Just wondering... I know that people from all over the world are in these forums so it's a good place to ask. When you were in school, which countries/continents did you learn the most about? (do not include your OWN country) When I was in school the big 3 were Europe, Asia and Africa. Now my daughter learns about Africa and Asia ONLY. AND I'd like to know why in all these years, NO one here learns about Australia, nothing at all! Even if you are from the U.S., maybe in other STATES' schools they learn of different countries.

When I was at school, we learned about Europe, Asia and Africa too (as well as our own history). It really bugged me that the curriculum didn't include America or England, which would have been of more interest to me, nor did it include any ancient history (like ancient Roman or Greek history).

Learned about almost all continents except Aussieland

I know it was a very long time ago but I am pretty sure that we were taught about all the continents, including down-under. I was at school in England.

I learnt the same as MotherGoose. My two sons who are in High School, learn the same too, nothing about America and more Ireland than England.

We studied units of almost all countries in different grades. There was a good coverage of the USA, but from what I've seen, I don't think they had the same emphasis regarding Canada. Central America, South America, the Caribbean, Japan, China, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, India, Australia, New Zealand, Arctic and Antarctic, Africa. If there was a weakness, I would say it would be the central European countries, mainly because I just can't get a good mental image whenever they are mentioned and have to look them up in an atlas! Sorry if I neglected to mention YOUR country!

We had to memorize the location of all major countries on a map, but for many, that is as deep as it went.

We went into depth with Western Europe and Asia. With those areas we went more into their history and present events than for other areas around the world. In addition, for those areas, countries were looked at more individually.

We learned a little about some countries in Africa, Latin America, South America, the Middle East, Eurasia, and Eastern Europe. For those we learned a little about their geography, economics, religion, and politics.

For a majority of countries, if anything, there was one thing we needed to learn about them for our end of the year tests, and that was basically it. For example, South Africa had apartheid. That was basically all you needed to know about S. Africa.

While I did learn a little about Australia, I think it was because one of my teachers in high school went to school there for a couple of years, not because it was a major part of the curriculum. In addition, this is going way back, but I think my first grade teacher was either from Australia or something or another. Anyhow, we were first graders and didn't go into too much depth, but she used to speak about Australia all the time.

I think that was as far as it went curriculum-wise, but that is not to say we didn't learn anything else. I'm just not sure if the other stuff was required.

(I went to school in the U.S.)

Just went back and picked up my old school books - well I did learn about Australia - only it was under Geography (no wonder I didn't remember it in the first place!)
We learned a lot of history but mostly Indian and about European Imperialists and Colonists looting all other continents!

North America - I know there is a continent like that (but where is it?)

(I did my schooling in Bahrain and India)

From what I remember of my school days, in Geography we covered a fair range of countries and topics, though I think the Southern Hemipshere didn't fare too well. In History, the coverage was rather focused on Europe - and increasingly so as we got older ... Incredible as it may sound now, I remember doing quite a bit at age 13-14 on 'The History of the British Empire. *That* was, of course, taught from a British perspective ...

I went to school here in Ireland and we were taught about most countries. It was fairly comprehensive but I think the emphasis was more on Britain, North America and Australia. Perhaps this was due to the fact that Ireland have a history of emigration to these places and at the time of my schooling emmigration was still pretty much a big thing for us. It was probably a mixture of teaching us about a country we may end up living and working in and keeping a connection with our past and all the sons and daughters who had to sadly leave their lives here that would very much like to have stayed. Now that you mention it we didn't learn as much about Central and South America as I would have liked.

PS I know everyone seems to learn about Europe and the UK but do many people learn about Ireland? We are just so subjective here we think everyone loves us!

I think when it came to Ireland, we mainly learned about the history between Great Britain and Ireland, the conflict in Northern Ireland, religion, and the effect of the Irish potato famine on U.S. immigration.

We did a month's worth of Irish literature in English class during my senior year, but it was only on the works of a couple of authors. We spent the time mostly talking about A Modest Proposal.

What's Ireland ?

LOL Ace. It is somewhere south of north and somewhere north of south and lost a big chunk of our population due to a famine caused by a potato problem!!!

