Hmmmmm ...... the only topic I can remember covering in my history lessons at school is the Celts and the Bronze age, which was excruciatingly dull.

The Second (and First) World War is quite an interesting subject. And the old monarchy type subjects could have been quite interesting (Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and all them lot!).

Although this is me now talking, back then I would probably still have found it all very boring.

Well Eithier of them you mentioned would have been better than my GSCE of the industrial revolution.

But I like both sorts to be honest

When i was at secondary school, we didn't get any ancient or medieval history. The 17th Century was as far back as the curriculum went, with my GCSE course being all 20th century, looking particularly at the period from the 1st to the 2nd World Wars.
I found this fascinating, and important, covering the rise of fascism, the reasons behind the wars... all useful and relevant stuff to any understanding of where we are now.

When i wandered off to Uni, i did a degree in Ancient and Medieval History. I'd always been interested in the ancient stuff, and i wanted to learn about periods i hadn't covered before. In the end, i enjoyed the Medieval stuff more, partly due to the teaching and partly because i could structure that side of my course around military history which i found fascinating. My main project in my final year was on the First Crusade, which i found interesting, amazing and infuriating in pretty equal amounts.

I wouldn't like to say that any period is more important or useful than any other, as i think we can learn a lot from all of them but... A course on the industrial revolution bored me to tears when i was 13, and i like history. Its very easy to turn people off a subject at school, so i think it was good that what we were taught in later interested the pupils, due to a sense of relevance, much more than the subjects i covered at uni. And if it makes people interested in history, there's more chance of them going off and learning more, so its all good.

I hated History at school - it was just soooo boring, so when I had the choice of Geography or History I chose Geography, hence my history knowledge is a bit low.

Mind you now that I have the history channel I find watching that more interesting as they pass the information in a more informative way

It's very odd the way we teach our history in this country. Huge chiunks are missed out for no good reason. I remember leaping straight from the bronze age to the Battle of Hastings, then on to the Tudors. From there straight to WW1. So 400 years or so just gets skipped over - the Civil War, the Restoration, all sorts of pivotal stuff. Half the reason we don't understand why the rest of the world hates us is because we haven't been taught out own history.

History is History as far as I'm concerned and it's how it's taught or researched that makes it interesting not the era

There is a certain lottery to history courses, depending on which board/syllabus your school follows. We did a 17th Century ALevel, the civil war and absolutist european monarchs, but there several different courses offered by that one exam board in that period alone, and numerous other ones as well.

I remember covering Medieval history in years 7 through 9 (along with other areas) but for GCSE's it was mainly just as you said, WW2 etc. Perhaps that is what has been decided as the most important era, the things that must be taught to attempt to stop this happening again.

But I think Kate has it exactly right, If I didn't read of my own accord, I wouldn't know very much about British History.

---

by Watcher girl
When i was at secondary school, we didn't get any ancient or medieval history. The 17th Century was as far back as the curriculum went, with my GCSE course being all 20th century, looking particularly at the period from the 1st to the 2nd World Wars.
I found this fascinating, and important, covering the rise of fascism, the reasons behind the wars... all useful and relevant stuff to any understanding of where we are now.

---

For my first three years at school we covered the Egyptians, the Romans and the closest we got to modern history was the industrial revolution. I found this fairly uninteresting, although picking up on Whistler's point this may have had as much to do with the method by which it was taught as the eras whish were being covered.

I dropped history at the end of third year (Year 9 in new money ) and was disappointed to find that the GCSE syllabus jumped straight into 20th century history, which I had much more interest in.

i did both medieval history and second world war, although it specialised in the rise of fascism upto the war breakout. i also did the idustrial revolution (in Wales) and that was immensly dull although i realise was important to where we are as a society now.
i never did ancient history as part of gcse or alevel and i wish i couldv'e because its far more fasinating to me on a personal level.
its interesting to see how history repeates itself and maybe if we studied ancient history we could learn more from past mistakes.its as relevant to today as recent history is and studying history should be more broad ranging of its dates.
again it may be because i like ancient history and i'm just being biased

---

by Kate
It's very odd the way we teach our history in this country. Huge chiunks are missed out for no good reason. I remember leaping straight from the bronze age to the Battle of Hastings, then on to the Tudors. From there straight to WW1. So 400 years or so just gets skipped over - the Civil War, the Restoration, all sorts of pivotal stuff. Half the reason we don't understand why the rest of the world hates us is because we haven't been taught out own history.

