[Closed] Gove on the Offensive. Blackadder content.

Makes me wonder what tickles his funny bone?

Poor people shivering.

Eh? So we didn't tell our men to walk slowly towards the machine guns on numerous occassions?

Mr Gove wrote in the Daily Mail...

There's a statement to fill you with joy...

Makes me wonder what tickles his funny bone?

I would love to try a set of Bombers.

[i]Gove [s]on the[/s] Offensive[/i]

ftfy.

his whole 'the First World War was a glorious victory for British Foreign policy' approach would be bad enough from some random in the pub. Coming from the education secretary it's just worrying.

It's good to know that the biggest problem our education system currently faces is Blackadder. 100% of Michael Goves are now below average.

W@anker.

I see that all anyone has managed to do so far is call Gove a c**t and play ad hominem, rather than discuss the actual point thats being made - that Blackadder and Oh What a Lovely War are, frankly, not factual representations of the British war effort.

Quelle surprise!

The Education Secretary says the conflict was a "just war" to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.

Now, my history is a little rusty.

What was Britain up to in the years preceding the First World War again?

The linked article is not as good as the more extended debate that Andrew Marr introduced in start the week (thank you R4 thread). It seemed from that, that Gove's central argument was that it was incorrect to depict soldiers as passive participants who did not understand what they were doing. A slightly too subtle point for the headline writers.

The R4 program was much better and more interesting that the linked article IMO. The Canadian historian was equally interesting on how Haig was depicted after the war and then the debate about commemorating or celebrating or "?" the centenary of WW1

Gove misses the obvious value in Blackadder etc in bursting the sanitised versions of history that too many were/are taught and the excess glorification that can overshadow the true horror of what happened. How May school,ids are given a copy of Macdonald's The Somme to get a feel for the true horror of seeing your brothers arm being blown off. Blackadder etc use humour effectively to highlight the true horror of warfare that text books like to gloss over.

aggression by a German elite bent on domination.

So, not a squabble between Victoria's various offspring with a late entry by J. P. Morgan then?

,,, and I've said it before, but - WHERE THE FERK IS ERNIE?

They seem to be missing the bigger news story here, which is

[img] [/img]

... the launch of the Michael Gove sex doll.

This is brilliant about the causes of the first world war (and a lot more);

I'm a history teacher, and I use BlackAdder because it is funny, which helps learning, and because it is part of an interesting historiography of the First World War that saw for really the first time the voice of the ordinary man emerge from war. It is funny, because it reflects a truthful element of how some people felt about the conflict. No historian would use only one source, and I find it unlikely that any teacher is using only 3 hours of footage to teach a course which is usually 2 terms long. Gove is after a headline, not a sustainable answer to the real problems in our education system.

Lapierrelady - I'll ask you one question, have you read Mud, Blood and Poppycock by Gordon Corrigan?

Gove is going to out himself as a creationist citing "evolution is a left wing plot!"

In fan, no, would you recommend? I try and teach all the angles and let the pupils make up their own minds, but with emotive subjects it's difficult to be objective.

Its not perfect - but its very much a book written to deal with many of the 'common myths' that have come about

such as it actually being rare for troops to spend more than four or five days in the line before rotating out for training and recuperation (likely one of the main reasons that the British army never saw a mass breakdown in morale and order unlike the other allied nations)

lots of interesting analysis that will very much make you question what you thought you knew.

Whilst Gove is indeed an inept cretin, his point about the aims of the Kaiserreich is valid. Germany's aims in the first war were not much different to her aims in the second - to create and control a German hegemony across the Western continent. German leaders not only refused to rein in the Hapsburg Empire but promised to actively support that rotten edifice in its desire to crush Serbian Nationalism. Moltke in particular desired war with Russia sooner rather than later because he feared that waiting would allow Russia to arm to a point of percieved equality of arms with Germany.

the launch of the Michael Gove sex doll.

Its quite difficult to argue that WW1 was just and not about exapnsionist empires clashing tbh

That the leaders and rulers used the bodies of the plebs , and they wish to venerate them as noble [ they sure as shit aint doing the fighting themselves are they] is hardly surprising

The Education Secretary says the conflict was a "just war" to combat aggression by a German elite bent on domination.

