Why history over science?

[Sebastian (a lady)]

Okay, this is a genuine question, not trying to be fighty.

 

Reading the boards here there seems to be a huge emphasis on starting history early and consistenly, yet very often science is left until much later, and then often it is mainly 'living books' and the like until highschool. Why is this?

 

I am a history lover - my undergraduate degree has a double major in history, I read historical fiction and non-fiction for fun, I follow quite closely a few specialist historical developments - yet I don't find it as important for my son to have lots of formal learning in that area but I do in science. Mainly because in my experience it is much easier to pick up history later - whether that is as a highschooler, or adult - and get yoru head around the concepts, learn through personal reading etc. than it is with science.  I mean I took out my highschools Junior Highschool science prize then didn't do science after that (stupid act of rebellion) and find it hard now to do anything above that level. I also know many people who didn't do a lot of science at school and find it hard to understand now as adults. My husband, an engineer who didn't do any history at school and didn't have much of an interest in any history other than WWII before meeting me, has over the years come to have a decent understanding purely through reading and travel.

 

We do history at the moment as part of our curriculum, but it is not nearly as rigorous as the study of science. And I would have a lot more of a problem if my son said tomorrow 'no more science' than if he did 'no more history'.

 

So - englighten me :)

 

So this is just my opinion.

 

I found a value in studying history chronologically as events do naturally build on what occurred in the past.

 

For science, I was more comfortable with having several years of science being exploring what interested the kids at any given moment.  We spent a lot of time in science and technical museums.  I spent time explaining how things worked.  We did little experiments like testing the hardness of our water with strips that came with the dishwasher (off the scale).  We read a lot of books from the Let's Read and Find Out series and later from volumes in the Science Explorer series.  But I also felt pretty free to skip around.  Science wasn't ignored, but it didn't have to take the form of this first, then than, then the next thing.  

 

For a while one of the kids was entranced by insects and scorpions.  He was reading college texts about insects and could identify all kinds of insects by their order.  Another kid had a real passion for cheetahs and soaked up everything he could get his hands on, including books about breeding programs.  If I'd been more deliberate about science, I might well have missed these interests.

 

If my kids said "no more history" OR "no more science" I'd just laugh.  That's not how I roll.  But I am going to do science differently at the upper grades than in elementary.  (But then history is different too.)

 

ETA:  I will also say that I've seen what I would describe as a certain level of discomfort with science from some homeschoolers, who seem to perceive that there must be a dichotomy between science and faith.  I don't feel that there is a dichotomy and I'm comfortable using science texts that weren't written for a Christian, homeschool market.  I think with history books, there is a wider range of material, in part because some older texts have aged better.  I have no issue with using the Famous Men series of history books, for example, even though they are over 100 years old.  But I'm not going to use many 100 year old science books.  I think some families get overwhelmed with the process of deciding if a science text fits their needs.  It becomes easier to just skip science.

[HS Mom in NC]

Don't forget that the way many of us do history here, it's integrated with writing and or literature.  Subject integration is a way to kill 2-3 birds with 1 stone, so having history for narrations and copywork is incredibly efficient and appealing to a lot of homeschoolers.  Also, people who aren't classical homeschoolers are sometimes stunned that our elementary aged kids are doing world history.  Most other approaches leave out most history and only do a few of the main highlights from national history in the elementary years.  That can give the perception we're doing so much more history (we are) and that we prioritize history more (we do) but since they're doing so very little, it doesn't take much to be doing more comparatively.

[foxbridgeacademy]

I was a History major in College and I know the value of that particular degree so we have always focused on Science.  As much as i love history, Science is more fun and IMO valuable to the discovery/learning process. 

 

 

ETA: I stand corrected Science is NOT fun.

 

[EmilyGF]

As someone with a strong science background, I haven't done formal science yet (oldest is in 5th grade).

 

Why?

 

1. Most of the science stuff for young kids is too much work for mom with too little learning for kids

2. The "kits" are pretty lame demos, generally

3. The curricula teach people about science without teaching science

4. My school only offered very random science before 7th grade, half a year in 7th, and one year in 8th (though I had an awful teacher and don't think we learned anything in 8th) and I was still able to do fine at a top-10 science university after my four years of intense high school science. My first year of high school science was super-hard because it was basically my first time having science, though.

 

Kids who hit junior high strong in math will be able to do time-efficient science in in 7th grade and up. 

 

Someone who is really fearful about science should make a point of reading books like the let's-read-and-find-out series and the scientists in the field series (which I'm requiring once a month for my 4th and 5th graders). We are constantly talking science in our household. If your household never talks science, work on strewing science (good books, maybe some documentaries, though they can be really hard, a kids' science magazine subscription). Go hiking. Camp and take a naturalist led walk. Be interested in what you see.

 

Emily

[EmilyGF]

I was a History major in College and I know the value of that particular degree so we have always focused on Science.  As much as i love history, Science is more fun and IMO valuable to the discovery/learning process. 

As someone who majored in science, the idea that I keep having yelled at me from events I take my kids to is "Science is Fun!" It is really irking me for many reasons. (Not the least of which is why do grownups have to keep yelling this phrase? I am not convinced they even believe it.)

 

Science is not fun. Or, at least, it takes a lot of work to get to the point where science is fun. Science is interesting - it explains a lot of complicated things really well. Science is useful - it helps us solve many difficult problems. Science is fascinating.

 

But science, at least most any science worth doing, is hard. Really hard. 

 

I made a super conductor in lab once. That might sound fun. We got it to levitate. Sound neat? It took 36 hours of work. The super conductor kept falling apart at the last step and we had to begin the entire process over. I made a transistor radio. It was really satisfying. It took me hours and hours and hours in lab as well as burnt fingers to get all those d*** parts soldered together. I worked on nanoparticles one summer. It was a complete disaster due to things completely out of my control (like getting liquid oxygen delivered the day before a major flood).

