h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

"Why the hell would Americans know who Samuel Pepys is?"

Why not?

Why does anyone know who he is? To follow BH's line: 'Ees only yer akchul primary source material, innee? So as someone else pointed out you wouldn't neccessarily know him unless you were studying history. People do read stuff like that for fun.

Europeans have a very different education system to Americans; it focuisses on different areas, teaches different values and concentrates on different skills. This much I know from comparing my own education to my Eldest's. She's in High School. Here's the oddity - at 16 she's learning a lot of stuff I would never even have approached at her age. But it's almost rote learning. In the UK, back in my day (shortly after the Ice Age, when it was all fields round here let me tell you...) we were well into critical thinking. No sign of that here. However she does have a much better grasp of maths, science and languages.

And had we considered that European knowledge tends to be Eurocentric? We've got a shared history and cultural ties that go back into the mists of time, we've all had Empires of one stripe or another so we all study Imperialism at school and the effects it has - and by default we are a little bit more cosmopolitan as a result because we're at least aware of other cultures.

"Franklin also invented lightning conductors and bifocals."

And he invented the rocking chair and the 'pot-bellied' cast-iron stove. And he was a journalist, writer, speaker, philospher and diplomat. And I know a lot more about his life than that.

But then again, I'm originally from Philadelphia... do people in Seattle, for example, know as much? Should they?

I had no idea who Samuel Pepys was. In fact, when I just asked Noggin I totally mispronounced the name, which made N laugh out loud.



Meanwhile, Noggin mostly knows about him as being someone famous for having once written a diary during the plague year and the great fire of London, but can't give me too much other information.

Just thought I'd admit to being totally stupid about this, meanwhile making the point that I'm not stupid about other things. I guess kind of backing up some of the opinions here that a lack of knowledge about certain things does not necessarily mean people are stupid or even willfully ignorant.

After all, there are only so many hours in a day. You reckon after a long day of working most people curl up with a good book on history or geography when they get a moment to themselves?

az

Meanwhile, Louis Riel anybody?

(anhaga doesn't count)


az

Louis Riel - Canadian historical figure. Well originally French I suppose. Did he have something to do with treaties and the natives? Thats all that seemed to go on in Canada's short history, signing treaties.

I remember there being a Louis Riel hotel or building or something in Winnipeg (where I used to live). And possibly a Louis Riel school.

Thats all there is in Winnipeg really - hotels, buildings and schools!

All I know about him is that he was Canadian and lived - I think - in the 19th century.

Which probably means he's actually a Spanish surrealist playwright.

Ah the Father of Manitoba

Never heard of the badger. As was recently proved, this Briton's knowledge of Canada is next to non-existent

Canada was probabily one those things we only took an interest in because we wanted to beat the French. See 2012 Olympics and the channel tunnel for details...

I don't know much about Canada either. My son backpacked (well, he marathon-bussed) from Vancouver to Toronto a few summers ago. The biggest difference he noticed when he got back and we pulled on to the motorway out of Frankfurt Airport was the aggressive style of driving we have in Germany.

Azahar, you are not stupid if you don't know who Samuel Pepys is. It's just a bit of information you're not in possession of. Being stupid is the opposite of being intelligent, I would have thought.

There's lots of stuff I (and several others) don't know about football or cars, but I reckon in a quiz on any other subject that wouldn't make me look stupid. Just uninformed on certain subjects.

What is important is that you know you don't know and would be interested to find out.

There must be loads of entries on hootoo about Canada - we can all read those and find out about it there for a start....

C126

Gradient said:
<>



I attended school in the USA. We had compulsory Latin and French; Spanish, German, Greek, and Italian were electives after the age of 16.

Samuel Pepys (say 'peeps') (without benefit of Google, off the top of of my head), was he not connected with Dr Johnson (he of the Dictionary)?

We had Chinese Culture and Chinese History as electives, also after 16. We also had... ... *Philosophy*! The change in the title for the first Harry Potter book was geared toward today's kids, who wouldn't find 'philosophy' exciting -- according to the marketing droids.

We learnt more about what Stalin did in the Second War, and the staggering sacrifices of the Soviet People, without whom the Axis would have WON, US intervention notwithstanding, than we did about the US involvement.

We studied US geography, including everything from crops to climate, significant historical events and locations, at 10.

Earth Science, which included all of the above for the entire globe, and added a smattering of anthropology, meteorology, oceanography, and geology (from all over the globe) was required at 11.

OUR 'English History' covered everything from the British East India Tea Company, to Hadrian's Wall, to the Magna Carta, the founding of the CoE, to British 'transporting' of prisoners, to places like New South Wales, in Australia, and the State of Georgia, in the USA. This required course *preceded* US history, for obvious reasons.

Likewise, English literature preceded US literature. Milton, Donne, , Swift, Pope, , Sundry Brontés, Jane Austen, George Eliot ... Noël Coward, Harold Pinter, and Shakespeare, Shakspere, Shakespear.

As for non-Eurocentric cultures... The Roman Catholic people of India, started out in Goa, because it was a *Portuguese* colony. Indian Christians come in two flavours: CoE, and Roman Catholic. Mother Teresa, and most charitable Christian instutuions in India are still Roman Catholic, though the Raj schools were not.

Do Britons in general (of my age -- pushing 50 -- education has been 'dumbed down' worldwide, over time...; Gradient, 'critical thinking' is now a uni subject.) know when and how the Duke of York shoved the Dutch out of New Amsterdam, and turned it into New York? Did you know that the US Civil War was largely about the sale of textile raw materials to England, by the Confederacy (the proper name for 'Rebels' ), and that the United Kingdom was part of an economic triangle which caused the Confederate States to secede from the Union in the first place? We read the Magna Carta, of course, because it is the *foundation* of the Federalist Papers, which were the groundwork for the US Constitution. After all, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and the rest of that lot were *British* Colonists, landowning gentry, and well-educated.

