History OT

Game show this evening here in Britain.
Question... Between 1714 and 1830 all the kings of England were named
what?
Answer 1. Henry 2. Edward 3. George
Contestant. "Yeah. I love history. but not that far back. I mean the
1900s are o.k.
I know there were 8 Henrys, but I don't know if they all came
together then. Oh I'll say Henry!"
She lost.
Depressing or what.


I think it was Churchill who said, "the further backwards you can
look, the further forwards you will see".
Paul


"Richard Liveth Yet!"

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Game show this evening here in Britain.
> Question... Between 1714 and 1830 all the kings of England were
named
> what?
> Answer 1. Henry 2. Edward 3. George
> Contestant. "Yeah. I love history. but not that far back. I mean
the
> 1900s are o.k.
> I know there were 8 Henrys, but I don't know if they all came
> together then. Oh I'll say Henry!"
> She lost.
> Depressing or what.
>
>
> I think it was Churchill who said, "the further backwards you can
> look, the further forwards you will see".
> Paul
>
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
>
Which show was that, Paul? I have been following the rugby -
incidentally the Wallaby wing Adam Ashley-Cooper is almost certainly
an Anne of Exeter descendant as a Rutland heiress married an Earl of
Shaftesbury!
>
>
>
>

most people have no interest in history.

if you want real frustration try genealogy. it's amazing how many people don't know their grandmother's maiden name or even who their great grandparents are/were.

and family secrets..WOW..they are all hiding a shotgun wedding or out of wedlock pregnancy/birth..to them it is a huge scandal/shame. the thing is we all have these "secrets" in our family trees.

my mother's mother was a riot! married..had a kid, then she ran off leaving the kid behind in england. she had 3 kids with the fellow in canada, then they split up and she married my grandfather, who died when my mom was 11. grandma married again, he died but left her with step kids. she didn't marry again but always had gentlemen friends. yup..grandma b. 1890's was a product of the roaring 20's..only by the 1950's she was everso proper.

my elderly half aunts and uncles didn't know about each other and the marriage and common in law relationship. my research joined all of 5 grandma's kids and/or descendents together for the first time in 60+ years...but it had all been a big secret on this side of the pond...and a quest to find out what had happened to grandma from that side. her marriage certificate to my mother's dad opened the doors wide to all the secrets.

and on my dad's side of the family..back in the 1880's my gggrandfather ran off with his first cousin, abandoning his wife and 3 kids. local history books record my gggranddad as dying in 1881..but for his journal/diary, i would have never proven his existance past 1881. it was in a museum in minnesota. another family secret revealed..and more relatives reconnected.

history is fascinating, it's full of secrets and lies. digging up the truth is awesome.
roslyn

Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote:
Game show this evening here in Britain.
Question... Between 1714 and 1830 all the kings of England were named
what?
Answer 1. Henry 2. Edward 3. George
Contestant. "Yeah. I love history. but not that far back. I mean the
1900s are o.k.
I know there were 8 Henrys, but I don't know if they all came
together then. Oh I'll say Henry!"
She lost.
Depressing or what.

I think it was Churchill who said, "the further backwards you can
look, the further forwards you will see".
Paul

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

>Game show this evening here in Britain.
>Question... Between 1714 and 1830 all the kings of England were named
>what?
>Answer 1. Henry 2. Edward 3. George
>Contestant. "Yeah. I love history. but not that far back. I mean the
>1900s are o.k.
>I know there were 8 Henrys, but I don't know if they all came
>together then. Oh I'll say Henry!"
>She lost.
>Depressing or what.
>
>
>I think it was Churchill who said, "the further backwards you can
>look, the further forwards you will see".
>Paul
>
>
>
**Sort of like Ken Burns saying the major reason he did "The War" series
was because so many young people think we fought with Germany against
the Russians during WWII.

Gilda

I work in a library and get asked the most amazing questions
sometimes--my favorite so far is "When did they drop the Atomic bomb in
Viet Nam?"
I'm sure Ken Burns would've liked that one as well.

Remember that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

One more thing before I go, in reading the credits
to "Elizabeth:The Golden Age" on the IMDB I've noticed the lack of Sir
William Cecil--he was Elizabeth's right hand man until his death, in
fact she refused to let the sick old man retire---how could they leave
such a major cog in the royal government machinery out of the story?

"Meek"

> >
> >I think it was Churchill who said, "the further backwards you can
> >look, the further forwards you will see".
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >
> **Sort of like Ken Burns saying the major reason he did "The War"
series
> was because so many young people think we fought with Germany against
> the Russians during WWII.
>
> Gilda
>

Children I know were recently told by thier secondary school history teacher that the reason German soldiers in the Great War had spikes on their helmets was to "deflect away spears thrown by their enemies".
Someone at the Labour party conference a couple of weeks ago suggested that children be told that the Spanish Armada was defeated by the Turkish navy in order to "include" Muslim children in British history lessons.
There seems to be a conspiracy to ensure children know nothing of the past - the better to control them in the future?

"L. Miller" <pvtmeek@...> wrote:

I work in a library and get asked the most amazing questions
sometimes--my favorite so far is "When did they drop the Atomic bomb in
Viet Nam?"
I'm sure Ken Burns would've liked that one as well.

Remember that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

One more thing before I go, in reading the credits
to "Elizabeth:The Golden Age" on the IMDB I've noticed the lack of Sir
William Cecil--he was Elizabeth's right hand man until his death, in
fact she refused to let the sick old man retire---how could they leave
such a major cog in the royal government machinery out of the story?

"Meek"

> >
> >I think it was Churchill who said, "the further backwards you can
> >look, the further forwards you will see".
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >
> **Sort of like Ken Burns saying the major reason he did "The War"
series
> was because so many young people think we fought with Germany against
> the Russians during WWII.
>
> Gilda
>






---------------------------------
For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month.

too bad someone in the audience didn't challenge this idiocy with the very probable fact that muslims were in america centuries before columbus and even the vikings. muslims/moors were persecuted by the spanish at the time of columbus. he very likely got his info on the "new world" from these people.
see:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/youssefmroueh1.html
use this url as a basis for your info. and then start surfing for more info.

there is no denying the "dumbing down" that occurs in our education system. my mother was taught latin at school. i was not. i'm now self teaching myself and my daughter.

history is written by the victors. the american civil war was not about the abolition of slavery. new jersey a union state didn't outlaw slavery until 1865.
do a google on h.k. edgerton, or black confederate soldiers who freely fought for the south.

it really is amazing what i find doing genealogy. the "powers that be" lie to us constantly, and consistantly through the ages. history books record their truths, but the documents found in archives reveal the real truth.

the problem is..most of us can't read them. we don't know the languages, i.e. latin, greek, etc.

imagine what the vatican archives hold.

roslyn

david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
Children I know were recently told by thier secondary school history teacher that the reason German soldiers in the Great War had spikes on their helmets was to "deflect away spears thrown by their enemies".
Someone at the Labour party conference a couple of weeks ago suggested that children be told that the Spanish Armada was defeated by the Turkish navy in order to "include" Muslim children in British history lessons.
There seems to be a conspiracy to ensure children know nothing of the past - the better to control them in the future?

"L. Miller" <pvtmeek@...> wrote:

I work in a library and get asked the most amazing questions
sometimes--my favorite so far is "When did they drop the Atomic bomb in
Viet Nam?"
I'm sure Ken Burns would've liked that one as well.

Remember that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

One more thing before I go, in reading the credits
to "Elizabeth:The Golden Age" on the IMDB I've noticed the lack of Sir
William Cecil--he was Elizabeth's right hand man until his death, in
fact she refused to let the sick old man retire---how could they leave
such a major cog in the royal government machinery out of the story?

"Meek"

> >
> >I think it was Churchill who said, "the further backwards you can
> >look, the further forwards you will see".
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >
> **Sort of like Ken Burns saying the major reason he did "The War"
series
> was because so many young people think we fought with Germany against
> the Russians during WWII.
>
> Gilda
>

---------------------------------
For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good this month.

There is evidence of one sort or another for quite a few peoples
having crossed the Atlantic before Columbus, although he seems to
have been the one who came back and told everybody about it ! Given
that the Vikings were there around the year 1000 AD, where would your
pre-Viking Muslims have come from (and what evidence is there of
their presence ?)

Richard

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> too bad someone in the audience didn't challenge this idiocy with
the very probable fact that muslims were in america centuries before
columbus and even the vikings. muslims/moors were persecuted by the
spanish at the time of columbus. he very likely got his info on
the "new world" from these people.
> see:
> http://www.mediamonitors.net/youssefmroueh1.html
> use this url as a basis for your info. and then start surfing for
more info.
>
> there is no denying the "dumbing down" that occurs in our
education system. my mother was taught latin at school. i was not.
i'm now self teaching myself and my daughter.
>
> history is written by the victors. the american civil war was not
about the abolition of slavery. new jersey a union state didn't
outlaw slavery until 1865.
> do a google on h.k. edgerton, or black confederate soldiers who
freely fought for the south.
>
> it really is amazing what i find doing genealogy. the "powers
that be" lie to us constantly, and consistantly through the ages.
history books record their truths, but the documents found in
archives reveal the real truth.
>
> the problem is..most of us can't read them. we don't know the
languages, i.e. latin, greek, etc.
>
> imagine what the vatican archives hold.
>
> roslyn
>
> david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> Children I know were recently told by thier secondary
school history teacher that the reason German soldiers in the Great
War had spikes on their helmets was to "deflect away spears thrown by
their enemies".
> Someone at the Labour party conference a couple of weeks ago
suggested that children be told that the Spanish Armada was defeated
by the Turkish navy in order to "include" Muslim children in British
history lessons.
> There seems to be a conspiracy to ensure children know nothing of
the past - the better to control them in the future?
>
> "L. Miller" <pvtmeek@...> wrote:
>
> I work in a library and get asked the most amazing questions
> sometimes--my favorite so far is "When did they drop the Atomic
bomb in
> Viet Nam?"
> I'm sure Ken Burns would've liked that one as well.
>
> Remember that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
>
> One more thing before I go, in reading the credits
> to "Elizabeth:The Golden Age" on the IMDB I've noticed the lack of
Sir
> William Cecil--he was Elizabeth's right hand man until his death,
in
> fact she refused to let the sick old man retire---how could they
leave
> such a major cog in the royal government machinery out of the
story?
>
> "Meek"
>
> > >
> > >I think it was Churchill who said, "the further backwards you
can
> > >look, the further forwards you will see".
> > >Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > **Sort of like Ken Burns saying the major reason he did "The War"
> series
> > was because so many young people think we fought with Germany
against
> > the Russians during WWII.
> >
> > Gilda
> >
>
> ---------------------------------
> For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good
this month.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

read the info at the url i provided within my original post..see below.
then use the links within, or google phrases and terms of interest. the archealogical and historical evidence is there if you are willing to look for it and read it.

