Quote from: english si on December 28, 2009, 09:49:52 AM
The French, of course, are overly proud of their language, and hate English, even if they can speak it they choose not to (especially in Paris) unless in an English-speaking place. A friend sometimes goes to Paris, and while having OK French, tries Afrikaans and then German (which are better than his French), before the French person reluctantly tries English to have a common language.
I can't think of anything more true. I suspect many French refuse to learn more than a basic level of English as a matter of pride. You can always find them on the internet as when the post in English they will insert deliberate errors and will get extremely angry if these errors are pointed out (I have even seen one post that it is their right to deliberately make errors as English isn't their native language).
Quote from: deanej on December 28, 2009, 06:15:05 PM
Quote from: english si on December 28, 2009, 09:49:52 AM
The French, of course, are overly proud of their language, and hate English, even if they can speak it they choose not to (especially in Paris) unless in an English-speaking place. A friend sometimes goes to Paris, and while having OK French, tries Afrikaans and then German (which are better than his French), before the French person reluctantly tries English to have a common language.
I can't think of anything more true. I suspect many French refuse to learn more than a basic level of English as a matter of pride. You can always find them on the internet as when the post in English they will insert deliberate errors and will get extremely angry if these errors are pointed out (I have even seen one post that it is their right to deliberately make errors as English isn't their native language).
And if it weren't for the Brits and Americans the French would be speaking German for the last 65 years or so...
65? 2009 minus 1873... hmm ... seems a bit more than that!
Don't forget that it wasn't until rather late on that the French all spoke French. I guess had the terms of the treaty of Frankfurt not been kind to the French, and the Prussians fully taken over, they would have stopped the active suppression of regional (ie non-Parisian) languages like Catalan, Basque, Breton, Occitan, etc, in favour of French (in fact, the active suppression of French, the only real thing uniting the people, would have been the Prussians aim, above making everyone speak German).
However, the Prussians, having taken back for Germany (a country created during the war, through union of several places) the bits that were German-ish (Alsace, Lorraine) had all they wanted, so left it at that. No British or US involvement.
However, if it was for the British defeat of the first French Empire, then most of Germany (all except Prussia), would have been French vassel states, or part of France.
I don't think the Germans' aim in either world war (1914-1918 and 1939-1945, not 1916-1918 and 1941-1945 ;)) were to make France part of Germany - have it as a vassal state, yes; neutralise it as a military power, yes; make it German, no. In WW1, it was to stop there being a two front war if the French were to join the Russians in fighting the Central powers (and to neutralise them as a hostile power for good), but walking through Belgium got the Brits involved and a 4-year near stalemate ensued. In WW2, it was to minimise land invasion possibilities, claim back Alsace and Lorraine (again) and neutralise an enemy.
This brings up that most Americans don't understand how fragmented Europe was prior to the 20th Century compared to the way it is now. The 19th and early 20th century maps were in great flux until after WWII when things finally stabilized somewhat, at least until after the Cold War.
As for WWII, if Hitler had held off on attacking Russia and England, he may have lasted longer and had been successful in retaining his territorial gains into France and Poland and kept the Americans out of the war. It is possible that, even after Pearl Harbor, that America may not have interceded in the European war had Germany not been actively engaging the Brits. This has been hashed out in countless Alternate History writings and discussion groups.
Another thing us Americans fail to understand is that it was the British who made the Allied victory possible in the European war. Americans think of WWII as starting on December 7, 1941 when in reality it started in 1939. If the Brits didn't hold off Hitler in the Battle of Britain or if Hitler wasn't so greedy the map of Europe would be a whole lot different. While the European war could not have ultimately been won without the American intervention after Pearl Harbor (or the Lend-Lease and other behind the scenes assistance before active participation started in 1942) it would have already been over by then if Britain fell or Hitler had not moved on Russia and Britain.
Had Hitler been successful in Europe, I think France would have been a puppet state with nominal independence. Same for Belgium and other middle European states, kind of similar to the Eastern Bloc of the Cold War.
QuoteIf the Brits didn't hold off Hitler in the Battle of Britain or if Hitler wasn't so greedy the map of Europe would be a whole lot different.
