The Dark Tower at Buona Vista, Part 2 (Cont.)

Note: If you are reading this for the first time, please refer to The Dark Tower of Buona Vista, and The Dark Tower of Buona Vista, Part 2

Having discussed our education system’s obsession with grades, and the policy failures regarding PW and SS, I now continue my discussion, this time into the final subject, History, and the last issue in my post, the over-valuation of certain subjects.

“What’s wrong with History?” One might ask.

“It’s Boring!” would be the most common reply. But why it is boring? Was it supposed to be boring?

The problem is twofold. First, people misunderstand the subject. Second, there is an issue with the way History is being taught in schools.

The common misunderstandings regarding History is that it is all about memorising, about remembering and regurgitating facts, dates, events, names of peoples and places, and whatnot.

Actually, to memorise and rely on intellectual bulimia is the fast track to failure in studying History (I speak from my experience). History is about facts, but facts are far from the only, nor even the most important aspect of the subject. History is about analysis. It’s about getting the big picture, and understanding why things happen the way they did. Like how WW2 started for example. There is a good deal of background knowledge required, but some things are just commonsensical.

So unless you specialise, in say, military history, there’s no real need to memorise the nitty-gritty details. Even university professors don’t do that. They know enough to teach, but getting to detail still requires them to go to the library or the archives to do their research.

This brings me to my second point, that there is a problem with teaching History.

When I was in JC, I was selected to represent the school in a dialogue session with the Prime Minister. I managed to raise a question, and the question was precisely about the History curriculum. For a multitude of reasons, I did not pursue the question, and had to be content by saying that my JC history teachers would make good examples of what History should be in schools.

So, what is the problem?

I would say there are two points. One, there is too little interaction. JC History for me was about debating. About arguing your case and defending it, while recognising the alternative points and the nuances in each issue. Secondary School History was by contrast, much less exciting. I only remember spending time writing essay after essay after essay, and spending umpteen hours on “source based skills” totally irrelevant for my JC History.

Two, teaching methodologies are too dry. The main, if not the only reason I enjoyed History in Secondary School was my teacher, and the fact that international History was simply more fun.

But to be objective, at least for both secondary school and JC I got to go for overseas field trips. That’s why made History REALLY FUN.


Last but not least, the over-valuation of subjects.

I wouldn’t deny the importance of subjects like law, medicine or engineering; they are truly important occupations.

Besides, sociologically speaking, these occupations, especially law and medicine, given their long periods and high costs of training, have to be compensated. This is the so-called Davis-Moore Thesis in sociology.

What I am against are parents who myopically think that only these occupations are considered successful careers. I’m sure many of you would have heard of stories where a student tells their parents, “I want to major in Theatre Studies”, only to get the reply, “Got job for it meh?”

It is the lack of understanding that led so many students to lead miserable lives in university, at the cost of their freedoms, their grades, and consequently, their dreams.

End of Part 2