Who knew we could just say Germany were the baddies

Except (unsurprisingly) that wasn't the extent of the point being made:

The past has never had a better future. Because history is enjoying a renaissance in Britain. After years in which the study of history was declining in our schools, the numbers of young people showing an appetite for learning about the past, and a curiosity about our nation’s story, is growing once more.
As a Government, we’ve done everything we can to support this restoration. We’ve changed how schools are judged, and our new measure of academic success for schools and pupils, the English baccalaureate, rewards those who study history at GCSE.
And the changes we’ve made to the history curriculum have been welcomed by top academics as a way to give all children a proper rounded understanding of our country’s past and its place in the world.

That understanding has never been needed more. Because the challenges we face today – great power rivalry, migrant populations on the move, rapid social upheaval, growing global economic interdependence, massive technological change and fragile confidence in political elites – are all challenges our forebears faced.
Indeed, these particular forces were especially powerful one hundred years ago – on the eve of the First World War. Which is why it is so important that we commemorate, and learn from, that conflict in the right way in the next four years.
The Government wants to give young people from every community the chance to learn about the heroism, and sacrifice, of our great-grandparents, which is why we are organising visits to the battlefields of the Western Front.
The war was, of course, an unspeakable tragedy, which robbed this nation of our bravest and best. But even as we recall that loss and commemorate the bravery of those who fought, it’s important that we don’t succumb to some of the myths which have grown up about the conflict.
Our understanding of the war has been overlaid by misunderstandings, and misrepresentations which reflect an, at best, ambiguous attitude to this country and, at worst, an unhappy compulsion on the part of some to denigrate virtues such as patriotism, honour and courage.

The conflict has, for many, been seen through the fictional prism of dramas such as Oh! What a Lovely War, The Monocled Mutineer and Blackadder, as a misbegotten shambles – a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite. Even to this day there are Left-wing academics all too happy to feed those myths.
Professor Sir Richard Evans, the Cambridge historian and Guardian writer, has criticised those who fought, arguing, ‘the men who enlisted in 1914 may have thought they were fighting for civilisation, for a better world, a war to end all wars, a war to defend freedom: they were wrong’.
And he has attacked the very idea of honouring their sacrifice as an exercise in ‘narrow tub-thumping jingoism’. These arguments are more reflective of the attitude of an undergraduate cynic playing to the gallery in a Cambridge Footlights revue rather than a sober academic contributing to a proper historical debate.
The First World War may have been a uniquely horrific war, but it was also plainly a just war. Nigel Biggar, regius professor of moral and pastoral theology at the University of Oxford, laid out the ethical case for our involvement in a superb essay in September’s Standpoint magazine.
The ruthless social Darwinism of the German elites, the pitiless approach they took to occupation, their aggressively expansionist war aims and their scorn for the international order all made resistance more than justified.
And the war was also seen by participants as a noble cause. Historians have skilfully demonstrated how those who fought were not dupes but conscious believers in king and country, committed to defending the western liberal order.
Other historians have gone even further in challenging some prevailing myths.
Generals who were excoriated for their bloody folly have now, after proper study, been re-assessed.
Douglas Haig, held up as a crude butcher, has been seen in a new light thanks to Professor Gary Sheffield, of Wolverhampton University, who depicts him as a patriotic leader grappling honestly with the new complexities of industrial warfare.
Even the battle of the Somme, once considered the epitome of military futility, has now been analysed in depth by the military historian William Philpott and recast as a precursor of allied victory.

There is, of course, no unchallenged consensus. That is why it matters that we encourage an open debate on the war and its significance.
But it is important to recognise that many of the new analyses emerging challenge existing Left-wing versions of the past designed to belittle Britain and its leaders.
Instead, they help us to understand that, for all our mistakes as a nation, Britain’s role in the world has also been marked by nobility and courage.
Indeed, the more we reflect on every aspect of the war, the more cause there is for us to appreciate what we owe to our forebears and their traditions.
But whatever each of us takes from these acts of remembrance and hours of debate it is always worth remembering that the freedom to draw our own conclusions about this conflict is a direct consequence of the bravery of men and women who fought for, and believed in, Britain’s special tradition of liberty.