it appears columbus had better press than the muslims and vikings, but then again, the pope issued a bull granting the new world to the spanish. this would have alerted all european countries to the existance of the americas.

roslyn

rgcorris <RSG_Corris@...> wrote:
There is evidence of one sort or another for quite a few peoples
having crossed the Atlantic before Columbus, although he seems to
have been the one who came back and told everybody about it ! Given
that the Vikings were there around the year 1000 AD, where would your
pre-Viking Muslims have come from (and what evidence is there of
their presence ?)

Richard

--- In , fayre rose
<fayreroze@...> wrote:
>
> too bad someone in the audience didn't challenge this idiocy with
the very probable fact that muslims were in america centuries before
columbus and even the vikings. muslims/moors were persecuted by the
spanish at the time of columbus. he very likely got his info on
the "new world" from these people.
> see:
> http://www.mediamonitors.net/youssefmroueh1.html
> use this url as a basis for your info. and then start surfing for
more info.
>
> there is no denying the "dumbing down" that occurs in our
education system. my mother was taught latin at school. i was not.
i'm now self teaching myself and my daughter.
>
> history is written by the victors. the american civil war was not
about the abolition of slavery. new jersey a union state didn't
outlaw slavery until 1865.
> do a google on h.k. edgerton, or black confederate soldiers who
freely fought for the south.
>
> it really is amazing what i find doing genealogy. the "powers
that be" lie to us constantly, and consistantly through the ages.
history books record their truths, but the documents found in
archives reveal the real truth.
>
> the problem is..most of us can't read them. we don't know the
languages, i.e. latin, greek, etc.
>
> imagine what the vatican archives hold.
>
> roslyn
>
> david rayner <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
> Children I know were recently told by thier secondary
school history teacher that the reason German soldiers in the Great
War had spikes on their helmets was to "deflect away spears thrown by
their enemies".
> Someone at the Labour party conference a couple of weeks ago
suggested that children be told that the Spanish Armada was defeated
by the Turkish navy in order to "include" Muslim children in British
history lessons.
> There seems to be a conspiracy to ensure children know nothing of
the past - the better to control them in the future?
>
> "L. Miller" <pvtmeek@...> wrote:
>
> I work in a library and get asked the most amazing questions
> sometimes--my favorite so far is "When did they drop the Atomic
bomb in
> Viet Nam?"
> I'm sure Ken Burns would've liked that one as well.
>
> Remember that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
>
> One more thing before I go, in reading the credits
> to "Elizabeth:The Golden Age" on the IMDB I've noticed the lack of
Sir
> William Cecil--he was Elizabeth's right hand man until his death,
in
> fact she refused to let the sick old man retire---how could they
leave
> such a major cog in the royal government machinery out of the
story?
>
> "Meek"
>
> > >
> > >I think it was Churchill who said, "the further backwards you
can
> > >look, the further forwards you will see".
> > >Paul
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > **Sort of like Ken Burns saying the major reason he did "The War"
> series
> > was because so many young people think we fought with Germany
against
> > the Russians during WWII.
> >
> > Gilda
> >
>
> ---------------------------------
> For ideas on reducing your carbon footprint visit Yahoo! For Good
this month.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I blush when I say I watched that show too. I cringed at the
contestant`s answer and despair of the modern education system.
John.

--- In , Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@...> wrote:
>
> Game show this evening here in Britain.
> Question... Between 1714 and 1830 all the kings of England were
named
> what?
> Answer 1. Henry 2. Edward 3. George
> Contestant. "Yeah. I love history. but not that far back. I mean
the
> 1900s are o.k.
> I know there were 8 Henrys, but I don't know if they all came
> together then. Oh I'll say Henry!"
> She lost.
> Depressing or what.
>
>
> I think it was Churchill who said, "the further backwards you can
> look, the further forwards you will see".
> Paul
>
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

The British state education system has been rubbish for at least 40
years. If I had relied on school teachers to teach me what I know, I
would know nothing. Not only did we not learn Latin, we did not learn
English either (if "English" is defined as the teaching of grammar),
History was a series of disparate episodes that had no meaning, and
science was so poorly taught as to be utterly meaningless. Only,
perhaps, in terms of mathematics was I properly taught although, sadly,
little of it had any relevance to life beyond the class room. Having
said all that, I should perhaps point out that our History teacher used
to say that Richard III was NOT one of the bad guys - whereas Henry
Tudor looked a "real shifty fellow" in his portraits!

Just think how depressing it would be if she had *won*!



Gee, and I thought you Brits had a superior educational system . . . Times
have sure changed! It sure makes me appreciate the quality of my
post-Sputnik education in American secondary schools . . .



Johanne



o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

For lovers of all things Peter Jackson ý

From Bad Taste to Lord of the Rings -

and beyond!!!

it's PJlovers !!!

Become a Charter Member and share your

enthusiasm for everything PJ on a

moderated list with other astute fans!



o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o



To join or to find out more -

HYPERLINK
"http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/PJlovers/"http://movies.groups.yahoo.c
om/group/PJlovers/



or email ý Johanne L. Tournier

(aka Crystal Goodbody) - Listowner/Moderator

HYPERLINK "mailto:jltournier@..."jltournier@...



o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o



"Pain is temporary - film is *forever*!"

- Peter Jackson

o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o

_____

From:
[mailto:] On Behalf Of johngarrick8
Sent: Monday, October 08, 2007 6:55 AM
To:
Subject: Re: History OT



I blush when I say I watched that show too. I cringed at the
contestant`s answer and despair of the modern education system.
John.

--- In HYPERLINK
"mailto:%40yahoogroups.com"richardiiisocietyfo-rum@yah
oogroups.-com, Paul Trevor Bale
<paultrevor@-...> wrote:
>
> Game show this evening here in Britain.
> Question... Between 1714 and 1830 all the kings of England were
named
> what?
> Answer 1. Henry 2. Edward 3. George
> Contestant. "Yeah. I love history. but not that far back. I mean
the
> 1900s are o.k.
> I know there were 8 Henrys, but I don't know if they all came
> together then. Oh I'll say Henry!"
> She lost.
> Depressing or what.
>
>
> I think it was Churchill who said, "the further backwards you can
> look, the further forwards you will see".
> Paul
>




No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.4/1055 - Release Date: 10/7/2007
10:24 AM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.4/1055 - Release Date: 10/7/2007
10:24 AM

On 6 Oct 2007, at 21:39, Stephen Lark wrote:

> Which show was that, Paul?
Lottery quiz thing with Dale Winton! (Yes I admit it! But it's on
just before Robin Hood)
Paul


"Richard Liveth Yet!"

--- In , david rayner
<theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>

> Someone at the Labour party conference a couple of weeks ago
suggested that children be told that the Spanish Armada was defeated
by the Turkish navy in order to "include" Muslim children in British
history lessons.

That hurts my brain. I thought only those of us in the US had to deal
with that leval of stupid.

I remember an episode of Star Trek in which somebody mentioned the
Nazis, and Captain Picard had to explain who they were!
Paul


On 6 Oct 2007, at 21:45, Gilda Felt wrote:

> Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>
>> Game show this evening here in Britain.
>> Question... Between 1714 and 1830 all the kings of England were named
>> what?
>> Answer 1. Henry 2. Edward 3. George
>> Contestant. "Yeah. I love history. but not that far back. I mean the
>> 1900s are o.k.
>> I know there were 8 Henrys, but I don't know if they all came
>> together then. Oh I'll say Henry!"
>> She lost.
>> Depressing or what.
>>
>>
>> I think it was Churchill who said, "the further backwards you can
>> look, the further forwards you will see".
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
> **Sort of like Ken Burns saying the major reason he did "The War"
> series
> was because so many young people think we fought with Germany against
> the Russians during WWII.
>
> Gilda
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Maybe Dickie Attenborough wasn't available, as he "played" him in the
first film, though he looked like Santa Claus and was far too old!
Though there is someone in the trailer (promo) that looks like Cecil,
with Elizabeth saying how she has always relied on him and how he has
never let her down.
Paul

On 7 Oct 2007, at 00:00, L. Miller wrote:

> I've noticed the lack of Sir
> William Cecil--he was Elizabeth's right hand man until his death, in
> fact she refused to let the sick old man retire---how could they leave
> such a major cog in the royal government machinery out of the story

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Ah, well, see, here's where a little Ricardian-period history could help out a little bit because one of the Woodville brothers made their way to Spain after Richard's assumption of throne; this Woodville brother (I forget which) took part in a few battles against the Moors alongside Isabel and Fernando. Washington Irving, in his "Conquest of Granada", tells of a story he found wherein this Woodville brother lost a tooth during one of the battles and was consoled by Fernando afterward by way of being told something to the effect that being pretty wasn't the most important thing in life (far from pretty himself, Fernando was certainly one to talk).