Yeah, we would all be speaking Russian... If the Americans and British didn't invade Normandy, the Russians could have let the war last a few years longer, let the Germans waste their resources in the Russian winters, and then push them back into Germany, and eventually conquer all of Europe.
Quote from: Chris on December 30, 2009, 05:58:35 AM
QuoteIf the Brits didn't hold off Hitler in the Battle of Britain or if Hitler wasn't so greedy the map of Europe would be a whole lot different.
Yeah, we would all be speaking Russian... If the Americans and British didn't invade Normandy, the Russians could have let the war last a few years longer, let the Germans waste their resources in the Russian winters, and then push them back into Germany, and eventually conquer all of Europe.
Quite possible or even probable...
The "What if" game on differing outcomes of WWII is probably only surpassed (on this side of the pond anyway) by postulations on what if the South had won the (US) Civil War. Harry Turtledove and others have made an industry of Alternate History novels on this premise alone, it seems to be the leading topic of Alternate History authors.
Can you believe I never learned about the US Civil War in high school? All I know of it, I learned it on wikipeda. It's a pretty significant historical event, I can't believe they found woman emancipation or 19th century industrialization more important
Quote from: Chris on December 30, 2009, 06:25:11 AM
Can you believe I never learned about the US Civil War in high school? All I know of it, I learned it on wikipeda. It's a pretty significant historical event, I can't believe they found woman emancipation or 19th century industrialization more important
My understanding is that in teaching history, a lot of emphasis is being placed on social history these days. In the U.S., of course they teach about the Civil War, but from what I remember from my school days, the social root causes of the war were emphasized just as much as the war itself.
Assuming you went to HS in Europe, I am not surprised. In my Midwestern US high school we spent several weeks studying the US Civil War, I even won a history contest with a paper about it. Of course that was 30 years ago and in an optional history class I took. The regular curriculum of the time usually had a week of classes on the Civil War, more time was devoted to WWII, and WWI was usually mentioned as it related to the run-up to WWII. Since many of the teachers of the time spent time in Korea or Viet Nam, these conflicts got even more time devoted to them.
Quote from: N9JIG on December 30, 2009, 05:53:58 AM
It is possible that, even after Pearl Harbor, that America may not have interceded in the European war had Germany not been actively engaging the Brits. This has been hashed out in countless Alternate History writings and discussion groups.
Certainly true because, officially, Germany declared war on the U.S.A. after Pearl Harbor "in support" of their Japanese allies. I agree if Germany hadn't done that we would have not entered the European theater at that time.
Quote from: Chris on December 30, 2009, 06:25:11 AM
Can you believe I never learned about the US Civil War in high school? All I know of it, I learned it on wikipeda. It's a pretty significant historical event, I can't believe they found woman emancipation or 19th century industrialization more important
wow, and here I thought only US education sucked!!!
gonna split this topic in a minute ...
Quote from: N9JIG on December 30, 2009, 06:37:32 AM
Assuming you went to HS in Europe, I am not surprised. In my Midwestern US high school we spent several weeks studying the US Civil War, I even won a history contest with a paper about it. Of course that was 30 years ago and in an optional history class I took. The regular curriculum of the time usually had a week of classes on the Civil War, more time was devoted to WWII, and WWI was usually mentioned as it related to the run-up to WWII. Since many of the teachers of the time spent time in Korea or Viet Nam, these conflicts got even more time devoted to them.
heh I got a 5/5 on my Advanced Placement exam on history because I have been a Civil War buff - my teacher was born in 1948 or so, served in Vietnam (drafted in '70, served til '72 I think), and definitely taught 1950-1998 as the major aspects of the curriculum... so they really did not teach much from 960 (Viking exploration of North America? I'm guessing on the year,) to the colonial era (1498-1776) to the Civil War and its causes (1820-1865-ish)... lucky I read up on it independently of what the class made me do!
as Mark Twain said: never let your education be an impediment to your learning!
edit: found the exact quote... Mark Twain in the 1880s:
I never let my schooling interfere with my education.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 30, 2009, 04:36:34 PM
wow, and here I thought only US education sucked!!!
Well, our history education does not suck per se, but it is focused on a limited range of subjects. Nobody in school taught me about the Korean War or the Vietnam War for instance.
