History exam for 16 year olds in 1968

[mongers]

Interesting viewpoint, but I think the 42 year gap is too big, if someone sat that GCE at 16 and went onto an academic career, I don't think they'd still be setting examination question aged 58 years, indeed from what I know of academics in examination boards, they could well have already retired.

[grumbler]

Interesting viewpoint, but I think the 42 year gap is too big, if someone sat that GCE at 16 and went onto an academic career, I don't think they'd still be setting examination question aged 58 years, indeed from what I know of academics in examination boards, they could well have already retired.

Actually, people in their mid-50s to mid-60s are exactly the people deciding what the questions will be.  And few academics can afford to retire before age 58, though that may be changing.

[mongers]

Actually I was thinking of my cousin who's just retired from a UK examination board at under 60 years old.

[Ideologue]

Having said that, the modern equivalent looks pretty daunting to me. But then I know nothing about history!

Explain why Clemenceau wanted the Treaty of Versailles to be so harsh on Germany.
Explain why the Weimar republic faced opposition between 1919 and 1923.
Explain why women were an important part of Hitler's plans for German.
Explain why Hitler wanted to take over Czechoslovakia.
Explain why the Soviet Union blockaded Berlin in 1948.
Explain why the USA became involved in Vietnam.

The 1968 questions were much better-written.

Really?  How?  Some of them are okay, despite my glibness (as asinine a question as it is, I can see the value in discussing how historians are mnemonic janitors), but three of them aren't even history questions and seem like excuses for teenagers to exposit their political views at length, which can't possibly be anything but the most tedious thing in the world.  A couple others appear to be extremely dull and unimportant, such as the one about the JFK memorial.  (I've never considered it crucial to know what specific field the Magna Carta was signed in.)

[Admiral Yi]

Can anyone explain the Runnymede/JFK one to me?  Don't get that one at all either.

[Ideologue]

Can anyone explain the Runnymede/JFK one to me?  Don't get that one at all either.

My best guess is that it's a memorial park, and they had space.  The RAF has about as much to do with the Magna Carta as JFK.

I can see some attenuated connections--the RAF preserved the British way of life by extinguishing it on a grand scale elsewhere, and JFK probably didn't hate the idea of freedom and responsible government.  But honestly, I think it's just an open space near London but outside it, that is convenient and vaguely meaningful for them to put historical monuments in.

That said, maybe there's an elaborate rationale behind why they build exactly what they do in Runnymede and high school students were taught about it in detail.  I dunno.

[LaCroix]

maybe they just wanted to make sure people knew what runnymede was, knowing what the magna carta was and its ultimate connection to the united states? they could have probably used any u.s. president, but chose jfk because he had recently died. maybe

[alfred russel]

Ide, I don't think the problem is the questions, I think it is just that you don't know the answers. 

Explain the overarching theme of the Magna Carta being seen as a foundation of democratic rights and ultimately a more inclusive society with constitutional government. The text of the Magna Carta is very limited, and came about during the First Baron's War (or maybe the second, idk) to limit the rights of the king in relation to the nobility. Eventually it wasn't even accepted by the king, who declared it invalid with the approval of the pope. But in time the nobility forced the kings to abide by it. In the English Civil War, it became an important symbol for the parliamentary forces, etc. and the drive to parliamentary dominance. Bring in some topics of Catholic emancipation, the chartists and the reform bill. Tie in how it is also considered a foundation document in the US (who inherited english legal traditions) and how Kennedy as a Irish Catholic president of the united states who helped push through civil rights is a modern example of the tradition that started with the magna carta. Then possibly pull in some symbolism on the UK, of honoring an Irish Catholic American at a sort of sacred English site, as a sign of conciliation with Ireland.

[Ideologue]

maybe they just wanted to make sure people knew what runnymede was, knowing what the magna carta was and its ultimate connection to the united states? they could have probably used any u.s. president, but chose jfk because he had recently died. maybe

That's what I'm saying--it's not important to know what Runnymede is, anymore than it's important to know what the Appomattox Court House is.  It's vital to know what occurred there, it's nice to know the geographic location of the event, but being able to place it on a map is not crucial to a high school education.

Then again, I retract what I said in part, because I think I'm missing the point.  I think you're right, it's supposed to be a springboard to blather about the importance of the Magna Carta for several pages.  But the question is vague in that regard, and poorly written to get that meaning across.  Here's a better-worded effort to express the question "why is the Magna Carta important?": "why is the Magna Carta important"?

