Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

History: New syllabus - first examinations May 2010

Recommended Posts

My history teacher has talked about how IB is taking history of europe and history of the islamic world and making one massive history of Europe and the Islamic world!!!!! :S The best part about it (or worst if you'r a pessimistic person) is that IB isn't removing any material, they're just adding. It's like doing 2 courses, but getting credit for one, ha ha.

The original plan had been to start it with the May 2009 (I'm not sure about the November IBers, my teacher only mentioned the May exam takers), but many IB history teachers cried out against the mass up becauase they don't want to have to teach such a demanding and essentially stupid course. So it was pushed back to the May 2010. This is what I know so far. Personally, I think it's stupid to do this because history of just europe is so draining on it's own :S , if it had been changed for my year, I'd have gone into ITGS (that's our choice instead of history).

What do you all think about it? Are there any May 2010 students on here who are taking it or have been told more information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'll be long gone by then and my brother will be in his last year of Ib so it wont affect us. I don't think ADDING to the curriculum is really such a good idea. Generally IB students learn much more than students enrolled in regular classes. Thats just adding to the stress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it actually add to the work load at all? As long as you're still doing only three HL topics, the only real difference is that you get more choice in which topics you can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't understand. Are they adding Islamic history as a regional option like the Paper 3 option of Europe, America etc? Because at the moment, History of Europe isn't a subject on its own, it's an option of the aggregate History subject.

Are you saying they're integrating Islamic history into with the World History portion ( Paper 2) of the History syllabus, or are they making it a regional option for Paper 3? If it's the latter I don't see what the problem is. Ok, so Islamic history covers quite a different period of history but still schools would have a choice right? I don't think they'd make it so that you'd have to learn Islamic history no matter what regional option you do. Because that's not going to be practical. I mean, Islamic history is more useful knowledge and more practical in some parts of the world than others.

Unless they're totally changing the History syllabus, I think the only choice they have would just have to be add it as a regional Paper 3 option because paper 2 material are specifically 20th Century World History - and Islamic history is NOT 20th century. Even if they're adding it as a prescribed subject for Paper 1, schools would still have a choice to study other prescribed subjects. So I think there would still be the degree of choice there.

That said, they could be revolutionarising the whole history syllabus but I don't think that's very likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah I don't understand. Are they adding Islamic history as a regional option like the Paper 3 option of Europe, America etc? Because at the moment, History of Europe isn't a subject on its own, it's an option of the aggregate History subject.

Are you saying they're integrating Islamic history into with the World History portion ( Paper 2) of the History syllabus, or are they making it a regional option for Paper 3? If it's the latter I don't see what the problem is. Ok, so Islamic history covers quite a different period of history but still schools would have a choice right? I don't think they'd make it so that you'd have to learn Islamic history no matter what regional option you do. Because that's not going to be practical. I mean, Islamic history is more useful knowledge and more practical in some parts of the world than others.

Unless they're totally changing the History syllabus, I think the only choice they have would just have to be add it as a regional Paper 3 option because paper 2 material are specifically 20th Century World History - and Islamic history is NOT 20th century. Even if they're adding it as a prescribed subject for Paper 1, schools would still have a choice to study other prescribed subjects. So I think there would still be the degree of choice there.

That said, they could be revolutionarising the whole history syllabus but I don't think that's very likely.

I'm not too sure about the papers and how it's going to work, but from what my teacher told me, it's a complete make over of history so that nothing is taken out, but you have to do both europe and islamic world because the exam trap you into it. I know that schools wouldn't have a choice because if they only covered one, the students fail.

I'll talk to my teacher tomorrow and see what else I can find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not too sure about the papers and how it's going to work, but from what my teacher told me, it's a complete make over of history so that nothing is taken out, but you have to do both europe and islamic world because the exam trap you into it. I know that schools wouldn't have a choice because if they only covered one, the students fail.

I'll talk to my teacher tomorrow and see what else I can find out.

That would be extremely unreasonable, IMO. And if this was the case, I can't blame schools for protesting against it.

1. Islamic history is very very different from the rest of the History syllabus at the moment. That's why at the moment they're 2 separate subjects

2. Not all schools will have the material and teachers with enough knowledge to suddenly turn around and teach Islamic history!

3. Not everyone wants to learn Islamic history. Yes while knowing about other cultures and history is all well and good, and promotes the internationality of the IB, not everyone will find Islamic history relevant!! I hate to say this, but some schools would look at Islamic history and say, "Who cares?"