I am quite interested in statistics, like demographics of the United States, the development of population per county or state, for instance. It's amazing how much population cities like Buffalo, St. Louis, Detroit, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago or Cleveland have lost since the 1950's.
Quote from: Chris on December 30, 2009, 04:45:51 PM
Well, our history education does not suck per se, but it is focused on a limited range of subjects. Nobody in school taught me about the Korean War or the Vietnam War for instance.
I am quite interested in statistics, like demographics of the United States, the development of population per county or state, for instance. It's amazing how much population cities like Buffalo, St. Louis, Detroit, Philadelphia, Washington, Chicago or Cleveland have lost since the 1950's.
they definitely did not teach that when I was in school... do they teach those demographics in the Netherlands? In the US, anything past 1877 (official end of Reconstruction) or so is completely ignored, with a brief mention of prohibition (1919-1933) and the Harding administration, and maybe a note about the fact that Kennedy was shot in 1963 without detailing the effects of that on the population.
As far as I believe, the shooting of Kennedy definitely is the barrier between the Baby Boom era (1945-1963) and the hippie ("don't trust anyone over 30") era (1963-1973 or so - the next era being the gas conservation between 1973 and 1987 or so)... and they definitely don't teach that!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 30, 2009, 04:48:12 PMthey definitely did not teach that when I was in school... do they teach those demographics in the Netherlands?
Not really, it's just a personal interest of me. It helps me understand a lot of things, because I am also interested in the urban environment.
IMO, history of the last 150 years is much more relevant than stuff that happened 400 or 1000 years ago. For instance, the Balkans in Europe are a hotbed of nationalism and violence, but I never really learned about that in school, while it's quite important. Now I have read up about those things on wikipedia, and it helps me understand why things happen the way they happen over there.
World War II had huge consequences in Europe, especially the eastern part which was more or less occupied by the Soviet Union. Many people in Western Europe still have memories about the "eastern bloc", but have no idea about how it looks right now. Central/Eastern Europe is really "the new world", especially in road construction. Next year, in Poland, a country of 40 million people (about the state of California), has 600 miles of freeway under construction. Now that's almost as significant as the 1960's Interstate Highway construction, on a relative scale. These countries, from Estonia to Bulgaria, really begin to catch up with western Europe, and some have already achieved that level, like Slovenia.
History is my biz, though I operate at the graduate-level end rather than the high-school end. It is my impression that secondary school teaching of history in Europe tends to focus more on the economic and social aspects because that is more relevant to an understanding of the dynamic of present-day institutions. For example, if you want to know what the big deal is about "New" Labour in Britain, you have to know about Clause Four and the circumstances under which it was introduced.
Also, narrating history through the lens of economics and sociology makes it easier to keep nonspecialists from getting bogged down in details of political history. I personally find the dying days of the Valois dynasty in France interesting, but from the standpoint of soap opera rather than "serious" history. In fact, the political history of any medieval European region is akin to a long-running telenovela, while an approach which focuses on the economic history gives you a synopsis for everything and allows you to understand how it all played into the development of the European continent as a whole. Then, if you want, you can go from the general to the particular and, say, watch Isabelle Adjani in La Reine Margot.
The teaching of American history in the US is skewed for a number of reasons. First, the US prides itself on being a capitalistic democracy and thus material which challenges the discreet embourgeoisement of the American public tends to be glided over. You don't usually hear, for example, about things like the Ludlow massacre, the Bread and Roses strike, or the Palmer raids. Thorstein Veblen gets a nod, but no real detail. Emma Goldman gets a mention, but nobody says why you should care about her. Socialist International? Forget it.
Second, there is a general weakness where historical demographics or pure cliometric approaches are concerned. For example, even an AP US History class would not delve into the question of the economic efficiency of slavery. You might hear that Frederick Jackson Turner was a "great" historian, but not why (I found out on my own when I got one of his books out of the public library--his major contribution is an analysis of what the closing of the frontier meant in demographic terms). Fogel's controversial railroad thesis is conceptually accessible to high-schoolers but I never heard of it until much later, when I was starting my doctorate.