I went to school in Australia in the 1960/70's and most of our history lessons were based on the 'pink' countries around the globe (ie, the British Empire).
We did some Medieval history, the World Wars (mainly from a British perspective), Boer War, Great Depression, etc.
We spent a reasonable amount of time on the opening up of China and Japan, and a smattering of US history.
We even learned about the Irish!

Just got back from CI about American education, but honestly, we really didn't study much of anything about other countries in American school in the sixties and seventies.
It was pitifully poor in my mind.
I remember local geography in primary school, studying our local area in California...(yeah miwoks!) I don't remember anything about Europe or even Asia, in junior high school, really nothing at all!
Every time I speak to my best friend who like me, was inquisitive and went on in her studies too...we say, what a miracle it is that we were educated despite school...

Where did I learn? From my parents' love of knowledge, National Geographic, PBS, books, most of my father's family lived abroad in Asia, some in Latin America, we knew many immigrant families as friends, living in a multicultural society, California, that's about it.
But in school, it was the worst joke I can think of. I'm absolutely dead honest here. And when you take standardized tests in America, they are skewed towards those who went to schools that had a more classic sort of curriculum, because the public schools in my day, nothing!

Geography in the French system is sacred...they are really good at Tpursuit when we play multicountry teams...
You'll get questions on the exit exams, for a two hour dissertation, "discuss the question of wheat in world economy using pertinent examples."
Your future depends on it too...
And I'm not talking about telling the story of the little Red hen here...you're going to cite the political significance of wheat...and back yourself up.

Schools made progress though, my one child did units on foreign countries, Italy, they had weeks honoring other countries, she also participated in a geography contest and got a trophy...so American schools went back to a bit more serious study of the rest of the world.

If anyone my age wishes to corroborate my testimony, gladly...but I have about three friends my age who'll tell you, we had nothing resembling a serious study of other countries for all twelve years of school.

I seem to be following Heather back and forth between this thread and the "Are Yanks Getting Dumber" thread in CI. On this issue in particular there is some overlap.

The particularly wretched high school I attended gave us heavy background on Western Europe, India, Japan and China (and of course the US), but little else. Eastern Europe, Australia and Russia in essence did not exist. Our coverage of the Middle East was absurdly simplistic. We were taken to see the film "Lawrence of Arabia", and after returning we discussed the film the next day in social studies. The teacher, (a man I happen to have liked), was asked if T.E. Lawrence had actually been a real person. His reply was "no."

From high school I somehow stumbled into college, where a rather wider portion of the globe was covered, albeit by a series of unabashed ideologues who almost invariably used the history of a particular country as a backdrop for harangues about the evils of colonialism, the arrogance of the West, the innate superiority of "less developed" cultures (Margaret Mead had not yet been shown up for a sham at that time) and other such New Left shibboleths. Of course, this was shortly after the Nixon disgrace, and the ensuing diclosures about CIA misadventures throughout the world during the preceding 25 years, so to some extent the profs were merely echoing the zeitgeist. I wonder if it is just a bit different in the American academy today, though in honesty I suspect it is not.

Ok Coolman, you've conjured up a few memories as I've suddenly realized there were a few exceptions.
The first one was, and the guy who wrote "Everything I ever needed to know was in kindergarten" or whatever it was was right, Mrs. Marchand, a lovely lady with a chignon in the Oakland bay area who had an environment set up...with a frame, and each month it was someplace different!
So I still know how to write Japan in characters because of her.
She didn't have to teach us about it, just loved to share her adventures.
But then as I grew older, I cannot really remember much about other countries until much much later...and it was in junior high...when a teacher of ours who had served to help liberate the concentration camps...told us what he'd seen..as we viewed Night and Fog.
So Coolman you did bring to mind...that some teachers did their jobs..or did more than their jobs.

Another thing is that in California, you've got a lot of cultures right there...don't need to travel far!
Everything I learned about other countries was generally with people from those countries themselves.
Czech friends of my parents, Basques in California, a big Portugese settlement in my town, the Greek neighborhoods...
I'd always look up those places...

I'm almost certain I never studied Greece in school, not even mythology!
Only on my own.
so some teachers did things...but not many.

I was educated in Ireland, like Callybub, and did history in college. At school, we learned a bit about every country, but I don't remember learning much about Australia or south east Asia.