Seems quite balanced as a talking point article really!

"There's not going to be a war
because Georgie is the king.
There's not going to be a war,
he doesn't like that sort of thing."

(Popular music-hall ditty of 1913).

Like I said. Family squabble, not a defence of "freedom".

A 'shambles' myth put about by left wing revisionists as Gove puts it.
Max Hastings pretty much nails that down as the approach to war in 1914 by all the combatant Nations & he is hardly a lefty now is he?
Whilst the ordinary soldiers on the ground were indeed brave and valiant, the political and military leaders of the Entente & the Central Powers were notable by their complete inability to do the jobs required of them. In fact the B.E.F. under Sir John French was characterized by a similarity to Gen. Melchett in Blackadder & was saved on several occasions by the bravery and ability to suffer of the French soldier.
And as for Churchill and his insane Naval Brigade saga the less said by a Tory minister the better!

Seems quite balanced as a talking point article really!

If that [b][i]seems[/i][/b] quite balanced to you, as well as your miscomprehended first post on the thread, then you're in need of some old fashioned comprehension skills. I'm sure Gove could give you some tips.

Hardly surprising that he would try to defend/deny 'a series of catastrophic mistakes perpetrated by an out-of-touch elite' is it.

Didn't we do this one to death last month?

WW1 was of it's time. At the start of the 29th century life wasn't very fair for the working man in peace time and very few had the vote.

IMO Blackadder IV has no place in the classroom to teach history, would you use the first series to teach the history of the Middle Ages? Although in the dumbed down society that we live it's not much of a surprise.

Would All Quiet on the Western Front not be more useful and accurate?

So in summary:

"If you are too stupid to realise that a fictional televison situation comedy may not in fact be 100% truthful, then you are also probably too stupid to understand any of the broader historical issues surrounding that subject anyway"

or more succinctly "If you think Blackadder was real, you're an idiot"

The point for me is that mass market programs such as Blackadder at least bring some interesting History to light for the vast majority of the public, and present that subject material in a way that makes in interesting. Very, very few children of any age are going to sit through boring, 5hr long factually correct documentaries or lectures on a subject that means absolutely nothing too them, even if they are 100% historically accurate. When i was at school, history was a dull, dry, tedious and boring subject, that the vast majority of pupils dropped at the first possible opportunity........

Seems quite balanced as a talking point article really!

Its really not though.

Alot of weasel words from Gove about people fighting for civilisation, for freedom, the western liberal order. What does that even mean? It wasn't like World War 2 with where such an idea can be sustained, of democracy versus dictatorship. In that respect at the time the Germans had universal male suffrage unlike the British!

A 'sober academic debate' will argue points of view in a nuanced manner - not just whine on about left wing (or indeed right wing) versions of history like Gove tries to do to dismiss some strawman opponent.

Very, very few children of any age are going to sit through boring, 5hr long factually correct documentaries

Doesn't depend on the quality of the documentary?

I can remember watching the World at War when I was very young, too young to really understand it but I certainly enjoyed watching it.

I dont think anyone wants to use works of fiction to teach history and in particular not the comedy programme Blackadder which is unlikely to be historically accurate
As for dumb downed [ this is rhetorical as its clear you have not]Have you not read the thread or link? how could anyone think anyone had suggested using Black adder to teach history?

That is why it matters that we encourage an open debate on the war and its significance.
But it is important to recognise that many of the new analyses emerging challenge existing Left-wing versions of the past designed to belittle Britain and its leaders.

Just one rich elite wanting to eliminate another countries rich elite whilst both use the blood of ordinary people to gain more for themselves or protect what they have.

Or as blackadder puts it: another gargantuan effort to move field marshall Haigs drinks cabinet another six inches closer to Berlin.

These days the elite like to be all encompassing by calling their interests, "our interests." Guess who is still on the getting your brains blown out for blighty end of things?

the actual point thats being made - that Blackadder and Oh What a Lovely War are, frankly, not factual representations of the British war effort.

