Queen Elizabeth may have to start laying people off... (1 Viewer)

jazzeum said:
I have to be honest; I can only name two British PMs myself and I did attend British schools when I was younger. The only one I'm completely sure about is Disraeli. I think Palmerston was but not 100 percent sure although I do know that he was PM. Now, if anybody doesn't know the answer to the other two and they don't have to be British, that is truly sad.
Click to expand...

I am guessing Pitt the younger at the start .....found this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ters_under_George_III_.281760.E2.80.931820.29
 
With today being the 4th I can name Townsend. But after that I only remember Pitt, Disraeli, and wasnt Tarelton as PM?
 
Pitt is a good choice but it has to be 19th century and I believe he was 18th. BTW, no checking Google. Anyone can do that:)
 
Come on guys-please stop trying to justify this by saying- well I don't know the answers either let alone the Brit kids-for heavens sake the results of the survey was absolutely appalling for Brit undergraduates. Try another question more suited name one 19th century US president
-come on gimme a break here!

Bob
 
When I was a kid, I could name all the presidents. I'm sure I can still do it.
 
jazzeum said:
When I was a kid, I could name all the presidents. I'm sure I can still do it.
Click to expand...

......................................................

After the last half-dozen or so whats the point? I think most of us would be

better off to forget them as quickly as possible!:D
 
I can still do it; we've only added Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush since then.

Allright, here we go, without any reference to any source, online or otherwise, other than my memory:

Washington
Adams
Jefferson
Madison
Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Jackson
Van Buren
Harrison
Tyler
Polk
Taylor
Fillmore
Pierce
Buchannan
Lincoln
Johnson
Grant
Hayes
Garfield
Arthur
Cleveland
Harrison
Cleveland
McKinley
Roosevelt
Taft
Wilson
Harding
Coolidge
Hoover
FDR
Truman
Eisenhower
JFK
LBJ and then the rest up there.

Not bad, huh. The kid's still got it. I used to be able to do it backwards as well. That I can't do anymore.
 
Nice job Brad! I couldn't do that anymore.

As far as 19th Century British PM's, in addition to Disraeli and Palmerston, what about Arthur Wellsley, the 1st Duke of Wellington?
 
It's important to know all the presidents and VPs too for that matter

... if you want to win on Jeopardy :p

If Bob is right about how few Brits know the very basics of their collective story, it's cause for concern. Only about 10% of Canadians can identify a photo of Canada's 1st prime minister.

So what are our youth stashing into their memories? More math, more reality TV, more computer knowledge? Are the things they do know really less important? This is a real question. I don't know. Is their sense of grammar being modified by text messaging? Is all this good, bad or just different.

I wonder if the results would have been different in 1960?
 
Louis Badolato said:
Nice job Brad! I couldn't do that anymore.

As far as 19th Century British PM's, in addition to Disraeli and Palmerston, what about Arthur Wellsley, the 1st Duke of Wellington?
Click to expand...

Nice one Louis and my point exactly- if they had known just two basic facts about "Old Hooky" they would have had the answer to two of the questions.

Brad I'm impressed-move immediately to the top of the forum's history section:D

Reb
 
When I was at school,(may, many years ago), we were taught history as a time line. We started at the beginning and worked through to the 1930's, which was about the latest date for history books at the time. At the end we had a good basic foundation. When my son went to school they were taught on the "project" system. In his class half the children learnt about the Vikings and the other half the Tudors. He ended up very knowledgable on the Tudors, BUT, when asked, (by me), wasn't sure whether they came before or after the Victorians. And that is the problem, being taught in detail about something without a basic framework to put it in. History is supposed to teach us the mistakes of the past so that they are not repeated. God help us all in the future.
 
trooper said:
When I was at school,(may, many years ago), we were taught history as a time line. We started at the beginning and worked through to the 1930's, which was about the latest date for history books at the time. At the end we had a good basic foundation. When my son went to school they were taught on the "project" system. In his class half the children learnt about the Vikings and the other half the Tudors. He ended up very knowledgable on the Tudors, BUT, when asked, (by me), wasn't sure whether they came before or after the Victorians. And that is the problem, being taught in detail about something without a basic framework to put it in. History is supposed to teach us the mistakes of the past so that they are not repeated. God help us all in the future.
Click to expand...


In my experience in the U.S. its always been a modified time line. There were certain spots that got much more time and attention than others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Community platform by XenForo® © 2010-2024 XenForo Ltd.
Back
Top