Maria
elena@...

-----Original Message-----
>From: lilith82200 <lilith@...>
>Sent: Oct 8, 2007 2:00 PM
>To:
>Subject: Re: History OT
>
>--- In , david rayner
><theblackprussian@...> wrote:
>>
>
>> Someone at the Labour party conference a couple of weeks ago
>suggested that children be told that the Spanish Armada was defeated
>by the Turkish navy in order to "include" Muslim children in British
>history lessons.
>
>That hurts my brain. I thought only those of us in the US had to deal
>with that leval of stupid.
>

Sadly, it's all too true:

http://thehuntsman2007.blogspot.com/2007/09/it-was-turks-wot-won-
it.html

--- In , "lilith82200"
<lilith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , david rayner
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
>
> > Someone at the Labour party conference a couple of weeks ago
> suggested that children be told that the Spanish Armada was defeated
> by the Turkish navy in order to "include" Muslim children in British
> history lessons.
>
> That hurts my brain. I thought only those of us in the US had to
deal
> with that leval of stupid.
>

I must have got in just in time then, as I was doing my Advanced
Level History in 1965 when we were studying 17th Century British
history, 17th century Europe, particularly France and Spain, and were
allowed to chose from about 10 different special subjects - I took
the French Revolution. The European course fitted in well with my
French course, the literature part of which was mainly 17th century
writers, Moliere and Racine to name two, and the grammar part helped
me understand my English grammar, which we did have some lessons in,
along with an hour a week called Use of English.
The year before my English teacher had been impressed when I
challenged Shakespeare's view of Richard III, as he told me he had
always been a secret Yorkist.
What changed in so short a time?
Paul


On 8 Oct 2007, at 13:44, Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:

> The British state education system has been rubbish for at least 40
> years. If I had relied on school teachers to teach me what I know, I
> would know nothing. Not only did we not learn Latin, we did not learn
> English either (if "English" is defined as the teaching of grammar),
> History was a series of disparate episodes that had no meaning, and
> science was so poorly taught as to be utterly meaningless. Only,
> perhaps, in terms of mathematics was I properly taught although,
> sadly,
> little of it had any relevance to life beyond the class room. Having
> said all that, I should perhaps point out that our History teacher
> used
> to say that Richard III was NOT one of the bad guys - whereas Henry
> Tudor looked a "real shifty fellow" in his portraits!
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

Speaking of movies about the Tudor / Elizabethean times, how about the showtime one called The Tudors! I find it nothing more than entertainment as nothing about it seems factual.

Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote: Maybe Dickie Attenborough wasn't available, as he "played" him in the
first film, though he looked like Santa Claus and was far too old!
Though there is someone in the trailer (promo) that looks like Cecil,
with Elizabeth saying how she has always relied on him and how he has
never let her down.
Paul

On 7 Oct 2007, at 00:00, L. Miller wrote:

> I've noticed the lack of Sir
> William Cecil--he was Elizabeth's right hand man until his death, in
> fact she refused to let the sick old man retire---how could they leave
> such a major cog in the royal government machinery out of the story

"Richard Liveth Yet!"






---------------------------------
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.

'A' levels were, at least until very recently (and certainly in the
1960s and 1970s), the so-called "Gold Standard" of the British
education system. As the vast majority of pupils left school at the age
of 16, the academic minority who remained at grammar school until the
age of 18 (sometimes 19) were indeed engaged in serious study. Sadly, A
levels have now been so dumbed-down that elite school such as Eton and
Stowe are said to be on the verge of abandoning them in favour of more
challanging examinations.

At 20:56 08/10/2007, Stanley Jenkins wrote:
>'A' levels were, at least until very recently (and certainly in the
>1960s and 1970s), the so-called "Gold Standard" of the British
>education system. As the vast majority of pupils left school at the age
>of 16, the academic minority who remained at grammar school until the
>age of 18 (sometimes 19) were indeed engaged in serious study. Sadly, A
>levels have now been so dumbed-down that elite school such as Eton and
>Stowe are said to be on the verge of abandoning them in favour of more
>challanging examinations.

I am very impressed by the material my elder daughter is using for her AS
level (Y12) history. She is studying the First Crusade, something to do
with the Tudors, and Spain from about 1550-1650.

Next year there is an extended essay on a subject of her own choice -
within limits - on the syllabus. I can't remember what else she will be
studying. Being at school is a far more serious business now than it was in
my day (early 70s).

It will be interesting to see what her less academic but equally
intelligent sister (now in Y7) will do when the time comes.


Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

Paul Trevor Bale wrote:

>I remember an episode of Star Trek in which somebody mentioned the
>Nazis, and Captain Picard had to explain who they were!
>Paul
>
>

**Which says a lot about even the time difference between then and the
original since, in that series, it seemed to be taken for granted that
the viewers knew who the Nazis were.

Gilda

>
>On 6 Oct 2007, at 21:45, Gilda Felt wrote:
>
>
>
>>Paul Trevor Bale wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Game show this evening here in Britain.
>>>Question... Between 1714 and 1830 all the kings of England were named
>>>what?
>>>Answer 1. Henry 2. Edward 3. George
>>>Contestant. "Yeah. I love history. but not that far back. I mean the
>>>1900s are o.k.
>>>I know there were 8 Henrys, but I don't know if they all came
>>>together then. Oh I'll say Henry!"
>>>She lost.
>>>Depressing or what.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think it was Churchill who said, "the further backwards you can
>>>look, the further forwards you will see".
>>>Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>**Sort of like Ken Burns saying the major reason he did "The War"
>>series
>>was because so many young people think we fought with Germany against
>>the Russians during WWII.
>>
>>Gilda
>>
>>
>>
>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

I suspect that history, at least, has been taught as a series of disparate episodes for much of the time that history has been taught at schools.

I know I am in Australia but I have a history school text of British History that my grandfather used back in the 1920s, published in Britain and used in both countries. That was very much a sort of Great Events of history here is the Conquest, next Civil War between Stephen and Matilda etc etc. It had very traditional views on the people and events too.

Helen

"Stanley C.Jenkins" <stanleyc.jenkins@...> wrote:
The British state education system has been rubbish for at least 40
years. If I had relied on school teachers to teach me what I know, I
would know nothing. Not only did we not learn Latin, we did not learn
English either (if "English" is defined as the teaching of grammar),
History was a series of disparate episodes that had no meaning, and
science was so poorly taught as to be utterly meaningless. Only,
perhaps, in terms of mathematics was I properly taught although, sadly,
little of it had any relevance to life beyond the class room. Having
said all that, I should perhaps point out that our History teacher used
to say that Richard III was NOT one of the bad guys - whereas Henry
Tudor looked a "real shifty fellow" in his portraits!






---------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now.

thanks for the link. i had to work to get to a page that would display via that url. but, anyhow, i was able to glean enough info to do a bit of a surf. while trevor phillips brought the theory to light, it was dr. jerry brotton who first postulated it.

i'm amazed at the amount of blog/commentaries regarding this issue. most are rabidly against the concept/theory with very little to base their rejection upon other than it doesn't sit well with the commenter's personal opinion.

this article is one of the least biased, and possesses one long comment by laban tall (use your find in page feature to get to his comments) who provided some intelligence to the debate...so read the article here. laban's comments are way below it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2185469,00.html

what crosses my mind is the large outcry of not true, not true, and no research to substantiate the opinion. no wonder it has taken over 500 years to rehabilitate r3's reputation.

i will even admit, my gut reaction was what???!! but when you stop and look logically at the theory and the evidence it does make sense that the turks/ottomen did play a role in delaying the spanish armada at the request of e1 via walsingham.

even those of us with an open mind, sometimes need to open it just a little bit more to let the truth in or to at least give it the benefit of doubt. the trick is to have an open mind, not a hole in your head.

more research needs to be done, but it ain't gonna be me doing it.

roslyn



theblackprussian <theblackprussian@...> wrote:
Sadly, it's all too true:

http://thehuntsman2007.blogspot.com/2007/09/it-was-turks-wot-won-
it.html

--- In , "lilith82200"
<lilith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In , david rayner
> <theblackprussian@> wrote:
> >
>
> > Someone at the Labour party conference a couple of weeks ago
> suggested that children be told that the Spanish Armada was defeated
> by the Turkish navy in order to "include" Muslim children in British
> history lessons.
>
> That hurts my brain. I thought only those of us in the US had to
deal
> with that leval of stupid.
>

At 10:54 08/10/2007, you wrote:
>I blush when I say I watched that show too. I cringed at the
>contestant`s answer and despair of the modern education system.

We are a self-selected bunch of history nuts. Now, how good are we at
science questions? (How do we rate as 'Renaissance' people?) And how well
would we perform in front of TV cameras? Maybe the contestant cringes too,
in hindsight.

I can see my daughters getting a far better-rounded education than I did,
35 years ago. I gave up all science subjects and geography before O level.
Just about all the science I know comes in Flanders & Swann or Tom Lehrer
form. I did some geography with the Open University and would like to do
some more sometime. Perhaps I'll do the science foundation course one day....

I think the National Curriculum is an excellent idea, but there is too much
on it and there is far too much emphasis on testing and league tables.


Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Listowner, Virtual Book Group - October choice - An Ice Cream War by
William Boyd
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, KS, USA. It was
taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical
Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the Salina Journal.
8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895
******************************** Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give principal Parts of lie, lay
and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you
understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
************************************ Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many
bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel,
deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy
to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for
incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per
metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around
which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
************************************* U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and
Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849,
1865.
************************************* Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography,
etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals,
diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions
under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis,
mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the
sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise,
blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane,fain,
feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use
of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
************************************* Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba,
Hecla,Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S..
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the
sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.

The exam took six hours to complete. So they weren't looking for short answers.

roslyn


Christine H <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
At 10:54 08/10/2007, you wrote:
>I blush when I say I watched that show too. I cringed at the
>contestant`s answer and despair of the modern education system.