Third, US history classes are used as a vehicle for civics education. My AP history class was taught from a more objectivist perspective, but before that I had to take a required US history class in which the teacher frequently resorted to the first-person plural when talking about America and Americans--"our frontier," "our rights," "our Constitution," etc. There is much discussion of the US as a crucible of basic human rights but because this coexists with a kind of reluctance to acknowledge that the US has also been party to some of the most appalling violations of those rights, the overall pedagogical approach tends to feed a conception of the US and its institutions as a perfect child of Enlightenment rationalism. The unamended Constitution of 1787 is sacred and must never be touched, "Our Union must be preserved," and so on and so forth.
The US is also a highly diverse country and that leads to a regionalism which makes certain aspects of historical experience very difficult to understand. For example, I grew up in Kansas, which still retains traces of a frontier mentality and has no really large cities. Therefore I found it very hard to engage with late nineteenth-century labor history, because that occurred largely in a densely urbanized milieu with ghetto neighborhoods. I got five out of five on my AP US History exam but I learned far more about the history of the US simply from travelling around it, and reading books about the places I visited, than I did in my formal schooling.
yep, JN Winkler - I remember my US history classes and they totally overlooked the socialists. Eugene Debs? Just another "minor candidate for office" who went to prison so clearly he is a Bad Guy and his ideas are worthless - that's how it works, that there are two parties, there have always been two parties (we've always been at war with Eurasia, yada yada), sure the names have changed over time but the quantities never have. Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans (1804) to Democrats vs Republicans (2000s) - the standard high school curriculum just does not admit other view points - look at how the term "third party" has always implied a fringe minority, because they assume high schoolers are dumb shits and they need to have a dumbened down history fed to them.
I believe it was George Washington who warned against political parties (farewell speech, 1796), based on what he knew of the mathematics of Leonhard Euler (1732 or so) where, based on the "simple majority" rules of the US Constitution, the two-party system would collapse upon itself and yield what we know today... given how the Constitution laid out the electoral rules (see Euler and also Arrows' Theorem), it was inevitable that there would arise two parties at the most, to the detriment of the ideas that the "third", "fourth" etc parties would bring to the discussion.
yep, Ralph Nader blew the 2000 election in favor of the Republicans because the mathematics of the US are just too simplistic to allow for the electoral results that the people actually want.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 31, 2009, 12:12:55 AM
look at how the term "third party" has always implied a fringe minority, because they assume high schoolers are dumb shits and they need to have a dumbened down history fed to them.
I believe it was George Washington who warned against political parties (farewell speech, 1796), based on what he knew of the mathematics of Leonhard Euler (1732 or so) where, based on the "simple majority" rules of the US Constitution, the two-party system would collapse upon itself and yield what we know today... given how the Constitution laid out the electoral rules (see Euler and also Arrows' Theorem), it was inevitable that there would arise two parties at the most, to the detriment of the ideas that the "third", "fourth" etc parties would bring to the discussion.
yep, Ralph Nader blew the 2000 election in favor of the Republicans because the mathematics of the US are just too simplistic to allow for the electoral results that the people actually want.
I couldn't agree more! I absolutely
HATE how contemporary American politics has a system that doesn't allow for coalitions of parties to work together in order to achieve a common goal. Compare this to the German government, where typically no one party can ever achieve the majority on its own, so they must align themselves with smaller parties in a coalition to come to power. This, in turn, allows the smaller parties to bring minority viewpoints to the table, and thus you see a place where the Greens and other small groups can actually get legislation passed and/or have representatives on the executive cabinet.
Strange thing is that the current German government was actually devised based upon the better ideas of the British, French, and American governments at the close of WWII, while preserving some of positive aspects of the Weimar Republic and lessons learned from the Third Reich. In this respect, it is a newer, and probably more efficient government than the United States, and to an extent, designed in part BY the United States.
Can't we just scrap this crap in the US and start over again? :sombrero:
Personally, I LIKE the fact that our government is inefficient. The constitution designed it that way!
There is WAY TOO MUCH government interference in our lives today! A "more efficient" government would make it easier for the government to get bigger and more controlling than it already is!
