of our nationals out the country.”
I can't remember a time when the West has felt so self-confident. I was a child when Iraq commenced, so I'm not familiar with this feeling of unity and dispelling of cynicism. London 2012 is the only thing that comes close.
If we do go out in a blaze of nuclear armageddon, at least we will know we were the good ones.
"In an apparent attempt to help fix their broken logistics, the Russians are pushing up all manner of civilian vehicles to the front in Ukraine.🇺🇦
This is footage of a transport train around Rostov-on-Don.👇"
Lordy, for the conscripts' sake I hope this is misinformation.
Russia has the resources to keep grinding, particularly in the East of the country. But it is by no means clear that they have the resources to garrison Kyiv and the Eastern cities, and to continue their thrust deep into the West of the country towards Lviv.
Furthermore, Russia probably has some fairly serious resupply issues. There are the obvious ones like fuel, ammunition and food. But there is also the question of how easily losses of planes and helicopters can be replaced.
There is an absolutely enormous advantage to being the defender. You don't need petrol. You don't need tanks or trucks. You don't need to patrol streets. All you need is a hiding place, some tinned food, and some crude weapons. And right now the Ukrainian defender have a lot more than crude weapons.