4. Right now the History syllabus is focused on modern history. Even in paper 3, the farthest it goes back to is the 18th century, or late 17th at the most. As far as I know, Islamic History on the other hand goes waay back to something like Crusades and 1st century AD! I mean, History HL is heavy enough in material, how do they expect students to cram another couple of centuries' worth of history into their mind, especially about something that is so completely unrelated to the rest of the subject??? It makes it seems like they're stressing on quantity and not quality.

5. What's wrong with keeping it as 2 subjects??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! poor history students

LOOOL!!!! dont u just LOVE IB!!!

I cant believe this i got away with lotsa stuff this year, next year they change syllabus, next year our math HL teacher is leaving school same goes for the physics HL teacher and they are the best around town so my sis is screwed HAHAHAHA!!!!

i know i sound evil to be laughing at others misfortune... bt im actually laughing at how great my good fortune is >.<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the Pre-IB now and I chose History HL for next year, and our teacher actually told us that there had been some changes made to this course. However. We will not study any Islamic History from what I've come to understand. I might be wrong, though, as I sometimes tend to misunderstand what teachers say.

By the way, is the Middle-East Crisis associated with Isl. History?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well since it hasn't been called history of the Islamic world since the good ole 90s I'd say this is quite odd XD I did IH, it's called Islamic History. it's as demanding as European history and deals with issues much futher back than European History. I mean you're talking about 11th, 12th and 13th century in IH (6th ccentury if you take pre Islamic Arabia- which is the most essential part imo) so merging the two would be the stupidest thing our lovelyt IBO would ever consider doing. they can't and I repeat can't expect the students to get such a varied knowledge of history. I mean By God do they want to confuse the **** out of everyone? if they do good for them and I'm so ****ing glad I'M DONE!

I'm in the Pre-IB now and I chose History HL for next year, and our teacher actually told us that there had been some changes made to this course. However. We will not study any Islamic History from what I've come to understand. I might be wrong, though, as I sometimes tend to misunderstand what teachers say.

By the way, is the Middle-East Crisis associated with Isl. History?

no, you chose 2 topics out of 6 for SL and an additional 2 topics for HL. for SL it's usually: pre Islamic Arabic, crusades, ottomans, caliphates and the immamates, the mongols, the life of the prophet (pbuh). For HL I can't remember all of them but they were 4 2 of which include Islamic architecture and Isalamic philosophy :P it has nothing to do with modern arabia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well since it hasn't been called history of the Islamic world since the good ole 90s I'd say this is quite odd :wub: I did IH, it's called Islamic History. it's as demanding as European history and deals with issues much futher back than European History. I mean you're talking about 11th, 12th and 13th century in IH (6th ccentury if you take pre Islamic Arabia- which is the most essential part imo) so merging the two would be the stupidest thing our lovelyt IBO would ever consider doing. they can't and I repeat can't expect the students to get such a varied knowledge of history. I mean By God do they want to confuse the **** out of everyone? if they do good for them and I'm so ****ing glad I'M DONE!

I know, if this this true and they want to cram a couple more centuries into the history syllabus, I'll bet you anything people will end up hating the subject! the thing I loved about IB history is that you can pick and choose your topics and make it overlap where you can thus reduce the amount of overall knowledge you need to learn. but if they're going to cram IH into the mainstream history syllabus it will be almost impossible to do that. and when you make people learn pages and pages of history, some of which have no relevance to where they're living or going to live,you're going to bore them out of their minds. I've seen it happen with the Vietnamese national curriculum for history, where they try to cram the country's whole course of history - 4000 years - into middle and high school (7 years) which is still waaay too much knowledge - then what you do get? an alarming failure rate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heared in Islamic History certain facts are ommitted such as teaching that there's no such thing as 'The state of Israel'. Does Islamic History teach the Muslim view of Arabic history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking forward to reading history HL next year, but since these horrible changes will apply to me (I'm a May 2010 candidate), I'm actually thinking about switching to economics. :P

So is it actually true that the IBO has just added a whole lot of material, without removing any? Sick bastards. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that there's quite a bit confusion in the air. Well I'm here to comfort you :) I happened to get a hold of the teacher's guide for the candidates for 2010 graduates and on (so everyone who is starting IB next autumn or after), because I'm tutoring our school's pre-IBs and am supposed to tell them about different subjects.

