I learnt Ancient history, things like Messopotamia!. Huh? what possible relavance does that have to me?!

So i didnt take history for GCSE.

I did learn about things like WW1&2 in other classes like English and i really enjoyed them. if they'd taught that in History i might have carried on.

Both are relevant. All history is - it got us where we are today!

I've studied a few periods of time - the Classics, Egyptology, Pre-Islamic Arabia and then history from the Enlightenment onwards (particularly early 20th-century) and I can honestly say that I feel its all valid. I wasn't some interested in AD stuff up to about 1700 but thats to do with personal interest.

Well, I'm doing A Levels in both Classical Civilisations and History. In Classics, we cover greeks Romans, that kind of thing, whereas in history we cover more modern stuff.

I like the modern stuff more because, like Billy, I think that it is more relevant to us. With modern history, you can get the ultimate in primary sources...people I have always been fascinated by the two world wars - dunno why really.

Saying that though, my insurance course for Uni is medieval studies at Birmingham...hmmmm...

My perspective is a bit different because I went to school in the U.S. But I remember in high school we took American history and "World History"--which was supposed to include everything else. Of course, World History in my school generally meant Europe and a smattering of Asia (especially China) and the Middle East. Very uneven. I don't think they ever taught us anything about Africa, with the exception of ancient Egypt.

The emphasis in American history has changed a lot in recent years. Years ago, the Indian tribes were basically ignored and American history started with the European presence. Now, there is a long-overdue recognition that American history begins thousands of years before the first Europeans colonized the continent, and there is an attempt to begin with a study of the various Indian cultures that were here first.

Then, there is the parade of explorers and conquistadors, the European colonization (but still mostly English colonization and not so much French or Spanish), and a huge emphasis on the American Revolution, the writing of the Constitution and the creation of the United States. Then they kind of skip to slavery and all the infighting that led to the Civil War, cover the Civll War and Reconstruction endlessly, then give short shrift to everything until the two World Wars.

Events after World War II are covered, but I don't think there is enough attention to recent history at all.

i wish we need more medieval history...or ancient history...such as ancient greece or rome...currently doing ww2 for my history GCSE and it's okay..i think we difentaly need to learn about both..it's important to study the history of your culture and other cultures...

(Edited by Rae 27/03/2002 16:15)

History GCSE-World War 1 and 2. The Cold War. Vietnam.

In Primary school all I can remember doing is the Greeks!

In Infant school I was obsessed by the Ancient Egyptians!

I am into modern history-I have personnel interest in the Victorian and Edwardian era.

For A level history you get to choose a particular area to study and one of them is the History of Witchcraft which I *will* want to study!

---

by Barbara


In Primary school all I can remember doing is the Greeks!

In Infant school I was obsessed by the Ancient Egyptians!

---

My kids are doing both those now and must admit I'm hooked on them all over again

---

by Sweet-Sange
My kids are doing both those now and must admit I'm hooked on them all over again

---

Careful with those hooks, you don't know where they've been (or worse, you do...)

I dropped history at GCSE because I was only interested in Ancient/Medieval history and the course only covered modern history.

Today, my interests on the subject are pretty much reversed.

I agree with Whistler that no one period is more interesting than another - it is how it is approached that matters. Different events may be more interesting, but every period has its moment.

The only history lesson I remember enjoying at school was on Guy Fawkes and the Parliament Plot. Personally, I don't think it’s the most interesting piece of history, but the teacher presented the subject almost as a 'who dunnit', rather than a list of names and dates. We were encouraged to investigate the various accounts and differing perspectives, and the whole class became obsessed by it. This being a pretty low achieving, working class inner city school in Leeds, not known for its pupils taking an interest in any subject, except getting off with each other and the regular scraps in the yard. This, to me, is how history should be taught. It gets over the information, removes the idea of absolute certainty, gets an interest in the subject and gives skills that are useful in other subjects as well as life in general.

In this I disagree with Callum. The key skills in history are keeping an open mind, researching your data, and questioning everything that you come across for validity. These skills are core to any subject, and essential for life.

History teaches us nothing save that that study of history teaches us nothing

---

by MonSTeR
History teaches us nothing save that that study of history teaches us nothing

---

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it

I always enjoyed history at school. We did Tudors and Stewarts for GCSE and 20th-century European for A-Level and I found them both interesting. I'm still fascinated by history and if I read a reference to some event I'm not familiar with my first instinct is to go and research it and find out more about it. I'm still a history geek