I've not seen Oh What a lovely war but surely only a moron would think that Blackadder was a factual programme?

[i]that Blackadder and Oh What a Lovely War are, frankly, not factual representations of the British war effort.[/i]

I'm not aware that anyone ever has tried to say that these are factual representations

it would be hard to argue...this view is correct or anything other than [b]history being written by the victors[/b].

So given the present rule by entitled ****-wit, let us hazard a guess as to, at the time, whether Gove would have been

A) conscripted to the front line, and ordered to march towards German machine guns to his inevitable horrific pointless death

Or

B) General Melchet - sat safely behind the lines, wondering to have the beef or the venison, while ordering the execution for treason for any frightful working class oik who questions option A

This is just yet another example of the present mob marching us back to the 19th century

Historians have skilfully demonstrated how those who fought were not dupes but conscious believers in king and country, committed to defending the western liberal order.

Apart from Wilfred Owen.

This is just yet another example of the present mob marching us back to the 19th century

Find it hard to disagree.

Apart from Wilfred Owen.

Gove would have him down as a hand-wringing lefty.

This is just yet another example of the present mob marching us back to the 19th century

Yup, what's gone wrong with this country is that we no longer have unquestioning deference to the ruling classes. Don't worry, Gove will make it compulsory to indoctrinate children into it from an early age.

grum - Member
Yup, what's gone wrong with this country is that we no longer have unquestioning deference to the ruling classes.

I would be careful with that line of argument unless you want to give support to Kona's "cliche" argument above or the fact that we need much better teaching of history. Hard to justify in either a historic or contemporary context. In fact with reference to WW1 you are merely lending fuel to Gove and other historians' fire, and I doubt that is your intention.

Alternatively you share Gove's failing of creating false political points. As the historian who Give chose to quote said:

Professor Gary Sheffield of the University of Wolverhampton, who was praised by Mr Gove for his recent study of Field Marshall Sir Douglas Haig, the Commander-in-Chief of the British Expeditionary Force whose Western Front offensives cost nearly one million British lives, said it was not a question of ideology.

“Mr Gove’s politics and mine are pretty different but the view he has put forward is right. [b]What he was wrong about however is that there is a left-right split – there isn’t,” he said.[/b]

“The publicity that has been kicking off around the centenary has reflected the Black Adder point of view although he (Mr Gove) is wrong to single it out – it is satire not documentary.”

Historians have skilfully demonstrated how those who fought were not dupes but conscious believers in king and country, committed to defending the western liberal order.

I wonder what sort of liberal order includes compulsorily enslaving a generation of men and sending them off to be killed in their millions.

“The publicity that has been kicking off around the centenary has reflected the Black Adder point of view although he (Mr Gove) is wrong to single it out – it is satire not documentary.”

Gove could also look at the current curriculum. My younger son is studying history at the moment in the sixth. In GCSE history he wast taught what he describes as the traditional view (lions and donkeys etc) and then asked to critically appraise it. Perhaps the subject has moved on more that Gove imagines!!!!

"Perhaps the subject has moved on more that Gove imagines!!!!"
This is the essence of the problems with the present government including Gove policy is based on what the politicians imagine or wish the reality to be not on any evidence. In Gove Healing and Hunt's cases their is a deliberate exclusion of fact and qualified opinion from their decision making as it tends to get in the way of the dogma . Facts are only produced if and when they support or can be twisted to support the political idea.

Historians might argue that this is true of all governments crankboy! 😉

If you consider WW1 and WW2 almost as one conflict with a 21 year ceasefire, the death toll including Spanish Flu outbreak must be 5-10% of World population. Seems a horrendous price to pay to prevent German Imperial expansion.

Crankboy is bang on. This government is stuffed with zealots like Gove, IDS, and Hunt who are so utterly convinced that their own incredibly narrow world view is the one true path, that nothing else is allowed to even be considered or countenanced at all. Anyone providing evidence to disprove their frankly bonkers theories is ignored, or attacked!