Basically History is divided into two routes (of which the teacher chooses one). The first one is Islamic and European history from about 500 to 1600. Paper 1 consists of 2 options, one being the origins and rise of Islam c500-661. The other option is The kingdom of Sicily 1130-1302. Paper 2 has 5 topics 1. Dynasties and rulers, 2. Society and economy, 3. Wars and warfare, 4. Intellectual, cultural and artistical developments, 5. Religion and the state. Paper 3 (HL only) is aspects of of the history of medieval Europe and the Islamic world.

Route 2 is the same as what IB History is know, though with some changes into it. The paper 1 subjects have been changed, they are now 1. Peacemaking, peacekeeping - international relations 1918-36, 2. The Arab-Israeli conflict 1945-79, 3. Communism in crisis 1976-89. Paper 2 options have slight changes into them too, they are now 1. Causes, practices and effects of wars, 2. Democratic states - challenges and responses, 3. Origins and development of authoritarian and sinlge-party states, 4. Nationalist and independence movements in Africa and Asia and post-1945 Central and Eastern European states, 5. The Cold War.

Paper 3 (HL only) is the usual choice among different areas.

If you want I can answer any further questions about the syllabys (well not ANY, but pretty many anyway :D ).

Here it is, the brand new History guide (first examinations 2010).

HISTORY_GUIDE_FOR_2008_09_ON.pdf

This should clear up the confusion.

Edited by HMSChocolate
Merge double post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as I understand it, what they're doing is basically adding a medieval history option in the syllabus - kind of like the regional option for paper 3 but for all papers? Ok so that's not so bad. I guess that means you then have a choice whether you want to do modern history or not. I can't imagine the medieval option being very popular - especially in the beginning, since it's a bit less widely studied (talking the whole world as an aggregrate here). Also the subjects are still a bit widely spread, with medieval Europe and Islamic history. Though I'll need to see the syllabus before commenting more :D

So Route 2 is basically Modern History? Were does History of the Americas fall in?

From what I understand, History of the Americas still remain an option of Route 2. But Route 1 is only the Islamic world and medieval Europe with no option for paper 3.

EDIT: Ah just saw the syllabus now. Thanks, Scade. :) I'll put it in the Syllabi thread too so if you can't download it here, you can here: http://www.ibsurvival.com/forum/index.php?...mp;st=0#History

EDIT2: Hmmm for Route 2 they've combined the Europe option and the Middle East option...Still, I definitely prefer Route 2. Not sure medieval history is quite my thing.

This is interesting. From Europe option (HL) there are topics: The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe 1924-2000, The Second World War and post-war Western Europe 1939-2000 - looks like they're raising the bar and adding a few years in...Ah I guess by then it would have been 10 years.

Face it, guys, even with Route 2 while it looks like it's the same, they are still adding to the material - not as substantially as we thought before, but they are. Have fun with the new syllabus, M10 candidates. :diablo:

Your comfort is that since it is a new syllabus, mark boundaries may be a little lower for the guinea pig group - M10. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HMSChocolate:

"Face it, guys, even with Route 2 while it looks like it's the same, they are still adding to the material - not as substantially as we thought before, but they are."

As you know I'm not really familiar with the syllabus of the previous history course, and so I just want to ask you why the new syllabus will have more material added to it, even though we can choose between the two routes? :)

koolgecko91:

Yeah. Me as well! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
even though we can choose between the two routes? :P

Ah, wishful thinking, stylusdef. Unfortunately it 99% certainly won't be you who will pick it - it will be your teacher. This means that it's unlikely for him/her to change away from his/her familiar topics into the new route. Because some of the "medieval route" stuff will most certainly be new to your teacher, (s)he'll be forced to learn new stuff. Not to mention make new notes for everything etc. So probably most schools will be choosing the modern history route in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will add to the workload because they're adding a few years in Route 2. History at the moment only goes up to 1995 (HL) and there is a separate Europe option and a separate Middle East option. I've only looked at the new Europe option but since they added a few years into the Europe option (up to year 2000) it's not unreasonable to assume that they've done that for other regional options as well.

So how are they increasing the material?

a) If you (or your teacher, more like) choose to do the Europe regional option for Route 2, you'll have to take on the Middle East as well (that wasn't part of the old Europe option)

and

b ) The regional options previously ended at 1995, now they've added 5 more years so that it goes up to 2000 - more material there.

So all this applies if you're doing HL I guess.

But yes, as deissi said, you won't be doing much choosing, I'm afraid. It will most probably be your teacher to choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.