[grumbler]

Actually I was thinking of my cousin who's just retired from a UK examination board at under 60 years old.

Not sure what "retire" means, here.  He worked for the board full-time and now has a pension that he lives off of?  That is what "retire" means to me.  If he simply stopped working for them, he resigned.

[Ideologue]

Ide, I don't think the problem is the questions, I think it is just that you don't know the answers. 

I know what the Magna Carta is.

Explain the overarching theme of the Magna Carta being seen as a foundation of democratic rights and ultimately a more inclusive society with constitutional government. The text of the Magna Carta is very limited, and came about during the First Baron's War (or maybe the second, idk) to limit the rights of the king in relation to the nobility. Eventually it wasn't even accepted by the king, who declared it invalid with the approval of the pope. But in time the nobility forced the kings to abide by it. In the English Civil War, it became an important symbol for the parliamentary forces, etc. and the drive to parliamentary dominance. Bring in some topics of Catholic emancipation, the chartists and the reform bill. Tie in how it is also considered a foundation document in the US (who inherited english legal traditions) and how Kennedy as a Irish Catholic president of the united states who helped push through civil rights is a modern example of the tradition that started with the magna carta. Then possibly pull in some symbolism on the UK, of honoring an Irish Catholic American at a sort of sacred English site, as a sign of conciliation with Ireland.

Yeah, that's probably a good outline answer.

[LaCroix]

Then again, I retract what I said in part, because I think I'm missing the point.  I think you're right, it's supposed to be a springboard to blather about the importance of the Magna Carta for several pages.  But the question is vague in that regard, and poorly written to get that meaning across.  Here's a better-worded effort to express the question "why is the Magna Carta important?": "why is the Magna Carta important"?

i'm not sure how important "runnymede" is to the british historian student, but couldn't it be an american equivalent asking the importance of gettysburg to ending slavery? sure, it's the civil war that matters most, but the question is testing not just a basic knowledge on the civil war (magna carta) but also whether the student can identify what they mean through using runnymede. a student who does not know what gettysburg is, even if they know what the civil war is, on a history exam, has failed is their point i'd assume

[alfred russel]

maybe they just wanted to make sure people knew what runnymede was, knowing what the magna carta was and its ultimate connection to the united states? they could have probably used any u.s. president, but chose jfk because he had recently died. maybe

That's what I'm saying--it's not important to know what Runnymede is, anymore than it's important to know what the Appomattox Court House is.  It's vital to know what occurred there, it's nice to know the geographic location of the event, but being able to place it on a map is not crucial to a high school education.

Then again, I retract what I said in part, because I think I'm missing the point.  I think you're right, it's supposed to be a springboard to blather about the importance of the Magna Carta for several pages.  But the question is vague in that regard, and poorly written to get that meaning across.  Here's a better-worded effort to express the question "why is the Magna Carta important?": "why is the Magna Carta important"?

I think it is implied that the objective of the student in answering the question is to demonstrate an understanding of historical facts and some critical thinking skills to analyze them. I think the original question gives the student a better opportunity to do that, while your question is going to invite the student to just recite what was heard in a lecture or read in the textbook (why the Magna Carta is important is usually mentioned). Maybe this is a generational thing--and questions today are just more direct.

[Ideologue]

Then again, I retract what I said in part, because I think I'm missing the point.  I think you're right, it's supposed to be a springboard to blather about the importance of the Magna Carta for several pages.  But the question is vague in that regard, and poorly written to get that meaning across.  Here's a better-worded effort to express the question "why is the Magna Carta important?": "why is the Magna Carta important"?

i'm not sure how important "runnymede" is to the british historian student, but couldn't it be an american equivalent ask the importance of gettysburg to ending slavery? sure, it's the civil war that matters most, but the question is testing not just a basic knowledge on the civil war (magna carta) but also whether the student can identify what they mean through using runnymede. a student who does not know what gettysburg is, even if they know what the civil war is, on a history exam, has failed is their point i'd assume

I dunno.  Gettysburg is slightly different, since, as a battle, its geographic location takes on an important dimension, whereas John could have met with the noblemen anywhere.

I wouldn't fail somebody if they forgot where Caesar was assassinated, or aboard what ship the Japanese signed the surrender instrument in 1945.  The locations of these events are not negligible, but their spatial location is less important than that of, say, the Kursk Salient.

[The Brain]

I would fail everyone. I've never had any power in my life might as well make the most of my 15 minutes of it.