Why do so many people 'run down' their old schools? Perhaps I was unusually fortunate in going to a very sound primary school and then on to a really outstanding secondary school, from the academic point of view. (That said, I'm not sure the place was altogether sane, but that's another story). In fact, it was so good that I found the level of undergraduate work at university didn't rise significantly above that of my last few months at secondary school, except in a handful of areas. Btw, this is at the same time a damning indictment of the university I attended - but that, too, is another story. Instead of getting on with the business of that one would expect of a university, it was - at least in the humanites - wallowing languidly in its role as a part of English national mythology!

Well Bloomsby, you know me well enough to say that I'm very optimistic and positive for many things, but, as I grew up in a burgeoning area of California, with over population in the schools, mostly in portable classrooms without an air conditioner in the hot months, and it's in the hundreds some of those months, a transitional period for education, ie, switching over to new maths for many of us with more or less trauma depending on who helped us, and in intermediate schools, let's say from about 11 to 15 year olds or so on the average, the overcrowded conditions and social conditions outside, became very very acutely uncomfortable in the schools.
Though I grew on the outskirts of the country, there were about 25 elementary schools poured into a junior hi, bussed in, hazing was the common practice, thus, the first day of school, children were either roughed up, smeared with lipstick or other things, had their things stolen or other sundry torments. The boys at my school tried to hide from the older children, and the only way they found to get out of it, was to borrow lipstick smear themselves with it, and make up a story!
If Tim comes round, I think he'll corroborate my little testimony, as he grew up nearby me...Maynooth perhaps too.
Then, the three main groups constantly conducted wars, the Chicanos, the Whites and the Blacks. I am not exaggerating in the least, I only wish I were. We had constant racial tensions, I witnessed about two major fights per week, with girls and razor blades in their hair.
We also had bomb scares about once a week.
Though our neighborhood was one of those that sprouted up with nice affordable houses and space to breathe...the schools were just overwhelmed with the numbers.
California is also the state that attracts the most emmigration from other places then. Therefore many of the people coming to live there, were uprooted.
All these things contributed to the lack of any sort of cohesive education.
One way out of it, was being tested, found gifted, and receiving special classes, not having to take the regular courses.
Why do I resent the junior education? Because the lessons we learned in primary school were pretty much lost with the big kick of reality hitting us...survival became more important than learning.
So when you do see me a bit bitter, I have my reasons...perhaps being slapped every day for a year, threatened and if I told anyone, told there would be retaliation, well it might be why I don't recall those years very favorably.
Plus the very adults who should have protected us, just told us to shut up. If we defended ourselves, we were punished.


However, I'm reading British papers these days, guess the public schools must be a similar experience for some! I think you can find this in any social milieu by the way, I've seen it everywhere I've taught, just when overcrowding occurs, it's like experiments on rats...kids will be kids..reflecting the violence outside in society.

As I recently contacted classroom.com (sorry not a plug, they raised their price and spam you to death) I saw I was definitely not alone and definitely not whining without reason.

However, the upside of learning about the world for those who could manage to write, do maths, and other things, was that we were allowed to structure our own courses, become independent, and many of us tested out, left early, held down jobs and managed quite well.
I've found a few schoolmates on the web, who, in the sports world, IT industry and other areas, do very well.
The high schools were quite good and the violence was halted, it was the junior hi years, three in my day, that were the most harmful to many of us.

So when I say that what I learned about the world during those grey area years, was despite school, not because of it.
Now, when people like me compete in larger ponds...we're at a disadvantage, imagine no one ever requiring you to write a proper research paper in high school or anywhere else, arriving finally at university...
We also lack the "language" to compete with those who've been to private schools with a classic curriculum as the standardized tests use quite a bit of that sort of knowledge.
Many of us did a few years in our excellent community college system, very low tuition, basically the same curriculum, caught up that way and then took the standardized tests.
I have one friend who is an archeologist, another a psychologist, another a marine biologist who came out of the system this way, so it works. Yet we'll all tell you that we did this despite our secondary education.
They all know where Australia is too!

My schools taught a lot about Spain (well that's Spanish class), Norway, Japan, and western Europe. Austrailia was barely touched upon.
The country that my schools taught LEAST about was, without a doubt, Russia. When I was in first grade (I think it was 1991) I distinctly remember my teacher trying to teach us about Russia, it didn't go very well. No one knew what we were supposed to be calling it (U.S.S.R.?, the Soviet Union?, Russia?) The teacher tried for a while to explain it to us but then seemed to decide that it was hopeless and moved on to some other country.
The next time that I heard much about Russia from a teacher was in high school.