In some ways, I agree with previous posters that the "two party system" doesn't work well, but even so, you do have different blocks of voters in each major party. While conservatives, like myself, tend to vote with the Republican party and liberals/socialists tend to vote with the Democratic party, the "moderates" can be found in both parties. And, there are multiple special interest groups in the Democratic Party such as the Environmentalists, the "Politically Correct" movement, Pro-Choice, etc. The main difference from the multi-party system is that if a group in the coalition becomes dissatisfied there is nowhere for them to go.
As for the socialists, there were ignored in my school history as well, but once I learned about them on my own, I concluded that their effect on American history was minor and leaving them out of the cursory history that is taught in schools does not distort the picture too much. (i.e. Putting them in would mean leaving out some bigger things.) But, my history classes also left out the Chicago political "machine" and how Mayor Richard Daley basically rigged the Chicago returns to ensure that JFK would get elected.
The Netherlands has way too many political parties.
Right now the polls show no reasonable government can be formed, at least 4 parties of very opposing policies are needed to get a majority.
Germany is somewhat better, 2 parties are usually enough to form a government. But I wouldn't recommend the fragmentation of the political landscape some European countries have. Any coalition of 3 parties or more tend to be unstable.
One of the worst examples of European politics are Italy and Belgium, on average, governments last less than 1.5 years. They had 50-or so governments since WWII.
Quote from: mightyace on December 31, 2009, 03:23:46 PM
As for the socialists, there were ignored in my school history as well, but once I learned about them on my own, I concluded that their effect on American history was minor
a lot of reforms of the 20s (see: meatpacking industry, for example) were due to the effect of the socialists. Next thing you know, the social climate is such that FDR gets elected... some of that is due to Herbert Hoover being perceived to have not done nearly enough to stop the depression, but the Democrats could've run anyone against him and beaten him - the fact that they ran the most left-leaning guy anyone had seen up to that point (significantly more so than Teddy or Abe Lincoln) was because left-leaning ideas were very much in the public eye at the time.
Quote from: mightyace on December 31, 2009, 03:23:46 PM
And, there are multiple special interest groups in the Democratic Party such as the Environmentalists, the "Politically Correct" movement, Pro-Choice, etc.
same with the Republicans - you've got the "leave me alone" libertarian types, the religious right, the pro-war faction, the people that still think it's the party of Lincoln, the people that still think it's the party of Reagan, etc etc...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 31, 2009, 05:00:04 PM
the fact that they ran the most left-leaning guy anyone had seen up to that point (significantly more so than Teddy or Abe Lincoln) was because left-leaning ideas were very much in the public eye at the time.
And we've been paying for that mistake, literally, since then. It was the FDR era when we started running budget deficits, got the Ponzi scheme called Social Security, etc. The only reason the economy recovered, IMHO, is WWII.
Quote from: mightyace on December 31, 2009, 10:39:07 PM
And we've been paying for that mistake, literally, since then. It was the FDR era when we started running budget deficits, got the Ponzi scheme called Social Security, etc. The only reason the economy recovered, IMHO, is WWII.
oddly, the same trick is not working twice. lousy economy? check. foreign war? check. something's just not clicking, though...
Quote from: N9JIG on December 30, 2009, 06:37:32 AM
Assuming you went to HS in Europe, I am not surprised. In my Midwestern US high school we spent several weeks studying the US Civil War, I even won a history contest with a paper about it. Of course that was 30 years ago and in an optional history class I took. The regular curriculum of the time usually had a week of classes on the Civil War, more time was devoted to WWII, and WWI was usually mentioned as it related to the run-up to WWII. Since many of the teachers of the time spent time in Korea or Viet Nam, these conflicts got even more time devoted to them.
Very interesting in that here in Appleton, WI, there is a VERY POPULAR annual USA Civil War re-enactment day held during the spring in a city park for the fifth graders in the city's school system - complete with a mock battle in the afternoon. The kids LOVE it and yes, it really does fire their interests in that über-important time on our nation's history.
:clap:
Mike
Quote from: mightyace on December 31, 2009, 10:39:07 PM
And we've been paying for that mistake, literally, since then. It was the FDR era when we started running budget deficits, got the Ponzi scheme called Social Security, etc. The only reason the economy recovered, IMHO, is WWII.