We are a self-selected bunch of history nuts. Now, how good are we at
science questions? (How do we rate as 'Renaissance' people?) And how well
would we perform in front of TV cameras? Maybe the contestant cringes too,
in hindsight.

I can see my daughters getting a far better-rounded education than I did,
35 years ago. I gave up all science subjects and geography before O level.
Just about all the science I know comes in Flanders & Swann or Tom Lehrer
form. I did some geography with the Open University and would like to do
some more sometime. Perhaps I'll do the science foundation course one day....

I think the National Curriculum is an excellent idea, but there is too much
on it and there is far too much emphasis on testing and league tables.

Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Listowner, Virtual Book Group - October choice - An Ice Cream War by
William Boyd
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

I have known people who have gone on quiz shows and they say that
nerves do overcome you. Their minds go quite blank and there had been
abit,"Oh (curse) I knew that! How could I be so dumb?" afterwards. It
seem so easy when they have answered the questions while watching the
television.

I am not sure we can make too much of contestants on quiz shows and
the education system in whatever country we are.

I do think it is a good idea to know something of one's country
history and world history.

Then it is probably a good idea to know about biology, geography,
lnguages and all a number of subjects. I am sure all of us would have
gaps in our knowledge.

Helen


--- In , Christine H
<christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>
> At 10:54 08/10/2007, you wrote:
> >I blush when I say I watched that show too. I cringed at the
> >contestant`s answer and despair of the modern education system.
>
> We are a self-selected bunch of history nuts. Now, how good are we
at
> science questions? (How do we rate as 'Renaissance' people?) And
how well
> would we perform in front of TV cameras? Maybe the contestant
cringes too,
> in hindsight.
>
> I can see my daughters getting a far better-rounded education than
I did,
> 35 years ago. I gave up all science subjects and geography before O
level.
> Just about all the science I know comes in Flanders & Swann or Tom
Lehrer
> form. I did some geography with the Open University and would like
to do
> some more sometime. Perhaps I'll do the science foundation course
one day....
>
> I think the National Curriculum is an excellent idea, but there is
too much
> on it and there is far too much emphasis on testing and league
tables.
>
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> Christine Headley
> Listowner, Virtual Book Group - October choice - An Ice Cream War
by
> William Boyd
> Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
>

Very interesting. Am I right in thinking that eighth grade is 14-ish?


Admittedly, in 1895 there were only two republics in Europe! (France and Switzerland)

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, KS, USA. It was
taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical
Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the Salina Journal.
8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895
******************************** Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give principal Parts of lie, lay
and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you
understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
************************************ Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many
bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel,
deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy
to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for
incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per
metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around
which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
************************************* U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and
Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849,
1865.
************************************* Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography,
etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals,
diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions
under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis,
mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the
sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise,
blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane,fain,
feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use
of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
************************************* Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba,
Hecla,Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S..
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the
sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.

The exam took six hours to complete. So they weren't looking for short answers.

roslyn


Christine H <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
At 10:54 08/10/2007, you wrote:
>I blush when I say I watched that show too. I cringed at the
>contestant`s answer and despair of the modern education system.

We are a self-selected bunch of history nuts. Now, how good are we at
science questions? (How do we rate as 'Renaissance' people?) And how well
would we perform in front of TV cameras? Maybe the contestant cringes too,
in hindsight.

I can see my daughters getting a far better-rounded education than I did,
35 years ago. I gave up all science subjects and geography before O level.
Just about all the science I know comes in Flanders & Swann or Tom Lehrer
form. I did some geography with the Open University and would like to do
some more sometime. Perhaps I'll do the science foundation course one day....

I think the National Curriculum is an excellent idea, but there is too much
on it and there is far too much emphasis on testing and league tables.

Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Listowner, Virtual Book Group - October choice - An Ice Cream War by
William Boyd
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos

I noticed that the history part was only forty-five minutes. Five and abit minutes for each question. No one could write too much detail in that time.

Helen

A LYON <A.Lyon1@...> wrote:
Very interesting. Am I right in thinking that eighth grade is 14-ish?


Admittedly, in 1895 there were only two republics in Europe! (France and Switzerland)

fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, KS, USA. It was
taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical
Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the Salina Journal.
8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895
******************************** Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give principal Parts of lie, lay
and run.
5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you
understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
************************************ Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How many
bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel,
deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy
to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for
incidentals?
5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at $20 per
metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance around
which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
************************************* U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln, Penn, and
Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849,
1865.
************************************* Orthography (Time, one hour)
1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography,
etymology, syllabication?
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph, subvocals,
diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions
under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis,
mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the
sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise,
blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane,fain,
feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use
of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
************************************* Geography (Time, one hour)
1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America.
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver, Manitoba,
Hecla,Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S..
7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the
sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.

The exam took six hours to complete. So they weren't looking for short answers.

roslyn

Christine H <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
At 10:54 08/10/2007, you wrote:
>I blush when I say I watched that show too. I cringed at the
>contestant`s answer and despair of the modern education system.

We are a self-selected bunch of history nuts. Now, how good are we at
science questions? (How do we rate as 'Renaissance' people?) And how well
would we perform in front of TV cameras? Maybe the contestant cringes too,
in hindsight.

I can see my daughters getting a far better-rounded education than I did,
35 years ago. I gave up all science subjects and geography before O level.
Just about all the science I know comes in Flanders & Swann or Tom Lehrer
form. I did some geography with the Open University and would like to do
some more sometime. Perhaps I'll do the science foundation course one day....

I think the National Curriculum is an excellent idea, but there is too much
on it and there is far too much emphasis on testing and league tables.

Best wishes
Christine

Christine Headley
Listowner, Virtual Book Group - October choice - An Ice Cream War by
William Boyd
Butterrow, Stroud, Glos










---------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now.

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>

I'm sure 13-14-year-olds couldn't answer those questions now, and I
don't suppose I could have done at the same age. Dare I say, though,
that I suspect two things have happened:-
1) Now everyone is at school till 18. I don't know about America, but
in England in 1895 the only children who could have got schooling
beyond the age of twelve were those with wealthy parents who were
being groomed for the professions or ordinary kids (almost all boys)
who were really brainy and had won themselves a scholarship place at
such a private school.
Secondly, learning then was much more by rote, so there would be
certain very set things the kids had off by memory (including,
possibly, the grammatical rules and definitions asked for in the
paper below). But there would be all sorts of subjects we take for
granted now that they'd never covered. And kids who couldn't make the
grade at the end of the year had to repeat it, so they weren't going
forward beyond what they could cope with or holding the brighter
children back.

Unfortunately, the attempt to make secondary education more and more
inclusive has resulted, in England at least, in progressive dumbing
down. I'm not saying that need have happened, but for various reasons
it has done. Also, when the idea of rote learning was ditched in
favour of explanation, a lot of very basic grounding was stupidly
thrown out with it.

I sady don't think education in Britain is ever going to improve
until we start to offer different children the sorts of education to
which they're suited, so the academic ones aren't sold a dumbed-down
academic education that leaves them unfit to start a tradititional
university course, and kids whose talents lie elsewhere aren't left
with neither academic qualifications nor any practical skills. I
would also like to see IQ tests brought back, flawed though they are,
so that kids aren't brought on or held back according to teacher
assessment, which is even more flawed and is notoriously bad at
identifying the very bright kids, who are often either disruptive or
daydreaming through sheer boredom.
It's often said now that the days of grammar schools were the good
old days, and there certainly was more social mobility then than
there is now, but there were bad grammar schools to. Because my
family were Catholic, I ended up at a girls' convent grammar school
where the teaching was appalling and they were really only interested
in sending us to Catholic teacher training college or into a nun's
habit (or preferably both). Despite the fact that it was academically
selective in the first place, hardly anyone made it to a proper
university (including me - I ended up doing my degree at a
polytechnic). It was north London, we were female, there were no
league tables, and the parents generally didn't realise there was
anything wrong with the school because their expectations weren't
high and they wouldn't hear a word said against nuns. If we could
speak nicely and get to be teachers or secretaries that was all they
had ever hoped for. It wasn't ven that the teachers were not well
educated. Some of them had Oxford degrees. But I don't think there
was any pressure on them to get results from us. We sat some public
exams to find we hadn't even touched 3/4 of the syllabus. The only
really good O level teacher I had was my maths teacher, who didn't
have a degree but had done a three-year teacher trsaining course
straight from school. The parallel form were being taught by an
Oxford graduate and nearly all failed.
I also understand that a lot of well known girls' private schools
were quite awful too, seeing their job as being merely to turn out
well-groomed society wives and hostesses. Huge numbers of their girls
ended up at catering colleges.
It is so much better for girls now. All the time I was growing up you
would hear people say that an education was a waste of time (and
government money) for girls as they would only be working for a few
years till they had babies. When so many people at my school failed
their maths O level there was not an outcry from their parents. The
girls themselves took it philosophically, saying they couldn't be
expected to do maths, it was a boys' subject. My daughter's
generation really do have the same chances as the boys and no one
messing with their self-confidence.

How does everyone think we can improve history teaching? When I was
at school you actually did get a joined-up syllabus. I can recall
cave men, Mesopotamian housewives and Tudor and Stuart costumes (in
that order) from junior school. Then at secondary school we did
English history only till 16, starting back at the Norman Conquest,
doing the Middle Ages at 11-12, and then on and on till we hit the O
level syllabus (19th century) at 14-16. I do recall hitting a point,
perhaps aged 13, when I suddenly clicked. I had enough idea of what
came after to see how it was all joining up, and this timeline sort
of rolled out in front of my inner eye. My kids have nothing like
htat. The past for them is a meaningless jumble. On the other hand,
it meant that you only tackled distant periods when you were very
young.

