What a shocker...real U.S. history?? An actual teaching requirement for our country's founding principles and events?? How UNLIBERAL, why academia will not tolerate this!!!
What a shocker...real U.S. history?? An actual teaching requirement for our country's founding principles and events?? How UNLIBERAL, why academia will not tolerate this!!!
bttt!
And no liberal crap from etext.org!
Good idea.When i went to college(way back when???)American and Georgia history were required.
You'd think they'd be teaching it in high school for crying out loud. I suppose in light of how illiterate kids are comiing out of school in math and English, it's no surprise they don't know their American History, too.
Be careful what we ask for - we may get it.
If left to their own curriculum, what the colleges would teach is the Ward Churchill version of U.S. history.
So what's worse - complete ignoramuses like those on Leno's Jay-Walk, or kids indoctrinated with history written by anti-Americans?
It should be a required two semesters of American History, during freshman or sophomore year.
Biology is required, as is Chemistry. Two semesters of World Civilization are required too.
Of course, my solution would be to extend high school by an additional year, and compress the four year high school curriculum into the first three years. The last two years of high school would be the equivalent of an associates degree in the arts, encompassing studies in History, basic science, Civics, Personal Finance, Art History, English/American Literature, Economics, and one practical skill - either auto mechanics, ROTC, basic computer repair, clerical, or for the college bound - two Advanced Placement courses in any subject.
Did I forget to mention mandatory athletics?
Damn, how sad.
My university (university of california) requires we take one "American Instiutions" requirement. I fullfilled it with two classes - a black studies one, and an actual american history class (although we concentrated on minorities, socialism, communism, the struggle of women, etc.)
I have mixed feelings about this. Which is worse - Left wing professors not teaching US History or left wing professors teaching US History? Tough call.
Not too many, evidently. What a ridiculous statement. There are so many things you learn at different levels and considering American high schools as they are now, I'm sure the retention level isn't particularly high.
Wonderful History Site and Resources!
http://www.i-served.com/MagruderArticlesIndex.html
VIETNAM VETERANS FOR ACADEMIC REFORM
I hereby nominate Freeper LS to be the United States History Czar!!
I'd add Economics as a requirement as well. Too many people are clueless about basic business, which is the engine that drives our economy; despite what most democrats will tell you.
Won't take long for it to be the PC version of history....
Faculty members note funding and other logistical problems that would come with an additional curricular mandate.
Their primary excuse:
Some are wary of what brand of history the American council has in mind..
This one is a convenient excuse:
Some students say they are simply tired of studying our nation's history by the time they reach college.
"You basically take U.S. history for your whole elementary and high school career," said Kristina Guerra, 20, a junior majoring in English at Arizona State University. "It's just really redundant. How many times can you learn about the pilgrims?"
I would safe in guessing that this girl could not say when the Lexington-Concord battles occurred. How about who wrote the Federalist Papers? How about the Suffolk Resolves? What were the main issues involving opposition to the Stamp Act? What year was the Constitution ratified. What is the process to amend the Constitution? When was the Civil War? This one may be pushing it: Who won the Civil War? When was the Great Depression? How many members of the US Senate? How many members of the House? How many electoral votes do you need to get elected President? You get the idea. Ax George Washington and place in his stead Rigoberta Menchu (sic?)
Mitchell said that, although the law is well meaning, it will do little on its own to ensure students have a grasp of the events and foundational documents that shape our nation.
This makes no sense since Mitchell is quoted a few sentences before as strongly supporting the measure:
"The flag doesn't mean all that much if you don't know how it got there," trustees member Charles Mitchell said. "What use is the Constitution if you don't know how it was written?"
If Mitchell said that the law was well meaning but will do little on it's own to promote US History literacy then why didn't they use such an actual quote? Because he is probably being taken out of context by a biased reporter.
Huh? I thought it already WAS a requirement. It was for me, although I didn't go to school in Arizona. I thought it was pretty standard though.
It should be required from kindergarten through graduate school, each year.
Good post. Great thread.
It was a requirement at the colleges I attended, one private and one public. Both were conservative campuses and my teacher was wonderful. That being said, I was lucky. What if it's required and you get someone like the long haired guy in Colorado?