---

Some periods of history are more influential than others and syllabuses have to reflect this. There isn't time to cover it all, the best that can be hoped for is to give information on the most important things and for it to be taught in a manner that encourages personal study.

As for your last point, I would be suspicious of an entirely Britain-centred history course. It *is* important that we know our own history, but especially in the last century or so the rest of the world has become more important in our history. You can't cover the world wars from a solely British perspective and that rather misses the point. My GCSE course focused on the period between the wars and included Russian, German and American recent history, which I am grateful for as it was unfamiliar to me, and something I'm less likely to come across.

---

by Whistler
History is History as far as I'm concerned and it's how it's taught or researched that makes it interesting not the era

---

See earlier comment about some periods being more influential than others. Well, this goes further, some periods of history are more influential for some things than others. If you're interested in world politics, you'll probably find the last century the most interesting one. If you're interested in religion in Britain then Tudor history is anything but static. If you're interested in the rise of science and the age of Reason then the eighteenth century is for you.

Your comment could be said of any subject and would be equally untrue of all. I'm assuming good teaching to be desireable whatever the subject, but personal preference does influence enjoyment of the topic.
*Demona tries to bite back complaints about Romantic poetry.*

I took history as a GCSE at school expecting it to be interesting, like the "Black death" and stuff. When I found out it was the Industrial revolution and such, I completely lost interest. I ended up with an E.

(Edited by Miss Edith 26/03/2002 22:26)

You've read *far* too much into my post, Demona.

All I was saying is that *all* history is interesting to me as long as it is presented to me in an entertaining way or I research it from certain perspectives. That's it.

I'm not taking a degree in it or trying to explain why something in the past influences the future, although I can understand the appeal.

It was just a comment with no layers to it. Not everything needs to be deconstructed

I have to say, if I could have chosen the era to be studied, I probably would have contiunued to take history further in my school career!

---

by Whistler
You've read *far* too much into my post, Demona.

---

Hadn't cottoned onto the personal viewpoint there, sorry. Even so, surely you find some aspects of history more interesting than others?

---

It was just a comment with no layers to it. Not everything needs to be deconstructed

---

I'm an English student. Words are there to be torn apart

---

by Demona
(quotes)

As for your last point, I would be suspicious of an entirely Britain-centred history course. It *is* important that we know our own history, but especially in the last century or so the rest of the world has become more important in our history. You can't cover the world wars from a solely British perspective and that rather misses the point.

---

I wasn't suggesting that we only look at Britain and nothing else, but I do find it odd that very few people are able to tell you why the Scots and the Irish have traditionally disliked us (one of the verses of the National Anthem actually contains the line "And in a mighty rush, Rebellious Scots to crush" and we wonder why they boo through it...)
The same goes for the treatment of the colonies, which directly affected US history as well. It might be valuable to teach some of this.


(Edited by Kate 27/03/2002 00:38)

Most of what we covered in GCSE history when I took it (a loooong time ago) was industrial revolution and history of medicine; we learnt virtually no real history-of-the-world, what happened when; everything was very focused - teaching skills rather than information, important if you're going on to study a humanitiesish subject further, but useless for the rest of us who went on to study usefull things

By the ages of 7 (Year Two), the children in my class have learned about the Great Fire of London, Guy Fawkes and Florence Nighingale and the encompassing histories.

At the age of 8, my daughter has learned about the Romans and Egyptians (and has started writing in hieroglyphics! ) She asked me to buy her a book about them so she could take it further, as this subject interests her.

I think having an interest in a particular era/subject does help you to learn more about it. You want to. And the way it is presented can play a part too. I can recall being in a classroom and being talked *at* for hours and simply switching off due to extreme boredom. I developed an interest in the English Civil War long after school by *participating* in it, and now know everything about that period.

I might never use the history knowledge I have, but I like to learn about it and am always willing to.