State of American education

I ran across a charming gentleman engaged in the art of flaming the holy fark out of people over Bush. In any event, one comment specifically caught my eye.

Is this really what we are teaching the kiddies today? I mean, really? Is our education system so horribly Western-biased that we teach a mere 1/10th of history? Shouldn’t we be looking at the larger picture?

I’m sorry to ask this, but I must:

Cite?

There is far too little information here.

Or is it nothing more than a strawman?

It is somewhat of a rhetorical question, though there is a point to it - is American education too Westernized?

If you really want a cite of an internet flamewar, dig through this

No. Yes. Maybe.

Like I’m going to put more thought into this than the OP. :rolleyes:

I don’t get it.

Are you upset because the guy thinks Hitler only invaded two countries when he actually invaded a lot more?

Are you upset that the guy cited Hitler instead of some Eastern dictator?

In other words, what you have quoted has nothing to do with what you are upset about in any way that I can understand.

3 years ago I asked a man in his late 20’s how many continents there were. He said “twelve” in a questioning voice.

My point was whether or not Europe was a continent. Since it obviously is not the state of education has been screwed up for decades. We are teaching children that LOGIC does not work. Believe whatever stupid nonsense you are told even when it contradicts the map in plain sight.

Dal Timgar

I’m sure our study of history is too Westernized. In the California schools, everyone takes a year of U.S. history, or we had to when I was there, and I don’t think any other history class was required for graduation.

Would increased attention to Asian history and thought have averted that person’s ignorance?

Please attempt to form a coherent OP.

We had to take a year of world history and a year of US history to graduate when I was there.

Come to think of it, I took world history too, but I misremembered it as an elective.

I had to take a year of world history. But it was actually European history, featuring a couple of lessons on Asian history and a few minutes of African and South American stuff.

My high school required a year of world history. Three of my cousins attended a high school in Connecticut where the 9th-graders all learned Russian history. But anecdotal evidence aside, perhaps your observation could be explained more cynically, with the interpretation that state-funded education serves the additional sociological function of dispensing propaganda that supports the existing social structure, avoiding alternative philosophies that might stoke the fires of discontent in idealistic, rebellious youth. Pratkanis and Aronsen offer this perspective in one chapter of their book Age of Propaganda.

Everyone’s history lessons are focused toward the local. In respect to the OP, I’d be hard pushed to tell you anything about the Pacific aspect of WW2 between Pearl Harbour and the atomic bombs. I’m not being facetious, nor do I consider myself particularly ignorant, just that this was an aspect of history far removed from what would further our understanding of our surroundings.

Here’s a dumb question, how much do you get into other European countries’ recent history?

For instance, how much do you go into the French war in Algeria? In the US, it’s usually just a quick survey basically a paragraphs scattered in with the rest of the decolonization process - which in itself is somewhat brief, except where it concerns us (French Indochina, mainly).

Actually, Zagadka, I believe that here a teacher of reading comprehension is at fault-- either yours or mine. If I am looking at the right post, I think the poster is awkwardly referring to Saddam, not Hitler, as having invaded two countries. At any rate, I think we can agree that that particular poster’s writing teacher failed horribly.

Education does involve learning as well as teaching. Contrary to what the good folks who brought us the No Child Left Behind Act believe, it is impossible to teach someone who does not want to learn. Let’s say world history is taught in a particular school, and is taught very well indeed. Does that mean every student in that class is going to knuckle down and learn the material at the same rate? Does that mean that no student is going to forget half the facts as soon as the final exam is over? Does that mean every student will retain a keen grasp on the key concepts fifteen, twenty, or thirty years after class is dismissed?

In compulsory secondary school history (age 11-14) it was basically a trajectory from 1066 to 1900, then a jump to 1933-45. Obviously not ideal, but an understandable attempt to cram a decent amount of knowledge into a small time frame.

(Whatever my experiences of earlier education were are certainly outdated now)

GCSE (14-16) History took us through the history of medicine, the American West in the 19th century, and 20th century China. And I was lucky enough to have one of those teachers that you can enthuse about years later, who just had a passion for talking and educating and understanding.
I like to think of myself as capable of absorbing other sources of information, but I still astound myself with my ignorance.

Well the state of science education is poor. In chemistry, kids still learn that electrons move in nice circles around the nucleus. That was moved on from over 100 years ago.

Nothing wrong with using that model of electrons, where appropriate.

Kids also learn that in mechanics, the mass of an object is constant. Also thoroughly incorrect, yet suitable for the context.