They are as intellectually and ideologically inflexible as any middle eastern despot, or North Korean dictator. And, given half the chance, I suspect they 'd like to deal with non-believers in the same way

One man's [s]terrorist[/s] zealot is another man's [s]freedom fighter[/s] conviction politician, eh Binners?

Strikes me that both the Tories and the Lib Dems have done a number of U turns (even Gove) and once you strip away the rhetoric Osborne's ACTUAL economic policies are some way from how he proposed them originally. Cameron's was also caught with his pants down over Syria etc. Hardly the behaviour of despots and dictators. How would focus groups have risen to promenence over the past decade or so, if politicians were so tied to pre-determined ideologies? Ed Balls is a self-confessed supporter of Keynesian economics and yet when in power moved far away from the teachings of his mentor. They are more tied to power and the practicalities of clinging to it.

The beauty of politics is, for the most part, these people are kept out of the productive process. Pity that this is only partially true in education though. Perhaps Gove should be given some standard history GCSE source papers to look at. He might improve his own analysis then. If nothing else he would bring it up to date.

Thm - this lot have done a number of U turns, having been forced into them. Whereas if they'd have listened to the advice of considerably better informed experts, instead of pursuing a purely ideological agenda, they could have been avoided by better policy being written in the first place

Take Goves policy of abolishing GCSE's, announced apparently on a whim, having consulted nobody. When the teaching unions and various educational experts pointed out that you can't just scrap a national exam system and impose another overnight, they were condemned as lazy, self-interested dinosaurs, who were simply frustrating the masters grand vision.

So after 12 months, and god knows how much tax payers money, of pursuing his ideological idiocy, against all advice, he had to admit defeat. They were right. He was wrong.

It's hardly the height of pragmatism is it?

And did you notice any constriction in the face of the exposure of such obvious stupidity? Of course not. It's just on with the next hair-brained scheme

Partly true, but if, as you suggest, this lot have had U turns forced in them, then you cannot, by definition, compare them to dictators or despots. That doesn't follow. And why are "this lot" any different from their predecessors (of any party).

Interesting, a lot of labour strategy at the moment is trying to address the perception that the party lacks vision and ideology. Zealots and conviction politicians eh? So are labour strategists barking up the wrong tree? Perhaps they could stick to Tony's more pragmatic approach.

I think we often mistake ideology with compulsion to meddle - Gove being a very good example. If you want an internationally recognised, high quality, broad- based exam system you can buy it off the shelf. The clue is in the name - the baccalaureate! No need to invent a watered down version.

Tell us again what this baccalaureate is again and why its so good?

As described above AA ( and as you know as a teacher).

It's good for some people and satisfies a lot of Gove's stated objectives. He doesn't need to steal the name to dress up an incomplete idea. That's meddling. Not suited for all though ("not comprehensive") and neither of my boys chose it in the end. But from a broader academic perspective (and if you plan to work/study overseas) it has a lot of merit IMO. Plus it's tried and tested globally rather than in Gove's bathtub!

Shouldnt be up Gove's street (despite evidence to the contrary) as it seeks, as a matter or priority, to remove national biases in teaching history. Something that dates back to its original raison d'être.

So you mean IB rather than english bacc? Why and how is it better than GCSE and what us the evidence for this?

Yes, the English Bacc is "my" example of meddling by Gove. The IB is an internationally recognised, high-standard, broad-based education program. As to evidence, there is plenty of debate (eg some Unis prefer it, higher subsequent salaries etc) in the profession as you will be aware. There are also growing numbers of adopters, but it didn't suit either of my two.

But by design it gets round national government meddling in the curriculum - which is normally a good thing in my book!

athgray - Member
If you consider WW1 and WW2 almost as one conflict with a 21 year ceasefire, the death toll including Spanish Flu outbreak must be 5-10% of World population. Seems a horrendous price to pay to prevent German Imperial expansion.