 

My husband is a scientist. He discovers new planets. He has "aha" moments. He loves what he does. But fun? Come on.

If you pursue science because it is fun, you're in for a big disappointment.

 

Emily

[birchbark]

I agree with the OP. My opinion is that it is because the bulk of the posters here follow Classical or Charlotte Mason philosophies to some extent, and these philosophies (in their modern forms) emphasize the humanities. Perhaps it is because the greatest distinctions of these philosophies lie in the approach to the humanities rather than the approach to the sciences.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I agree with the OP. My opinion is that it is because the bulk of the posters here follow Classical or Charlotte Mason philosophies to some extent, and these philosophies (in their modern forms) emphasize the humanities. Perhaps it is because the greatest distinctions of these philosophies lie in the approach to the humanities rather than the approach to the sciences.

I follow Charlotte Mason methods.  Science is very important in her approach.  Nature study is one of the bedrocks of her method.  Nature study is science and can encompass parts of biology, geology, botany and zoology.  

[daijobu]

 

 

Science is not fun. Or, at least, it takes a lot of work to get to the point where science is fun. Science is interesting - it explains a lot of complicated things really well. Science is useful - it helps us solve many difficult problems. Science is fascinating.

 

But science, at least most any science worth doing, is hard. Really hard.

 

 

 

Hear hear! I am also annoyed by "math is fun" and "engineering is fun!". Sure it's fun now when we make the led light up, but your intro electronics class is going to be a lot of work. However, you will gain the satisfaction of a job well done or new skills learned. Not really fun though.

 

I feel like we're doing a disservice particularly to underserved students when we paint this happy picture for them.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Runningmom80]

I will be lone poster who agrees with the OP. Yes, history is emphasized far more than science, though one will find more STEM people on this board than on any other homeschool board.

 

Have you ever been to a homeschool convention? How many workshops or talks focus on math or science? Usually they can be counted on one hand.

 

My personal theory is that the vast majority of homeschoolers past and present are liberal arts majors. Lots of them have no background in science and don't feel comfortable teaching math. Therefore the natural areas of focus are history, literature, and writing.

 

Regarding the idea of not being able to teach small children quality science, I strongly disagree with that one as well. BFSU is my proof.

 

FWIW--I am not trying to start an argument, especially since I think folks on this board have a much better balance of liberal arts to math/science than elsewhere.

 (I totally skipped to the end and have not read the 3 pages of responses.)

 

 

I agree as well, but my opinion is that there is so few good curricula options when it comes to science.  I'd pay top dollar for a good, secular science program for elementary.

[ElizaG]

I agree about the kits.   That includes things like Snap Circuits and Lego Mindstorms, at the level most children are doing them (i.e., fitting together the pieces like any other building set, without understanding why they function as they do).   We might as well say that making a little cake in an Easy-Bake oven is "doing organic chemistry."    

 

In fact, the Easy-Bake is probably more like a lot of real lab science, because it's messy, and sometimes doesn't turn out as predicted in the manual, and you have to be careful not to burn your fingers.   :laugh:

[Hunter]

What do we have for grammar level science that closely follows TWTM guidelines?

 

I'm using Mr. Q for now.

 

I think if PHP published a series like SOTW for science, discussion about science would be different.

 

Just like there are people at this forum who don't use SOTW for history, there would be people that didn't use the PHP science, but the PHP science would declare a science standard, that other curricula would be measured against.

[abba12]

I've never really understood the focus on history. I figure it's because of curriculum that use history as a spine for language arts. I personally would never use them though.

 

We do a lot of semi-intentional science, so, documentaries, non-fiction readers, pointing out observations and discussing things as we see it (DD1 asked what the difference is between smoke and steam in the kitchen a while ago, because she saw me set a pot on fire once and was freaked out by the steam from the boiling potatoes for weeks afterwards.I told her a little and she seemed content, then the next night she came back, repeated what i told her the night before and asked another question, went away and thought on it, and the next night had a new related question, that went on for a couple of weeks, and we now have a basic understanding of the three states of matter. On the other hand, we really don't do much history aside from what we anecdotally come across (an old building in the city which sticks out as different, stories about grandma's childhood, etc)

 

When they're old enough to read independently I intend to have them read non-fiction history and science books, In middle or high school we will probably do a 4-year history course and a proper coverage of the sciences, but right now I'm mostly just focusing on curiosity and the world around us, and for our family that leans far more towards science than history

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

I put up a new book asking for help in history/lit last night.  And as I did so, I realized that I write a lot more history/lit. posts for two reasons:  

 

1.  I combine history and lit. and need help sometimes with the history part and sometimes with the lit. portion.  Science is only one subject for us and is not combined with anything else.

 

2.  I make up my own history/lit. program using the suggestion in TWTM.  I do not have a curriculum specifically for those subjects.  So I make decisions on the Victorian age, WWII, Roman history etc. as they come up (obviously not in that order) and will write different threads asking for advice each time.  I do not make up my own science program past elementary.  I follow one book and we study the subject matter as it is addressed in the book.  Other than one thread (possibly) to help me choose that book for the year, I don't need to write different threads asking for advice.  

[Staceyshoe]

Classical education seems to naturally emphasize history and language.  I love the classical approach but have very science-math-oriented children, so I use the trivium but don't use a lot of classical curricula.  Instead, we place a greater emphasis on science and math.  With different kids, I would make different homeschooling choices.  That's the beauty of it--being able to follow their natural interests and abilities.