BTW, $100USD notes are usually called 'Bens', not 'Franklins', to my knowledge.

Television portrayals of US-ians ( Lady Scott!! Thank you for getting my point!) tend to make most -- not all, but many -- look like bufoons. I'd love to hear opinions from people from outside the States, as to why you think this would be what the US public wants.

Wow, you went to a pretty cushy school, Ganapanthi! Was it a private school? There's only one public high school out of about 20 in the big city where I live that offers Latin. Though they all offer Spanish, you're lucky if your school has French, much less German or Italian or any other European language. They're threatening to cut the French programme at my school due to low enrollment.

Electives are scattered here. I go to what's considered a pretty good school, but we still don't have much, mostly Advanced Placement classes that smart kids who are competitive about college take. But they're all done to the set curriculum and even non-AP courses don't offer much curricular independence.

I don't know very much at all about the British school system, but through reading and hearing people I'd sort of assumed it was the opposite - that the UK national curriculum, where you learn what you need to pass the exams, was more rote-based, while there was more freedom within the American system with no centralised exams. But clearly my experiences with non-'gifted' classes has told me that's not the case, though the 'gifted' classes do encourage independent thought. Anyways... (get me talking about the American school system and I'll go on for pages)

az, not knowing Pepys doesn't make you stupid - think about all the other things you know!

Learning what you need to pass the exams in the UK -

I did A-Levels and to me, esp. with chem and bio, you just needed to memorise certain facts in order to get marks on the exam. You didnt get anything for being analytical or using your knowledge of science to draw conclusions etc. i.e. USING YOUR BRAIN to its full potential. Just memorsise this. You don't need to know why? or how? or explore it any further.

The degree course I did was much the same. In each 5ish month semester we would have a bunch of modules, adn you would have to sit an exam for each at the end of the semester. The exam, again, involved cramming as many facts into your brain as possible, spilling them down on the exam paper, then purging them from your brain ready for the next exam. Things only got a bit better in the third year where the coursework was very investgative and analytical.

Very much depends on the teacher's involvement and how they are prepared to convey the set information to their charges. We had good teachers, who, while the syllabuses left a lot to be desired, managed to teach us loads of useful stuff - much of which I can still remember and apply.


The system in Germany is going downhill, too, by the way - uniform with what has been said about the US and the UK. What is with kids today that the teachers are being told not to fill their little heads with too much knowledge? Do they have smaller brains? Are they not interested? If their concentration span has become lower than that of kids 20, 30, 40 years ago, it's probably because they're not being given enough to learn.

<> (TC)

Or not being given enough to learn in a *way that is interesting to them*. That makes them want to learn more. Which comes down to how good a teacher is at teaching, basically.

I reckon 20,30,40 years ago students probably just followed the rules and did their best to learn what was taught, no matter how well or badly it was taught. But kids these days are a lot more sophisticated and possibly also have higher expectations.

Not to say that some teachers who work in very poor areas where kids are not fed properly and have lots of other personal issues to deal with aren't fighting an uphill battle. I've known teachers who have had to retire early due to emotional exhaustion/nervous breakdowns. Though I think this also had to do with them not getting enough support from higher-ups.

I remember when I 'gave up' as a student. I was nine years old and was always at the head of my class. The best marks, etc. And prizes were given out to the top students, which I always got. Then once I didn't. And my grade five teacher told me she gave the prize to another student because it *wasn't fair* that I was always getting them when I was *obviously* not studying as hard as others.

The message I got was that being able to get top marks without having to study much was a *bad thing* and something I should somehow feel ashamed about. The teacher made it sound as if I had been selfishly scooping up these prizes . . . and it really broke my heart because the *only* thing I had going for me then (coming from a very violent and chaotic family) was that I was at least 'smart'. And she took that away from me.

So after that I just stopped trying at all. Nine years old. Perhaps if I'd been older when this happened I would have realised that 'Miss Smelly Armpits' was a bitter and twisted old cow. Oh well.


az

That is all very true.

"But kids these days are a lot more sophisticated and possibly also have higher expectations"

Why is this? It must be our fault - their parents. Where did we go wrong?

Blame the internet!

az

Maybe I got into critical thinking earlier because I was an Arts student? Maybe the study of subjects where there isn't a perfect right answer, and you're forced to defend not a fact but an opinion and a position, teaches more than just learning stuff to pass an exam?

I also note that the arts tend to be under-represented the further on you go. It amuses me that critical thinking has been abandoned in favor of 'business oriented' degrees which aren't teaching the same skills as some of the older and more 'liberal arts' type degrees.

Schools also concentrate on what can be marked easily, so we can measure 'progress'. Such progress. The other night my 16 year old remarked that "the england king was really mean". When I quizzed her she couldn't tell me which King, what he was mean about and when he'd been mean. And we won't even get into the whole "england king" thing. I'm assuming that she's talking about George III, but then again it could have been any of them. Oh for a .

I wouldn't think that science subjects should or would be rote learning. It really depends on your teachers though. For example, mathematical proofs are part of numeracy based A-levels. The idea is that you should learn how to do them, but in some cases its possible for people to just learn them. I believe they actually try to vary them in exams though, so you're at least forced to adapt what you've learned.. Similarly, the assessed science practicals include an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of your experiment.