It was sooooo long ago but I remember a lot about western Europe, some about the Soviet Union, Mexico, Japan, parts of Africa, a little middle East, very little Canada (which I don't understand), Australia only in the context of it being a continent and some of its unique culture but nothing about the history.

You learned about Canada?

Even if it was a little, I think we learned more about Luxembourg, Vatican City, or even Fiji than big old Canada.

It was mentioned now and then, but I think Canada was one of those countries I was talking about that we only needed to memorize one thing about and that was it.

Mostly The Middle East, Europe (including Eastern Europe) and the US. To the extent that we learnt about Asia, Africa and South America it was mostly in connection with Colonialism.

I have been very surprised by some of the posts in this thread. I must have been quite lucky. I enjoyed my years in infant and junior schools (pre. 13) and learnt a great deal about the rest of the world. My teenage years were spent at a far less pleasant school, staff were physically disciplinarian (highly so) although not too unfair in handing out punishments. However we kids were savage in the extreme, violence and intimidation were common place. Having said that the teaching was still excellent.

The country I remember being taught about most when I was in infant and junior school was one that no longer exists, Rome. Every year we would do something on the Roman Empire I grew to hate the subject. By the time we were eleven my schoolmates and I were so familiar with the organisation and tactics of the Roman Army we could have quite happily commanded a Legion. I left school with a hearty dislike of anything to do with Rome, it wasn't until I was in my late-twenties and I had seen the Coliseum, Pompeii and El Jem that I began to get interested in the subject again.

We seemed to get a good grounding in the Geography of most parts of the world although it was a bit sketchy on South America and emphasised those countries which has until recently been printed in pink on the map. I got lots and lots about India especially the railways as my 'O' level teacher was an Indian (as opposed to a British-Indian) and loved his country. I would like to visit it someday but I expect that it is a very different country now to what it was then. I also had rather too much of Canada as well. Several years ago I went to a week's course for Engineers on Alberta Oil sands. I slept through most of it as I had learnt 80% of it when I was 11!

History, which because of the way the British exam system functions I had to give-up at aged fourteen was a very different kettle of fish, much more of a hit and miss affair. I got taught the history of the USA by a seriously heavy leftie who made sure he got in all of the less savoury parts. These included; witch trials, Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, range wars, Mexican-American war, Spanish-American war, Vietnamese-American war (on-going at the time), the corruption and crushing of organised labour and so on. I then got a rabid, foaming at the mouth anti-Communist who taught us about the Communist revolution in Russia and the history of the Soviet Union. So of course I got the down side of that as well; deaths due to collectivisation, fate of the Romanovs, Stalin, Gulags, Winter war, Baltic states, relocations of ethnic minorities, treatment of prisoners of war and so on. People sometimes wonder why I am so cynical?

The rest of the history I got largely focused on the British Empire to the curious exclusion of most British history. Perkin Wellbeck, John of Gaunt and the Maid of Kent, who they? My ignorance of British history is often staggering but I can tell you all about the history of the Empire (especially the bits with lots of British settlers) so long as you don't mind a huge dose of jingoism and bigotry along with your facts. For example the Boer wars; when I was a lad I could tell you all about Spion Kop, Cape Colony, Ladysmith, Mafeking (all though I still can't spell it) and even riding commando. Some how the bits like; concentration camps, block house and barbed wire, Jamison's raid, British greed and Morant all got left out.

As far as I knew just like India, China only had a history after we (the British) got there. South American history could be summed up as follows. Nasty Incas sacrificed each other to dark gods. Almost civilised Spaniards killed off most of them and married what was left. Some one called Bolivar did something don't know what. Then we (the British) went and built them some railways and blessed them with the great gift of the game of football.

All in all, I had a fairly good introduction to the rest of the world although I do think that school let me down over Belgian beer. No British child should be permitted to leave school without being made aware of the potency of Trappist beers. It is a terrible thing for a young lad (or lass) to go on their first overseas trip to Belgium, which is after all, only just next door and encounter Rochefort, Orval, or even Chimay without knowing what the outcome of a multiple encounter is likely to be! This is an important Geography lesson.