But some of the junior-school content was awful. I'm sure I was
taught that Stone Age people just threw bits of animal skins over
themselves with no attempt at crafting them into clothes, and
communicated with each other in grunts. The teachers were completely
confused between Stone Age people and Neanderthals. Ancient Britons
were also totally uncivilised, daubed themselves in woad just because
they were kind of mad, and generally looked a mess and just fought
all the time. I don't even remember doing the Anglo Saxons. I would
say the proper history teachers at my secondary school, though, did
understand their subjects even if they didn't put them across
particularly well.

Marie





> Very interesting. Am I right in thinking that eighth grade is 14-
ish?
>
>
> Admittedly, in 1895 there were only two republics in Europe!
(France and Switzerland)
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina,
KS, USA. It was
> taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley
Genealogical
> Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the Salina
Journal.
> 8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895
> ******************************** Grammar (Time, one hour)
> 1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
> 2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no
modifications.
> 3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
> 4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give principal Parts of
lie, lay
> and run.
> 5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
> 6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of
punctuation.
> 7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein
that you
> understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
> ************************************ Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
> 1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
> 2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How
many
> bushels of wheat will it hold?
> 3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at
50cts/bushel,
> deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
> 4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the
necessary levy
> to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104
for
> incidentals?
> 5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
> 6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7
percent.
> 7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at
$20 per
> metre?
> 8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
> 9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance
around
> which is 640 rods?
> 10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
> ************************************* U.S. History (Time, 45
minutes)
> 1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
> 2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
> 3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
> 4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
> 5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
> 6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
> 7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln,
Penn, and
> Howe?
> 8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620,
1800, 1849,
> 1865.
> ************************************* Orthography (Time, one hour)
> 1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography,
> etymology, syllabication?
> 2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
> 3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph,
subvocals,
> diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
> 4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
> 5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two
exceptions
> under each rule.
> 6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
> 7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word:
bi, dis,
> mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
> 8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and
name the
> sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell,
rise,
> blood, fare, last.
> 9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight,
fane,fain,
> feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
> 10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate
pronunciation by use
> of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
> ************************************* Geography (Time, one hour)
> 1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
> 2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
> 3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
> 4. Describe the mountains of North America.
> 5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver,
Manitoba,
> Hecla,Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
> 6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S..
> 7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
> 8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same
latitude?
> 9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to
the
> sources of rivers.
> 10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of
the earth.
>
> The exam took six hours to complete. So they weren't looking for
short answers.
>
> roslyn
>
>
> Christine H <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
> At 10:54 08/10/2007, you wrote:
> >I blush when I say I watched that show too. I cringed at the
> >contestant`s answer and despair of the modern education system.
>
> We are a self-selected bunch of history nuts. Now, how good are we
at
> science questions? (How do we rate as 'Renaissance' people?) And
how well
> would we perform in front of TV cameras? Maybe the contestant
cringes too,
> in hindsight.
>
> I can see my daughters getting a far better-rounded education than
I did,
> 35 years ago. I gave up all science subjects and geography before O
level.
> Just about all the science I know comes in Flanders & Swann or Tom
Lehrer
> form. I did some geography with the Open University and would like
to do
> some more sometime. Perhaps I'll do the science foundation course
one day....
>
> I think the National Curriculum is an excellent idea, but there is
too much
> on it and there is far too much emphasis on testing and league
tables.
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> Christine Headley
> Listowner, Virtual Book Group - October choice - An Ice Cream War
by
> William Boyd
> Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Sorry, you failed ! You forgot San Marino.

Richard G

--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:

>
> Admittedly, in 1895 there were only two republics in Europe!
(France and Switzerland)
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina,
KS, USA. It was
> taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley
Genealogical
> Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the Salina
Journal.
> 8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895
> ******************************** Grammar (Time, one hour)
> 1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
> 2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no
modifications.
> 3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
> 4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give principal Parts of
lie, lay
> and run.
> 5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
> 6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of
punctuation.
> 7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein
that you
> understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
> ************************************ Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
> 1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
> 2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How
many
> bushels of wheat will it hold?
> 3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at
50cts/bushel,
> deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
> 4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the
necessary levy
> to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104
for
> incidentals?
> 5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
> 6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7
percent.
> 7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at
$20 per
> metre?
> 8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10
percent.
> 9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance
around
> which is 640 rods?
> 10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
> ************************************* U.S. History (Time, 45
minutes)
> 1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
> 2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
> 3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
> 4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
> 5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
> 6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
> 7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln,
Penn, and
> Howe?
> 8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620,
1800, 1849,
> 1865.
> ************************************* Orthography (Time, one hour)
> 1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic,
orthography,
> etymology, syllabication?
> 2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
> 3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph,
subvocals,
> diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
> 4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
> 5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two
exceptions
> under each rule.
> 6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
> 7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a
word: bi, dis,
> mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
> 8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and
name the
> sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell,
rise,
> blood, fare, last.
> 9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight,
fane,fain,
> feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
> 10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate
pronunciation by use
> of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
> ************************************* Geography (Time, one hour)
> 1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
> 2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
> 3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
> 4. Describe the mountains of North America.
> 5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver,
Manitoba,
> Hecla,Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
> 6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S..
> 7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
> 8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same
latitude?
> 9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to
the
> sources of rivers.
> 10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of
the earth.
>
> The exam took six hours to complete. So they weren't looking for
short answers.
>
> roslyn
>
>
> Christine H <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
> At 10:54 08/10/2007, you wrote:
> >I blush when I say I watched that show too. I cringed at the
> >contestant`s answer and despair of the modern education system.
>
> We are a self-selected bunch of history nuts. Now, how good are we
at
> science questions? (How do we rate as 'Renaissance' people?) And
how well
> would we perform in front of TV cameras? Maybe the contestant
cringes too,
> in hindsight.
>
> I can see my daughters getting a far better-rounded education than
I did,
> 35 years ago. I gave up all science subjects and geography before
O level.
> Just about all the science I know comes in Flanders & Swann or Tom
Lehrer
> form. I did some geography with the Open University and would like
to do
> some more sometime. Perhaps I'll do the science foundation course
one day....
>
> I think the National Curriculum is an excellent idea, but there is
too much
> on it and there is far too much emphasis on testing and league
tables.
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> Christine Headley
> Listowner, Virtual Book Group - October choice - An Ice Cream War
by
> William Boyd
> Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I did my O level History in 1974 got grade 1.? unfortunately I chose not to do A level but took French instead and was finished off by Moliere's La Neur de Vipiers on a Friday afternoon and dropped out.? Like you my English teacher (who also taught me History) gave me Josephine Tey's A Daughter of Time to read as he believed I was a talented historian.? I wish I had believed it then as in one form or another it has been a life long passion of mine.

Cheers Coral


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
To:
Sent: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 7.19pm
Subject: Re: Re: History OT






I must have got in just in time then, as I was doing my Advanced
Level History in 1965 when we were studying 17th Century British
history, 17th century Europe, particularly France and Spain, and were
allowed to chose from about 10 different special subjects - I took
the French Revolution. The European course fitted in well with my
French course, the literature part of which was mainly 17th century
writers, Moliere and Racine to name two, and the grammar part helped
me understand my English grammar, which we did have some lessons in,
along with an hour a week called Use of English.
The year before my English teacher had been impressed when I
challenged Shakespeare's view of Richard III, as he told me he had
always been a secret Yorkist.
What changed in so short a time?
Paul

On 8 Oct 2007, at 13:44, Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:

> The British state education system has been rubbish for at least 40
> years. If I had relied on school teachers to teach me what I know, I
> would know nothing. Not only did we not learn Latin, we did not learn
> English either (if "English" is defined as the teaching of grammar),
> History was a series of disparate episodes that had no meaning, and
> science was so poorly taught as to be utterly meaningless. Only,
> perhaps, in terms of mathematics was I properly taught although,
> sadly,
> little of it had any relevance to life beyond the class room. Having
> said all that, I should perhaps point out that our History teacher
> used
> to say that Richard III was NOT one of the bad guys - whereas Henry
> Tudor looked a "real shifty fellow" in his portraits!
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"





________________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE AOL Email account with unlimited storage. Plus, share and store photos and experience exclusively recorded live music Sessions from your favourite artists. Find out more at http://info.aol.co.uk/joinnow/?ncid=548.

Marie

Very interesting and I agree with most of what you say.

The 11+ and grammar schools, I think, generally provided an excellent education and a great deal of social mobility for those who actually went to them (though I take your point that not all of them were good), The problem was that they were somewhat of a blunt instrument - essentially one chance at age 11 and if you didn't get through then it was the secondary modern. That wouldn't have mattered so much if the technical schools - the third leg of the tripartite system - had developed better. My father went to one from 1940-44 which sounds as though it was an excellent school, though they didn't do any public exams. In those days there was also an extensive network of night schools, plus apprenticeships with day release, through which a lot of 11+ 'failures' did get a decent education. Again, that included my father, who ended up as a Chartered Engineer and an officer in the RAF Engineering Branch by that root. But going to night school on top of a day's work was a much
harder option than school, so there must have been an awful lot of people who fell by the wayside.

Ann

mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
--- In , A LYON <A.Lyon1@...>
wrote:
>

I'm sure 13-14-year-olds couldn't answer those questions now, and I
don't suppose I could have done at the same age. Dare I say, though,
that I suspect two things have happened:-
1) Now everyone is at school till 18. I don't know about America, but
in England in 1895 the only children who could have got schooling
beyond the age of twelve were those with wealthy parents who were
being groomed for the professions or ordinary kids (almost all boys)
who were really brainy and had won themselves a scholarship place at
such a private school.
Secondly, learning then was much more by rote, so there would be
certain very set things the kids had off by memory (including,
possibly, the grammatical rules and definitions asked for in the
paper below). But there would be all sorts of subjects we take for
granted now that they'd never covered. And kids who couldn't make the
grade at the end of the year had to repeat it, so they weren't going
forward beyond what they could cope with or holding the brighter
children back.