The ONLY reason? World War II was certainly the biggest reason the depression ended, but I'd hardly call it the only one. It can be argued that the current crisis was caused by the dismantling of the regulatory environment created by FDR.
Social Security isn't quite as insolvent as politicians say it is, but regardless, we would be better served to look and the even larger ponzi scheme that is an economic system that requires constant growth. Guess what: constant growth cannot be maintained.
As for government inefficiency, in the case of agencies it's caused by interest groups (which IMO should be outlawed) making it more difficult to do anything. For example, the time it takes to build a road would be 1/10 of what it is if it weren't for environmentalists and other interest groups interfering with policy.
Quote from: deanej on January 01, 2010, 04:48:29 PM
agencies it's caused by interest groups (which IMO should be outlawed)
a nice idea, but unworkable in practice. it's like attempting to outlaw shortcuts, loopholes, cleverness, and in general people looking out for themselves. Kinda mathematically impossible, unfortunately. If there is an interest, there will very soon be an interest group. And if you want to get rid of the interest, you'd have to start over with a new species. Let's face it, humans are extraordinarily self-serving, for better or for worse, and no amount of law will get rid of that instinct.
As someone that is currently taking High School history, I can say that we did spend about a month on the civil war...as for Chris, I'm not at all surprised that you didn't cover the American Civil War any, simply because it is an American event and you are in the Netherlands.
Of note, I don't know how many years of American history others here took in High School, but at my school it is divided into US History I and US History II...so we take 2 years, which allows for a little more in-depth. Also, I'm taking other US history-related classes as electives, this year I'm taking American Political Systems and Constitutional Law, and next year I plan on taking AP Government. My school also offers a lot of foreign history classes, and I will probably be taking Holocaust and Genocide next year, and possibly AP European history, although I am more interested in the history of the world post-1500 or so, so I may end up taking Modern European History instead.
Quote from: yanksfan6129 on January 01, 2010, 10:38:17 PMAs someone that is currently taking High School history, I can say that we did spend about a month on the civil war...as for Chris, I'm not at all surprised that you didn't cover the American Civil War any, simply because it is an American event and you are in the Netherlands.
It may also have something to do with the fact that the Netherlands was neutral in World War I. Both sides in the Civil War pioneered trench warfare and mechanized weaponry, so within Europe it is generally recognized as a precursor (in technological terms) of the later war. But European neutrals like Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden were spared the horrors of the trenches.
QuoteOf note, I don't know how many years of American history others here took in High School, but at my school it is divided into US History I and US History II...so we take 2 years, which allows for a little more in-depth. Also, I'm taking other US history-related classes as electives, this year I'm taking American Political Systems and Constitutional Law, and next year I plan on taking AP Government. My school also offers a lot of foreign history classes, and I will probably be taking Holocaust and Genocide next year, and possibly AP European history, although I am more interested in the history of the world post-1500 or so, so I may end up taking Modern European History instead.
I went to the Wichita public schools and graduated from high school in 1993. At the time I was in school, two years of American history were required at the high school level, and I fulfilled this with a honors section of US History I (where I heard all about "our" country) and later by AP US History. I had one year of World History, as a honors section, which was worthless since the teacher didn't challenge us. (I had wanted to take the course earlier, from a different and more challenging teacher, but had to give up because of a scheduling conflict.)
Because I went to a comprehensive high school instead of a magnet or the district's IB program (which was at a different high school), the offerings of taught AP courses were limited. If you wanted to take the AP exam in a course for which no AP section was offered and you wanted time out of your schedule to prepare for it, you needed to find a teacher in the general subject area who was willing to supervise you, and you also had to get agreement from the principal.
I did AP Psychology as a self-study (but didn't seek a schedule hole with all the red tape that would have entailed), and got five out of five. A friend of mine sought a schedule hole with supervision, and did AP European History; I think she got at least four out of five. I did AP Government (four out of five, partly because the format of the exam was radically revised the year I took it) as a taught course, AP Physics B as a supervised self-study (five out of five on that, I think), and AP Chemistry as a taught course with two two-hour sections each week (three out of five on the exam--it is a very tough exam and, despite endless chivvying from our teacher, most of us just didn't do enough lab work).