Especially when we have seen the Germans manage this peacefully with the EU. 🙂

Among the debate (and why I made my comments on Gove above) are:

The system has its share of critics. The most widely voiced concerns are that the IB promotes breadth over depth, and [b]that it fails to instil in young people any of the national pride that might come from a more UK-centric take on education, particularly in subjects like history and English.[/b] (Translated literature is widely taught on IB programmes, unlike on A-level syllabuses.)

I can't quite imagine Gove liking that!!!

I thought IB was a post 16 qualification rather than a potential replacement for gcse. I also very much doubt there is any evidence to suggest it would be better for the country than a level given the very small numbers doing it and the fact that the vast majority of those will be public schools. Its much harder to have a qualification for the majority than a priviledged few.

epicyclo - Member
Especially when we have seen the Germans manage this peacefully with the EU.

😀

maxtorque - Member
Very, very few children of any age are going to sit through boring, 5hr long factually correct documentaries or lectures on a subject that means absolutely nothing too them, even if they are 100% historically accurate.

Nor would many adults. Put your straw man away.

No it has various levels including an alternative to GCSE. Why would those free from the requirement to follow the national curriculum chose it then? They are not stupid and they charge a lot of money to do something inferior.

The privileged few being students in 146 nations worldwide rather than those Gove has in mind in his bathtub?

The IB is more than its educational programmes and certificates. At our heart we are motivated by a mission to create a better world through education.We value our hard earned reputation for quality, for high standards and for pedagogical leadership. [b]We achieve our goals by working with partners and by actively involving our stakeholders, particularly teachers[/b]... Our four programmes for students aged 3 to 19 help develop the intellectual, personal, emotional and social skills to live, learn and work in a rapidly globalizing world.

Sounds like something teachers have been crying out for!!!! Still we could stick with latest whim of whichever M of Education is in office.

How many schools in the UK teach it at anything lower than post 16. In fact how many teach it at post 16 level? Other than their own copy you present no evidence that it is any good. Why would a priviledged few choose it, there needs are different than the majority.

if you think how many of those who fought in 1914 were entitled to vote, to me it says something about who the war was for.

AA, it's relatively new in the UK especially below A-level. I don't really want to get into a debate about IB per se, my point was more a criticism of Gove who IMO is dressing up pretty modest ideas in the Bacc name to make them sound more grand that they are. His proposals are very different from the IB in principle and in practice. I guess my second point, was that if you want to achieve the broader aims, I would rather go with an internationally recognised and widely tested approach (if not in the UK) than the whim of one or a small group of non-specialists.

I won't bore you with the stats - there are plenty out there though. I had to make the decision for both my boys and sat through several presentations on the pros and cons. One of the reasons why I like the IB is like the Scottish UNi system it allows/requires you to keep up more breadth in education. I think that, in general, that is a good thing. But it is not the best choice for all, which is why I didn't chose it for either of my kids. Then again, I don't believe in a comprehensive "one-size-fits-all" approach to education 😉

It's also perceived as involving more work which doesn't always make it popular among students!!!

even if they are 100% historically accurate.

Impossible, history can never be that accurate, remember the saying history is written by the winners and hopefully you will understand why history is never 100% accurate.

Touche epicyclo 🙂

Surely the Baccelaureate is essentially a step on the road to the much belated imposition of the Tomlinson report, since nobody has had the balls to challenge the unfathomable attraction to A-Levels

Interesting reading here on the opinions of four former education secretaries

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmchilsch/422/10030802.htm

I know of quite a few centres who have dropped the IB due to the expense of delivering it, and also the universities have stated to significantly up their offer requirements for those students studying the IB.

I am not a particular fan of the A level system, but Gove's latest ploy is to make a levels two year terminal qualifications. He has also linked funding so that centres will not get funding if they make students take a fourth a level subject. So far from broadening students study, as happened with AS levels where pretty much everyone took four and focused during the second year onto three A2 subjects, everyone will just do three all the way through. Another thing he slipped through is that students who take on a third year of study, ie done level 2 in their first year, being successful and moved onto a two year level three funding, who'll only get 5/6 funding for their third year of study. No reason for this except that he seems to want to punish those students who dare to take more than his prescribed, a levels should take two years approach!