Unfortunately, the attempt to make secondary education more and more
inclusive has resulted, in England at least, in progressive dumbing
down. I'm not saying that need have happened, but for various reasons
it has done. Also, when the idea of rote learning was ditched in
favour of explanation, a lot of very basic grounding was stupidly
thrown out with it.

I sady don't think education in Britain is ever going to improve
until we start to offer different children the sorts of education to
which they're suited, so the academic ones aren't sold a dumbed-down
academic education that leaves them unfit to start a tradititional
university course, and kids whose talents lie elsewhere aren't left
with neither academic qualifications nor any practical skills. I
would also like to see IQ tests brought back, flawed though they are,
so that kids aren't brought on or held back according to teacher
assessment, which is even more flawed and is notoriously bad at
identifying the very bright kids, who are often either disruptive or
daydreaming through sheer boredom.
It's often said now that the days of grammar schools were the good
old days, and there certainly was more social mobility then than
there is now, but there were bad grammar schools to. Because my
family were Catholic, I ended up at a girls' convent grammar school
where the teaching was appalling and they were really only interested
in sending us to Catholic teacher training college or into a nun's
habit (or preferably both). Despite the fact that it was academically
selective in the first place, hardly anyone made it to a proper
university (including me - I ended up doing my degree at a
polytechnic). It was north London, we were female, there were no
league tables, and the parents generally didn't realise there was
anything wrong with the school because their expectations weren't
high and they wouldn't hear a word said against nuns. If we could
speak nicely and get to be teachers or secretaries that was all they
had ever hoped for. It wasn't ven that the teachers were not well
educated. Some of them had Oxford degrees. But I don't think there
was any pressure on them to get results from us. We sat some public
exams to find we hadn't even touched 3/4 of the syllabus. The only
really good O level teacher I had was my maths teacher, who didn't
have a degree but had done a three-year teacher trsaining course
straight from school. The parallel form were being taught by an
Oxford graduate and nearly all failed.
I also understand that a lot of well known girls' private schools
were quite awful too, seeing their job as being merely to turn out
well-groomed society wives and hostesses. Huge numbers of their girls
ended up at catering colleges.
It is so much better for girls now. All the time I was growing up you
would hear people say that an education was a waste of time (and
government money) for girls as they would only be working for a few
years till they had babies. When so many people at my school failed
their maths O level there was not an outcry from their parents. The
girls themselves took it philosophically, saying they couldn't be
expected to do maths, it was a boys' subject. My daughter's
generation really do have the same chances as the boys and no one
messing with their self-confidence.

How does everyone think we can improve history teaching? When I was
at school you actually did get a joined-up syllabus. I can recall
cave men, Mesopotamian housewives and Tudor and Stuart costumes (in
that order) from junior school. Then at secondary school we did
English history only till 16, starting back at the Norman Conquest,
doing the Middle Ages at 11-12, and then on and on till we hit the O
level syllabus (19th century) at 14-16. I do recall hitting a point,
perhaps aged 13, when I suddenly clicked. I had enough idea of what
came after to see how it was all joining up, and this timeline sort
of rolled out in front of my inner eye. My kids have nothing like
htat. The past for them is a meaningless jumble. On the other hand,
it meant that you only tackled distant periods when you were very
young.

But some of the junior-school content was awful. I'm sure I was
taught that Stone Age people just threw bits of animal skins over
themselves with no attempt at crafting them into clothes, and
communicated with each other in grunts. The teachers were completely
confused between Stone Age people and Neanderthals. Ancient Britons
were also totally uncivilised, daubed themselves in woad just because
they were kind of mad, and generally looked a mess and just fought
all the time. I don't even remember doing the Anglo Saxons. I would
say the proper history teachers at my secondary school, though, did
understand their subjects even if they didn't put them across
particularly well.

Marie

> Very interesting. Am I right in thinking that eighth grade is 14-
ish?
>
>
> Admittedly, in 1895 there were only two republics in Europe!
(France and Switzerland)
>
> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
> This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina,
KS, USA. It was
> taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley
Genealogical
> Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the Salina
Journal.
> 8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895
> ******************************** Grammar (Time, one hour)
> 1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
> 2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no
modifications.
> 3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
> 4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give principal Parts of
lie, lay
> and run.
> 5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
> 6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of
punctuation.
> 7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein
that you
> understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
> ************************************ Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
> 1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
> 2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How
many
> bushels of wheat will it hold?
> 3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at
50cts/bushel,
> deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
> 4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the
necessary levy
> to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104
for
> incidentals?
> 5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
> 6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7
percent.
> 7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at
$20 per
> metre?
> 8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
> 9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance
around
> which is 640 rods?
> 10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
> ************************************* U.S. History (Time, 45
minutes)
> 1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
> 2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
> 3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
> 4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
> 5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
> 6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
> 7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln,
Penn, and
> Howe?
> 8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620,
1800, 1849,
> 1865.
> ************************************* Orthography (Time, one hour)
> 1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography,
> etymology, syllabication?
> 2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
> 3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph,
subvocals,
> diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
> 4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
> 5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two
exceptions
> under each rule.
> 6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
> 7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word:
bi, dis,
> mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
> 8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and
name the
> sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell,
rise,
> blood, fare, last.
> 9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight,
fane,fain,
> feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
> 10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate
pronunciation by use
> of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
> ************************************* Geography (Time, one hour)
> 1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
> 2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
> 3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
> 4. Describe the mountains of North America.
> 5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver,
Manitoba,
> Hecla,Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
> 6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S..
> 7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
> 8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same
latitude?
> 9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to
the
> sources of rivers.
> 10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of
the earth.
>
> The exam took six hours to complete. So they weren't looking for
short answers.
>
> roslyn
>
>
> Christine H <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
> At 10:54 08/10/2007, you wrote:
> >I blush when I say I watched that show too. I cringed at the
> >contestant`s answer and despair of the modern education system.
>
> We are a self-selected bunch of history nuts. Now, how good are we
at
> science questions? (How do we rate as 'Renaissance' people?) And
how well
> would we perform in front of TV cameras? Maybe the contestant
cringes too,
> in hindsight.
>
> I can see my daughters getting a far better-rounded education than
I did,
> 35 years ago. I gave up all science subjects and geography before O
level.
> Just about all the science I know comes in Flanders & Swann or Tom
Lehrer
> form. I did some geography with the Open University and would like
to do
> some more sometime. Perhaps I'll do the science foundation course
one day....
>
> I think the National Curriculum is an excellent idea, but there is
too much
> on it and there is far too much emphasis on testing and league
tables.
>
> Best wishes
> Christine
>
> Christine Headley
> Listowner, Virtual Book Group - October choice - An Ice Cream War
by
> William Boyd
> Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Coral
My English teacher didn't have to give me Daughter of Time as I'd
already discovered it for myself. As for Moliere, I took to him
straight away and have always loved his work. Only recently have
there been any English translations worthy of him. Same goes for
Shakespeare in French! If you'd studied 17th century French history
you would have got so much more out of Moliere! You only took one
subject at A level? How'd you get away with that?
Sounds like a shame you didn't take History. I loved my A level
course, even without any Middle Ages.
Paul


On 10 Oct 2007, at 19:33, Coralnelson11@... wrote:

> I did my O level History in 1974 got grade 1.? unfortunately I
> chose not to do A level but took French instead and was finished
> off by Moliere's La Neur de Vipiers on a Friday afternoon and
> dropped out.? Like you my English teacher (who also taught me
> History) gave me Josephine Tey's A Daughter of Time to read as he
> believed I was a talented historian.? I wish I had believed it then
> as in one form or another it has been a life long passion of mine.
>
> Cheers Coral
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...>
> To:
> Sent: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 7.19pm
> Subject: Re: Re: History OT
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I must have got in just in time then, as I was doing my Advanced
> Level History in 1965 when we were studying 17th Century British
> history, 17th century Europe, particularly France and Spain, and were
> allowed to chose from about 10 different special subjects - I took
> the French Revolution. The European course fitted in well with my
> French course, the literature part of which was mainly 17th century
> writers, Moliere and Racine to name two, and the grammar part helped
> me understand my English grammar, which we did have some lessons in,
> along with an hour a week called Use of English.
> The year before my English teacher had been impressed when I
> challenged Shakespeare's view of Richard III, as he told me he had
> always been a secret Yorkist.
> What changed in so short a time?
> Paul
>
> On 8 Oct 2007, at 13:44, Stanley C.Jenkins wrote:
>
>> The British state education system has been rubbish for at least 40
>> years. If I had relied on school teachers to teach me what I know, I
>> would know nothing. Not only did we not learn Latin, we did not learn
>> English either (if "English" is defined as the teaching of grammar),
>> History was a series of disparate episodes that had no meaning, and
>> science was so poorly taught as to be utterly meaningless. Only,
>> perhaps, in terms of mathematics was I properly taught although,
>> sadly,
>> little of it had any relevance to life beyond the class room. Having
>> said all that, I should perhaps point out that our History teacher
>> used
>> to say that Richard III was NOT one of the bad guys - whereas Henry
>> Tudor looked a "real shifty fellow" in his portraits!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
> "Richard Liveth Yet!"
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> __
> Get a FREE AOL Email account with unlimited storage. Plus, share
> and store photos and experience exclusively recorded live music
> Sessions from your favourite artists. Find out more at http://
> info.aol.co.uk/joinnow/?ncid=548.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

There was also a 13+ exam, and my best mate came into my grammar
school after O Levels, so 11+ wasn't the only chance to rectify an
oversight. But I do agree that 11+ and the streaming seems to have
been a much better system than the one we have today.
Paul

On 11 Oct 2007, at 09:33, A LYON wrote:

> Marie
>
> Very interesting and I agree with most of what you say.
>
> The 11+ and grammar schools, I think, generally provided an
> excellent education and a great deal of social mobility for those
> who actually went to them (though I take your point that not all of
> them were good), The problem was that they were somewhat of a blunt
> instrument - essentially one chance at age 11 and if you didn't get
> through then it was the secondary modern. That wouldn't have
> mattered so much if the technical schools - the third leg of the
> tripartite system - had developed better. My father went to one
> from 1940-44 which sounds as though it was an excellent school,
> though they didn't do any public exams. In those days there was
> also an extensive network of night schools, plus apprenticeships
> with day release, through which a lot of 11+ 'failures' did get a
> decent education. Again, that included my father, who ended up as a
> Chartered Engineer and an officer in the RAF Engineering Branch by
> that root. But going to night school on top of a day's work was a much
> harder option than school, so there must have been an awful lot of
> people who fell by the wayside.
>
> Ann
>
> mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , A LYON
> <A.Lyon1@...>
> wrote:
>>
>
> I'm sure 13-14-year-olds couldn't answer those questions now, and I
> don't suppose I could have done at the same age. Dare I say, though,
> that I suspect two things have happened:-
> 1) Now everyone is at school till 18. I don't know about America, but
> in England in 1895 the only children who could have got schooling
> beyond the age of twelve were those with wealthy parents who were
> being groomed for the professions or ordinary kids (almost all boys)
> who were really brainy and had won themselves a scholarship place at
> such a private school.
> Secondly, learning then was much more by rote, so there would be
> certain very set things the kids had off by memory (including,
> possibly, the grammatical rules and definitions asked for in the
> paper below). But there would be all sorts of subjects we take for
> granted now that they'd never covered. And kids who couldn't make the
> grade at the end of the year had to repeat it, so they weren't going
> forward beyond what they could cope with or holding the brighter
> children back.
>
> Unfortunately, the attempt to make secondary education more and more
> inclusive has resulted, in England at least, in progressive dumbing
> down. I'm not saying that need have happened, but for various reasons
> it has done. Also, when the idea of rote learning was ditched in
> favour of explanation, a lot of very basic grounding was stupidly
> thrown out with it.
>
> I sady don't think education in Britain is ever going to improve
> until we start to offer different children the sorts of education to
> which they're suited, so the academic ones aren't sold a dumbed-down
> academic education that leaves them unfit to start a tradititional
> university course, and kids whose talents lie elsewhere aren't left
> with neither academic qualifications nor any practical skills. I
> would also like to see IQ tests brought back, flawed though they are,
> so that kids aren't brought on or held back according to teacher
> assessment, which is even more flawed and is notoriously bad at
> identifying the very bright kids, who are often either disruptive or
> daydreaming through sheer boredom.
> It's often said now that the days of grammar schools were the good
> old days, and there certainly was more social mobility then than
> there is now, but there were bad grammar schools to. Because my
> family were Catholic, I ended up at a girls' convent grammar school
> where the teaching was appalling and they were really only interested
> in sending us to Catholic teacher training college or into a nun's
> habit (or preferably both). Despite the fact that it was academically
> selective in the first place, hardly anyone made it to a proper
> university (including me - I ended up doing my degree at a
> polytechnic). It was north London, we were female, there were no
> league tables, and the parents generally didn't realise there was
> anything wrong with the school because their expectations weren't
> high and they wouldn't hear a word said against nuns. If we could
> speak nicely and get to be teachers or secretaries that was all they
> had ever hoped for. It wasn't ven that the teachers were not well
> educated. Some of them had Oxford degrees. But I don't think there
> was any pressure on them to get results from us. We sat some public
> exams to find we hadn't even touched 3/4 of the syllabus. The only
> really good O level teacher I had was my maths teacher, who didn't
> have a degree but had done a three-year teacher trsaining course
> straight from school. The parallel form were being taught by an
> Oxford graduate and nearly all failed.
> I also understand that a lot of well known girls' private schools
> were quite awful too, seeing their job as being merely to turn out
> well-groomed society wives and hostesses. Huge numbers of their girls
> ended up at catering colleges.
> It is so much better for girls now. All the time I was growing up you
> would hear people say that an education was a waste of time (and
> government money) for girls as they would only be working for a few
> years till they had babies. When so many people at my school failed
> their maths O level there was not an outcry from their parents. The
> girls themselves took it philosophically, saying they couldn't be
> expected to do maths, it was a boys' subject. My daughter's
> generation really do have the same chances as the boys and no one
> messing with their self-confidence.
>
> How does everyone think we can improve history teaching? When I was
> at school you actually did get a joined-up syllabus. I can recall
> cave men, Mesopotamian housewives and Tudor and Stuart costumes (in
> that order) from junior school. Then at secondary school we did
> English history only till 16, starting back at the Norman Conquest,
> doing the Middle Ages at 11-12, and then on and on till we hit the O
> level syllabus (19th century) at 14-16. I do recall hitting a point,
> perhaps aged 13, when I suddenly clicked. I had enough idea of what
> came after to see how it was all joining up, and this timeline sort
> of rolled out in front of my inner eye. My kids have nothing like
> htat. The past for them is a meaningless jumble. On the other hand,
> it meant that you only tackled distant periods when you were very
> young.
>
> But some of the junior-school content was awful. I'm sure I was
> taught that Stone Age people just threw bits of animal skins over
> themselves with no attempt at crafting them into clothes, and
> communicated with each other in grunts. The teachers were completely
> confused between Stone Age people and Neanderthals. Ancient Britons
> were also totally uncivilised, daubed themselves in woad just because
> they were kind of mad, and generally looked a mess and just fought
> all the time. I don't even remember doing the Anglo Saxons. I would
> say the proper history teachers at my secondary school, though, did
> understand their subjects even if they didn't put them across
> particularly well.
>
> Marie
>
>> Very interesting. Am I right in thinking that eighth grade is 14-
> ish?
>>
>>
>> Admittedly, in 1895 there were only two republics in Europe!
> (France and Switzerland)
>>
>> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>> This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina,
> KS, USA. It was
>> taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley
> Genealogical
>> Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the Salina
> Journal.
>> 8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895
>> ******************************** Grammar (Time, one hour)
>> 1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
>> 2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no
> modifications.
>> 3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
>> 4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give principal Parts of
> lie, lay
>> and run.
>> 5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
>> 6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of
> punctuation.
>> 7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein
> that you
>> understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
>> ************************************ Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
>> 1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
>> 2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How
> many
>> bushels of wheat will it hold?
>> 3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at
> 50cts/bushel,
>> deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
>> 4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the
> necessary levy
>> to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104
> for
>> incidentals?
>> 5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
>> 6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7
> percent.
>> 7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at
> $20 per
>> metre?
>> 8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
>> 9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance
> around
>> which is 640 rods?
>> 10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
>> ************************************* U.S. History (Time, 45
> minutes)
>> 1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
>> 2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
>> 3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
>> 4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
>> 5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
>> 6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
>> 7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln,
> Penn, and
>> Howe?
>> 8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620,
> 1800, 1849,
>> 1865.
>> ************************************* Orthography (Time, one hour)
>> 1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography,
>> etymology, syllabication?
>> 2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
>> 3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph,
> subvocals,
>> diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
>> 4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
>> 5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two
> exceptions
>> under each rule.
>> 6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
>> 7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word:
> bi, dis,
>> mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
>> 8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and
> name the
>> sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell,
> rise,
>> blood, fare, last.
>> 9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight,
> fane,fain,
>> feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
>> 10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate
> pronunciation by use
>> of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
>> ************************************* Geography (Time, one hour)
>> 1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
>> 2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
>> 3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
>> 4. Describe the mountains of North America.
>> 5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver,
> Manitoba,
>> Hecla,Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
>> 6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S..
>> 7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
>> 8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same
> latitude?
>> 9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to
> the
>> sources of rivers.
>> 10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of
> the earth.
>>
>> The exam took six hours to complete. So they weren't looking for
> short answers.
>>
>> roslyn
>>
>>
>> Christine H <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>> At 10:54 08/10/2007, you wrote:
>>> I blush when I say I watched that show too. I cringed at the
>>> contestant`s answer and despair of the modern education system.
>>
>> We are a self-selected bunch of history nuts. Now, how good are we
> at
>> science questions? (How do we rate as 'Renaissance' people?) And
> how well
>> would we perform in front of TV cameras? Maybe the contestant
> cringes too,
>> in hindsight.
>>
>> I can see my daughters getting a far better-rounded education than
> I did,
>> 35 years ago. I gave up all science subjects and geography before O
> level.
>> Just about all the science I know comes in Flanders & Swann or Tom
> Lehrer
>> form. I did some geography with the Open University and would like
> to do
>> some more sometime. Perhaps I'll do the science foundation course
> one day....
>>
>> I think the National Curriculum is an excellent idea, but there is
> too much
>> on it and there is far too much emphasis on testing and league
> tables.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Christine
>>
>> Christine Headley
>> Listowner, Virtual Book Group - October choice - An Ice Cream War
> by
>> William Boyd
>> Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"

I think the 13+ only applied in certain parts of the country.