People who load themselves down with AP classes are generally seeking either to grease admission to a prestigious university or get a head start on distribution requirements at a second-echelon institution like a state university. At Harvard, for example, if you received high scores on a sufficient number of AP exams, you could enter with sophomore standing. After that point there was no benefit to taking additional AP exams because these would not eliminate further course requirements. In the end I decided to go to Kansas State, and seek admission to a prestigious university for my graduate work, so I cashed in my AP exam scores for course credits. I forget the exact number I got, but I think it was between 60 and 70 (140 are required to graduate with a single major). One acquaintance of mine, a really bright person from Baldwin City, entered with over 100--one of the associate deans remarked that it was difficult to find courses for her to take.
I was an extremely undisciplined student, and wound up taking five years to complete three majors counting toward one BS and one BA degree. A friend of mine with much better work habits also took five years to complete a BS degree with three majors, but one was chemical engineering--engineering majors at KSU are very demanding--and he later finished a chemistry PhD at Berkeley in five years.
All of the classes that I mentioned that weren't AP are honors classes.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 01, 2010, 11:25:37 PMQuote from: yanksfan6129 on January 01, 2010, 10:38:17 PMAs someone that is currently taking High School history, I can say that we did spend about a month on the civil war...as for Chris, I'm not at all surprised that you didn't cover the American Civil War any, simply because it is an American event and you are in the Netherlands.
It may also have something to do with the fact that the Netherlands was neutral in World War I. Both sides in the Civil War pioneered trench warfare and mechanized weaponry, so within Europe it is generally recognized as a precursor (in technological terms) of the later war. But European neutrals like Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden were spared the horrors of the trenches.
I don't think that the American Civil War is on the National Curriculum in England and Wales, despite the UK fighting in WW1. I stopped doing History at 14 (though I love the subject, it was that or Geography and I liked Geography better, and was better at it. As it turns out the Geography GCSE course was full of all the things I didn't like about studying History in school, and I went from being in the top few in the year, to a C grade), but we did WW1 and the Industrial Revolution.
Those I know who did degree level History didn't do it other than, perhaps, very briefly. This has more to do with a lack of American History in the academics' fields of study.
I think the topics for English/Welsh schools' compulsory history have Tudors and Stuarts at least twice each and the Stone Age, Ancient Egyptians, Ancient Romans, Ancient Greeks, Victorians, WW1, Industrial Revolution (including the Agricultural Revolution), Saxons and Vikings all once, with WW1, the Industrial Revolution and some Tudor and Stuart stuff (and probably something else) coming in secondary school and thus actually studied in a bit of depth. GCSE History tends to be Modern History: post-WW1 stuff.
I should explain that compulsory schooling in England and Wales is split into 4 (called Key Stages). There are certain things that need to be covered in the first three key stages, but on things like History, Science, RS and Geography, which year in the stage a topic is covered is up to the school, giving a bit of flexibility. In the 4th Key Stage (GCSEs and equivalent), the number of compulsory subjects drops down to English Language, Maths and Science, plus a technology subject (brought in my academic year - school didn't have the infrastructure, so, to my pleasure, we were exempted) and a humanity subject (physical exercise, citizenship, personal social and heath education and religious/ethics studies (or at most schools, doss about for a lesson a week) are also manditory, but don't have to be tested). On top of these, there are wide array of additional subjects - my school made ICT, English Lit, double honours science and a modern language (French or German were our choices - Spanish has since replaced German at the school) compulsory, a choice of humanity and language and gave 2 wild-card choices (I did business studies and electronics) out of the various subjects that the school offered, as well as the option to do triple-honours science. I went to a top school, so did more than the average number of subjects (I did 11 - the average is something like 8).
At my high school it's required to take the AP exam for all AP courses taken. Unfortunately if you want advanced level classes at my high school you have to go AP (with a few exceptions) as the majority of the honors classes were removed 20 years ago due to their being too much competition among students (the remaining ones are required by New York and can't be removed).
My college gives credit for all AP exams taken (elective credit if they don't have a corresponding course for it) and with all the AP exams I took I have an extra semester's worth of credit.