

1912 Eighth Grade Examination for Bullitt County Schools - xvirk
http://www.bullittcountyhistory.com/bchistory/schoolexam1912.html

======
ghshephard
[http://www.snopes.com/language/document/1895exam.asp](http://www.snopes.com/language/document/1895exam.asp)
is relevant. Anything that is memorization based (which a lot of that test
is), that you haven't studied recently will be difficult.

I can recall, in the 7th grade, struggling for a couple nights to be able to
identify all of the european and Mediterranean countries for an exam. It took
a couple hard nights of cramming, but by the time the exam came along, it was
a walk in the park.

But ask me today to place Slovenia, Bulgaria, and Albania on a map - and I'd
be at a loss.

~~~
talmand
Same here. In the fourth grade I had a test to identify all 50 states and
their capitols on the US map. Studied hard for it and I was one of two
students that got all 100 correct. Today I could probably identify almost all
the states but no way on the capitols.

~~~
function_seven
> Today I could probably identify almost all the states ...

I just tried this myself and (barely) got them all right. Had to guess between
NH and VT, and was somewhat shaky around AK, MS, and AL.

~~~
jameshart
You should probably redo the abbreviations test, though. Arkansas is AR -
unless you're really getting confused between Alaska, Mississippi and
Alabama....

~~~
function_seven
Ha, I noticed that on my map after I posted. My other mess ups:

CN -> CT, PE -> PA, IW -> IA, MO -> MT (and I even had "MO" on Missouri)

------
IgorPartola
I don't know if I have a disadvantage or an advantage when it comes to
learning. I can never memorize a mass of stuff. Instead, I have to find a
pattern in it and use the pattern to reconstruct it. For example, I could
never remember random formulas for e.g. solving the quadratic equation or
taking a derivative, but once I figured out how they worked, I could use them
right away. This is why I decided to study physics in college: physics has
very few pieces of info you have to just memorize.

The downside, besides having a horrible time remembering some chemical
formula, or the year of the French revolution, is that I also cannot use a
formula correctly unless I know how it is derived. I must walk every step of
the proof before I can use any part of the formula, otherwise my brain simply
refuses to see it correctly.

Interestingly enough, I am blessed with very good memory for situations and
associations. I can tell you exactly how many olives were in the martini I
ordered in July 2008 (3), or quote lines from my favorite shows at every
occasion. I just can't remember what my brain seems classify as "generally
useless facts".

------
engi_nerd
For reference -- this is Bullitt County, Kentucky. It is just south of
Louisville, and is now a part of the greater Louisville metropolitan area. At
this point in the county's history, it had a population of approximately
10,000 people. The Louisville & Nashville railroad passed through the county
and had several stops, plus some fairly good quality roads linked the county
with Louisville and other towns in the region, so the area was rural, but not
particularly isolated. Its school district was well established but generally
stopped at the 8th grade. The school system was a collection of various small
schoolhouses located around the county. In short, it was probably
representative of most of rural America in the early 20th century.

As a graduate of the public schools in that county, I can't say that I
received the same rigorous education that the test here indicates was once the
standard. It's very strange to me to see this pop up now and then on the
internet as an example of "look at the standards we once held our children
to".

~~~
talmand
I would say it's possible that they did not receive a more rigorous education
since we may not know what they were educated on beyond these questions. What
if the students of the era were specifically prepared to answer these
questions for this test much like how US children are educated today? A good
portion of my children's education is tied solely to passing standardized
tests. Sometimes to the detriment of a more balanced education.

~~~
engi_nerd
It's clear from this test that the curriculum was defined and a body of
knowledge was expected to be mastered. That's what I mean by rigor. My
experiences in that same school system starting some 77 years later did not
reflect a similar rigor (and was not complete in your sense, either).

------
bcg1
This has been a problem for a long time... for many decades education has
focused only on rote memorization, to the detriment of all.

"We believe that in the passage of time the neglect of these books in the
twentieth century will be regarded as an aberration, and not, as it is
sometimes called today, a sign of progress. We think that progress, and
progress in education in particular, depends on the incorporation of the ideas
and images included in this set in the daily lives of all of us, from
childhood through old age. In this view the disappearance of great books from
education and from the reading of adults constitutes a calamity. In this view
education in the West has been steadily deteriorating; the rising generation
has been deprived of its birthright; the mess of pottage it has received in
exchange has not been nutritious; adults have come to lead lives comparatively
rich in material comforts and very poor in moral, intellectual, and spiritual
tone."

