3,000 is a good sample size, and would generally be considered representative. But it does depend on how the people involved were selected etc, their are policies in the UK that polling companies (self regulating) must sign up to for any results to be considered valid, anything else is a quiz, not a poll. also (a quick google) this 3,000 have been described as "people" in some places and "teenagers" in others.

I had a look for past GCSE (aimed at 16 year olds) history exam papers, couldn't see any, but found some past questions seperately, quoted here from a 2003 paper:

'Describe how Chamberlain helped to prevent war over the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia in September 1938'.


'Describe how the organisation of the League of Nations was meant to keep the peace.'


'Describe Soviet involvement in Afghanistan 1979-1989.'

(Presumably not all questions start with 'describe' maybe just a type of question or standard section of a paper?)

Wonder what the average SP poster would score on those three?

Damn good I imagine!  I can.... 

I am rather of the opinion that school history tends to be of little worth
and is often counterproductive by raising people's opinion of their knowledge
and propagandizing The Official Story. Moreover it devolves into rote-learning which
is necessary for some parts of basic arithmetic, but can be counterproductive in history/ The best that can be done is to encourage
students to have enough interest to study it themselves.

well anything that is taught is given an official slant...

history, relgion, sociology ect rely on interpretation and are not an exact science in the same way as english lang, maths, chemistry ect...

 

but they should still pump more history if only to encourage the students to go out and read themselves. it is at such a level at the moment that studenst don't get basic facts or a desire to look further....

 

paul

True, but history has the curious problem that you can't really know just a little bit of it. At that level either you will either frankly study legend rather then history(which isn't so bad but isn't the same) or you will think legend is history(which is worse). History has even more "on the other hands" then economics. And one can't give a proper  interpretation without a lot of knowledge.
By contrast with math, you can be sure that when you know just a little bit of it, it will at least be true.
In anycase history is far less amenable to mass-production learning. If someone knows nothing but names and dates and sees no reason to know more, he might as well forget the names and dates.

By contrast with math, you can be sure that when you know just a little bit of it, it will at least be true.
In anycase history is far less amenable to mass-production learning. If someone knows nothing but names and dates and sees no reason to know more, he might as well forget the names and dates.

its not that birtish history isnt taught well enough but it isnt primarily focused on wartime leaders and there are many different types economic population etc

 

that said youd have to be a complete rtard to think churchill was a myth