Paul Trevor Bale <paultrevor@...> wrote: There was also a 13+ exam, and my best mate came into my grammar
school after O Levels, so 11+ wasn't the only chance to rectify an
oversight. But I do agree that 11+ and the streaming seems to have
been a much better system than the one we have today.
Paul

On 11 Oct 2007, at 09:33, A LYON wrote:

> Marie
>
> Very interesting and I agree with most of what you say.
>
> The 11+ and grammar schools, I think, generally provided an
> excellent education and a great deal of social mobility for those
> who actually went to them (though I take your point that not all of
> them were good), The problem was that they were somewhat of a blunt
> instrument - essentially one chance at age 11 and if you didn't get
> through then it was the secondary modern. That wouldn't have
> mattered so much if the technical schools - the third leg of the
> tripartite system - had developed better. My father went to one
> from 1940-44 which sounds as though it was an excellent school,
> though they didn't do any public exams. In those days there was
> also an extensive network of night schools, plus apprenticeships
> with day release, through which a lot of 11+ 'failures' did get a
> decent education. Again, that included my father, who ended up as a
> Chartered Engineer and an officer in the RAF Engineering Branch by
> that root. But going to night school on top of a day's work was a much
> harder option than school, so there must have been an awful lot of
> people who fell by the wayside.
>
> Ann
>
> mariewalsh2003 <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In , A LYON
> <A.Lyon1@...>
> wrote:
>>
>
> I'm sure 13-14-year-olds couldn't answer those questions now, and I
> don't suppose I could have done at the same age. Dare I say, though,
> that I suspect two things have happened:-
> 1) Now everyone is at school till 18. I don't know about America, but
> in England in 1895 the only children who could have got schooling
> beyond the age of twelve were those with wealthy parents who were
> being groomed for the professions or ordinary kids (almost all boys)
> who were really brainy and had won themselves a scholarship place at
> such a private school.
> Secondly, learning then was much more by rote, so there would be
> certain very set things the kids had off by memory (including,
> possibly, the grammatical rules and definitions asked for in the
> paper below). But there would be all sorts of subjects we take for
> granted now that they'd never covered. And kids who couldn't make the
> grade at the end of the year had to repeat it, so they weren't going
> forward beyond what they could cope with or holding the brighter
> children back.
>
> Unfortunately, the attempt to make secondary education more and more
> inclusive has resulted, in England at least, in progressive dumbing
> down. I'm not saying that need have happened, but for various reasons
> it has done. Also, when the idea of rote learning was ditched in
> favour of explanation, a lot of very basic grounding was stupidly
> thrown out with it.
>
> I sady don't think education in Britain is ever going to improve
> until we start to offer different children the sorts of education to
> which they're suited, so the academic ones aren't sold a dumbed-down
> academic education that leaves them unfit to start a tradititional
> university course, and kids whose talents lie elsewhere aren't left
> with neither academic qualifications nor any practical skills. I
> would also like to see IQ tests brought back, flawed though they are,
> so that kids aren't brought on or held back according to teacher
> assessment, which is even more flawed and is notoriously bad at
> identifying the very bright kids, who are often either disruptive or
> daydreaming through sheer boredom.
> It's often said now that the days of grammar schools were the good
> old days, and there certainly was more social mobility then than
> there is now, but there were bad grammar schools to. Because my
> family were Catholic, I ended up at a girls' convent grammar school
> where the teaching was appalling and they were really only interested
> in sending us to Catholic teacher training college or into a nun's
> habit (or preferably both). Despite the fact that it was academically
> selective in the first place, hardly anyone made it to a proper
> university (including me - I ended up doing my degree at a
> polytechnic). It was north London, we were female, there were no
> league tables, and the parents generally didn't realise there was
> anything wrong with the school because their expectations weren't
> high and they wouldn't hear a word said against nuns. If we could
> speak nicely and get to be teachers or secretaries that was all they
> had ever hoped for. It wasn't ven that the teachers were not well
> educated. Some of them had Oxford degrees. But I don't think there
> was any pressure on them to get results from us. We sat some public
> exams to find we hadn't even touched 3/4 of the syllabus. The only
> really good O level teacher I had was my maths teacher, who didn't
> have a degree but had done a three-year teacher trsaining course
> straight from school. The parallel form were being taught by an
> Oxford graduate and nearly all failed.
> I also understand that a lot of well known girls' private schools
> were quite awful too, seeing their job as being merely to turn out
> well-groomed society wives and hostesses. Huge numbers of their girls
> ended up at catering colleges.
> It is so much better for girls now. All the time I was growing up you
> would hear people say that an education was a waste of time (and
> government money) for girls as they would only be working for a few
> years till they had babies. When so many people at my school failed
> their maths O level there was not an outcry from their parents. The
> girls themselves took it philosophically, saying they couldn't be
> expected to do maths, it was a boys' subject. My daughter's
> generation really do have the same chances as the boys and no one
> messing with their self-confidence.
>
> How does everyone think we can improve history teaching? When I was
> at school you actually did get a joined-up syllabus. I can recall
> cave men, Mesopotamian housewives and Tudor and Stuart costumes (in
> that order) from junior school. Then at secondary school we did
> English history only till 16, starting back at the Norman Conquest,
> doing the Middle Ages at 11-12, and then on and on till we hit the O
> level syllabus (19th century) at 14-16. I do recall hitting a point,
> perhaps aged 13, when I suddenly clicked. I had enough idea of what
> came after to see how it was all joining up, and this timeline sort
> of rolled out in front of my inner eye. My kids have nothing like
> htat. The past for them is a meaningless jumble. On the other hand,
> it meant that you only tackled distant periods when you were very
> young.
>
> But some of the junior-school content was awful. I'm sure I was
> taught that Stone Age people just threw bits of animal skins over
> themselves with no attempt at crafting them into clothes, and
> communicated with each other in grunts. The teachers were completely
> confused between Stone Age people and Neanderthals. Ancient Britons
> were also totally uncivilised, daubed themselves in woad just because
> they were kind of mad, and generally looked a mess and just fought
> all the time. I don't even remember doing the Anglo Saxons. I would
> say the proper history teachers at my secondary school, though, did
> understand their subjects even if they didn't put them across
> particularly well.
>
> Marie
>
>> Very interesting. Am I right in thinking that eighth grade is 14-
> ish?
>>
>>
>> Admittedly, in 1895 there were only two republics in Europe!
> (France and Switzerland)
>>
>> fayre rose <fayreroze@...> wrote:
>> This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina,
> KS, USA. It was
>> taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley
> Genealogical
>> Society and Library in Salina, KS, and reprinted by the Salina
> Journal.
>> 8th Grade Final Exam: Salina, KS -1895
>> ******************************** Grammar (Time, one hour)
>> 1. Give nine rules for the use of Capital Letters.
>> 2. Name the Parts of Speech and define those that have no
> modifications.
>> 3. Define Verse, Stanza and Paragraph.
>> 4. What are the Principal Parts of a verb? Give principal Parts of
> lie, lay
>> and run.
>> 5. Define Case, Illustrate each Case.
>> 6. What is Punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of
> punctuation.
>> 7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein
> that you
>> understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.
>> ************************************ Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)
>> 1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
>> 2. A wagon box is 2 ft. deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. wide. How
> many
>> bushels of wheat will it hold?
>> 3. If a load of wheat weighs 3942 lbs., what is it worth at
> 50cts/bushel,
>> deducting 1050 lbs. for tare?
>> 4. District No. 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the
> necessary levy
>> to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104
> for
>> incidentals?
>> 5. Find cost of 6720 lbs. coal at $6.00 per ton.
>> 6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7
> percent.
>> 7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft. long at
> $20 per
>> metre?
>> 8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
>> 9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance
> around
>> which is 640 rods?
>> 10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt.
>> ************************************* U.S. History (Time, 45
> minutes)
>> 1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided.
>> 2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus.
>> 3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
>> 4. Show the territorial growth of the United States.
>> 5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas.
>> 6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion.
>> 7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton, Bell, Lincoln,
> Penn, and
>> Howe?
>> 8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620,
> 1800, 1849,
>> 1865.
>> ************************************* Orthography (Time, one hour)
>> 1. What is meant by the following: Alphabet, phonetic, orthography,
>> etymology, syllabication?
>> 2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
>> 3. What are the following, and give examples of each: Trigraph,
> subvocals,
>> diphthong, cognate letters, linguals?
>> 4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u'.
>> 5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two
> exceptions
>> under each rule.
>> 6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
>> 7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word:
> bi, dis,
>> mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
>> 8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and
> name the
>> sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell,
> rise,
>> blood, fare, last.
>> 9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight,
> fane,fain,
>> feign, vane, vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
>> 10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate
> pronunciation by use
>> of diacritical marks and by syllabication.
>> ************************************* Geography (Time, one hour)
>> 1. What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
>> 2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas?
>> 3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
>> 4. Describe the mountains of North America.
>> 5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia, Odessa, Denver,
> Manitoba,
>> Hecla,Yukon, St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco.
>> 6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S..
>> 7. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
>> 8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same
> latitude?
>> 9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to
> the
>> sources of rivers.
>> 10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of
> the earth.
>>
>> The exam took six hours to complete. So they weren't looking for
> short answers.
>>
>> roslyn
>>
>>
>> Christine H <christinelheadley@...> wrote:
>> At 10:54 08/10/2007, you wrote:
>>> I blush when I say I watched that show too. I cringed at the
>>> contestant`s answer and despair of the modern education system.
>>
>> We are a self-selected bunch of history nuts. Now, how good are we
> at
>> science questions? (How do we rate as 'Renaissance' people?) And
> how well
>> would we perform in front of TV cameras? Maybe the contestant
> cringes too,
>> in hindsight.
>>
>> I can see my daughters getting a far better-rounded education than
> I did,
>> 35 years ago. I gave up all science subjects and geography before O
> level.
>> Just about all the science I know comes in Flanders & Swann or Tom
> Lehrer
>> form. I did some geography with the Open University and would like
> to do
>> some more sometime. Perhaps I'll do the science foundation course
> one day....
>>
>> I think the National Curriculum is an excellent idea, but there is
> too much
>> on it and there is far too much emphasis on testing and league
> tables.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Christine
>>
>> Christine Headley
>> Listowner, Virtual Book Group - October choice - An Ice Cream War
> by
>> William Boyd
>> Butterrow, Stroud, Glos
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

"Richard Liveth Yet!"