\-- Preface to "Great Books of the Western World", "The Great Conversation
Vol. 1" (1951)

[http://archive.org/stream/greatconversatio030336mbp/greatcon...](http://archive.org/stream/greatconversatio030336mbp/greatconversatio030336mbp_djvu.txt)

~~~
pzxc
On the other hand, the argument can be made that if we all rely on the
supercomputers in our pockets to give us the historical facts we never
bothered to memorize, then all the critical thinking in the world might not
save us from being doomed to repeat the history we never bothered to learn.

\-- Me

(I take this stance because just the other day I watched an old Simpsons
episode where Martin was made fun of by the substitute teacher for "bothering"
to learn the historical significance of the Monroe Doctrine, and I was ashamed
that any teacher, fictional or not, would behave in such a way)

Say all you want about the overuse of memorization in public education: I bet
those 8th graders that could pass this test without looking half the answers
up on Wikipedia had a more well-rounded education than most of us today.

And the attitude that, "Well why bother to learn history when I have
wikipedia?" is the same attitude that causes people to become totally useless
when their computer goes down and is no longer telling them what to do. I've
had cashiers that literally _could not make change_ when they didn't have a
computer in front of them to do the subtraction.

~~~
ovulator
Bothering to learn the historical significance of the monroe doctrine is a lot
different than having to memorize what year the doctrine was issued.

It is similar to learning the why of multiplication rather than memorizing
multiplication tables. If who know the why, you have a foundation laid for
higher math. If you just memorize the results you lack the foundation. You
sure can spit out results fast, but a computer can spit them out faster.

Same with dates and names for historical events. If you know what year the
doctrine was issued, and who wrote it, there isn’t much knowledge that can be
built on that. But if you understand the significance, but have no idea what
year it was written or who wrote it, you can apply that knowledge to other
situations.

~~~
SiVal
Really? Then in what ways might the Mexican slaughter of Texans at the Alamo
and US plans for retribution have helped shape the Monroe Doctrine's policy
that the European countries should not interfere in the affairs of countries
in the Americas?

Answer without knowing any dates.

And as far as "knowing the why" of multiplication being sufficient to lay the
foundation of higher math, just try to solve a system of three simultaneous
equations or find a volume with double integration on a classroom test, each
problem requiring that a couple of dozen little algebraic operations be done
correctly or the problem gets all messed up, when you really never learned
what 7x5 or 8x(-3) are, but you fully understand what these operations _mean_.
You'll pick a humanities major when you get to college and heave a great sigh
of relief when you take your last "higher math" class.

~~~
RogerL
Google will give me the dates in 5 seconds, and then I can reason about it.

I doubt you know (remember) the date of everything that happened in history. I
do not doubt that you can reason about, understand, and learn from history.

No one is arguing for no memorization, ever. We are arguing against rote
memorization and for learning how to think and reason. It is not a dichotomy,
it's a continuum. Of course _any_ example that someone comes up with by way of
illustrating their position is going to have a quibble or counter. But that is
kind of missing the forest for the trees, IMO.

To expand that line of thought. We have new tools now, like google, and an
ever increasing body of facts. It was perhaps reasonable to 'memorize the
world' in 1912; there is no chance of it today. A few dozen European, white
dead authors to read, handfuls of major population centers, tons of jobs
related to shipping corn and such (thank you ships and trains!), and so
memorizing the almanac and learning percentages made a lot of sense (perhaps,
I'll stipulate it). Now, to have an effective mind you have to be able to find
and assimilate data from several sources quickly, and find the meaning behind
the facts. I don't know the answer to your Monroe Doctrine question, but I
have no doubt that I could get you the answer quickly, and write an "A",
graduate level paper in a few days should I choose. That's what I need to
succeed in this world, not know the stupid date of some treaty.

~~~
SiVal
If you don't already "know the stupid date of some treaty" without looking it
up with Google, you can't know its context with any depth, so you don't
understand the issue well enough for your opinions about it to be of any value
"5 seconds" later.

------
madengr
For 7th grade British History we had to know all the rulers, in order, from
Charlemagne (or was it Charles Martel aka Charles the Hammer) to present day
(1980s). Obviously I didn't learn it.

Funny now, I learned more after watching The Tudors, Wolf Hall, and The White
Queen, than I did it that awful class. Wasn't all bad though. We got to make
our own Medieval weapons (I made a Morning Star) and had a tour book of the
London Dungeon (pretty gruesome) hanging on the classroom wall; won't find
that these days.

~~~
jameshart
Weird. Charlemagne was ruler of a lot of places, but Britain wasn't one of
them...

~~~
madengr
Yeah, he was Normandy IIRC, but I assume many descended from him, but as I
said, I hated that class.

------
Avshalom
Um, other than the grammar portion this seems pretty much what 8th graders
were expected to know in 1999 when I was in Washington?

------
smackfu
Funny that the Truant Officer's name is on the bottom along with the board of
education.

------
talmand
So, do I get extra points for pointing out typos?