Phil - one estimate I saw was £7m to introduce as it needs different teaching skills etc. So no, not cheap. Like Pre-U, the lack of consistency with Uni Applications is a factor reducing up-take! Certainly a factor that we considered.

Ninfan - thanks for that, interesting read indeed. Its a pity those sort of minutes do not get more airing. Some more refreshing honesty than is normal!

But from a broader academic perspective (and[b] if you plan to work/study overseas[/b]) it has a lot of merit IMO.

Tristram Hunt has written a riposte:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/04/first-world-war-michael-gove-left-bashing-history

michael gove writing in that delightful paper his wife works for having a pop at the bbc and slagging off left-wingers, whoda thunk it!?

Gove is remarkably transparent, hes still smarting at the government being blocked from bombing syria, this is just him cynically using the forthcoming centenary to vent some spleen

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/youre-a-disgrace-michael-gove-shouts-at-mps-after-syria-vote-8790995.html

the man's an arse

Gove is about the last person on earth I would consult on matters of trench warfare. Even if he's pandering to the [i]Daily Failograph[/i] gallery, his language & reductive take on History mark him out as an especially odious & arrogant buffoon - and one who packs a good deal less intellectual weight than he thinks he does. Were my great-great uncle (the late Major Noteeth, listed as missing on the Menin Gate) alive to read such binary garbage, he'd probably have wheeled about & launched a section attack upon the Tory HQ. As for Gove's remarks about [i]Blackadder[/i], [i]Oh! What a lovely war[/i] etc: I suspect the satire would have been understood - and appreciated - by the editors of the [i]Wipers Times[/i]. Therein lies its eternal value - as a necessary retort to the play up & play the game jingo of the "smug-faced crowds".

Really, the man is a complete Twonk. Over the top you go, Gove.

[img] ?w=627&h=442[/img]

I find my sympathies lie with Capn Blackadder rather than Mr Gove.

Out of interest no teeth, would you also argue that Gary Sheffield was also a twonk since he comes to similar conclusions but without the party political BS?

konabunny - Member
But from a broader academic perspective (and if you plan to work/study overseas) it has a lot of merit IMO.

[b]This is a rubbish point, [/b]a solution looking for a problem.

Cheers kona I will bear that in mind and change the advice I give to students, oh and ignore...

The most important factors for acceptance into a selective U.S. university is the combination of the level of your academic courses and the grades you receive. You can opt for either the more typical American high school college preparatory program or the International Baccalaureate. The IB is considered to be more advanced and challenging. The IB also gives you the option of applying to European universities.

Complete bllx obviously! Ditto the below

“We find that IB students adapt more easily to a university style of learning and become independent learners from an earlier stage compared to those from other backgrounds.” Imperial College

“IB is well known to us for excellent preparations. Success in an IB programme correlates well with success at Harvard. We are always pleased to see the credentials of the IB Diploma Programme on the transcript.” Harvard

" “The interesting finding that we have is that those who are coming in with the International Baccalaureate do better in firsts and 2.1s than the average, by about 6%, and no IB student has yet dropped out of university. We think that that is worth noting.” Exeter

Still, probably rubbish as you say, what do they know. Harvard, imperial pfaff...

Gove and Richard Evans have "history". Niall Ferguson gives some perspective

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/15/history-teaching-curriculum-gove-right

The link within that is also quite interesting.

would you also argue that Gary Sheffield was also a twonk

Having just read [combat veteran] Tolstoy's masterly take on the Battle of Borodino, I have no time for any of 'em - politicians or historians. 😈

I find my sympathies lie with Capn Blackadder rather than Mr Gove.

Seconded.

Well I can sympathise there - at least with the former. As always with the enigma that is Gove, hidden beneath the surface there [i]may be[/i] something interesting. I have just downloaded The Chief on kIndle to see for myself.

I found ferguson's comments interesting but not sure about his source analysis stuff. IMO that is a great addition to the teaching of history if not at the complete expense of learning facts!!!!

As always with the enigma that is Gove, hidden beneath the surface there may be something interesting.

[img] [/img]

He was a union hack - and therefore as interesting as a pot of discount paint.