LONDON (AFP) - Britons are losing their grip on reality, according to a poll out Monday which showed that nearly a quarter think Winston Churchill was a myth while the majority reckon Sherlock Holmes was real.
ADVERTISEMENT

The survey found that 47 percent thought the 12th century English king Richard the Lionheart was a myth.

And 23 percent thought World War II prime minister Churchill was made up. The same percentage thought Crimean War nurse Florence Nightingale did not actually exist.

Three percent thought Charles Dickens, one of Britain's most famous writers, is a work of fiction himself.

Indian political leader Mahatma Gandhi and Battle of Waterloo victor the Duke of Wellington also appeared in the top 10 of people thought to be myths.

Meanwhile, 58 percent thought Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional detective Holmes actually existed; 33 percent thought the same of W. E. Johns' fictional pilot and adventurer Biggles.

UKTV Gold television surveyed 3,000 people.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Ha you goofy brits, nice to see Americans arent the only ones to to make fools of themselves on these silly surveys. This is really surprising thought because how can someone who actually existed not that long ago be thought of as a myth by a quarter of your population while half believe Sherlock Holmes was real.

Actually 3000 is a LOT of people for a survey, most are usually less then 1000. If this was scientifically conducted then 3k is way more then enough to represent you entire population. US polls usually use 500-1000 people. I'm sorry to say but even fanboy AdamB can't save you guys from this one!

AdamB, however, can go and jump in a ditch. Any situation that requires him for a rescue isn't a situation I'd want to be rescued from. 

Actually 3000 is a LOT of people for a survey, most are usually less then 1000. If this was scientifically conducted then 3k is way more then enough to represent you entire population. US polls usually use 500-1000 people. I'm sorry to say but even fanboy AdamB can't save you guys from this one!

 

its not the sample size that is the main problem..... it is who is picking the people and the time it is done. if you call homes during the day then you get stay at home mothers and the unemployed ect.... this is going to slant any poll.

 

I could pool 3000 people in the RAF and get you >99% on Winston Churchill....

 

 

but anyway... British education needs to put more focus back into teaching history.

Actually 3000 is a LOT of people for a survey, most are usually less then 1000. If this was scientifically conducted then 3k is way more then enough to represent you entire population. US polls usually use 500-1000 people. I'm sorry to say but even fanboy AdamB can't save you guys from this one!

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.