Just ooc?

[orichalcum]

Two questions to judge whether I have a bad understanding of common historical knowledge:

1. Do you have any idea who the Borgias were?

2. Did you read Machiavelli in high school?

Comments

[contrariety.livejournal.com]

1. Yes, but I couldn't tell you a lot of specifics
2. No

But I don't think your friends list is representative. We're all unusually well-read and most of us have independent interests in history. I would say the vast majority of the US public would answer no to both of these, particularly 2 (though more would know what it was than would have "read it in high school" - I don't think of it as typical public high school fare, because it doesn't fit - it's not really literature to be read in "english" and yet it's too long and specific to be read as an assignment in history) and even at an elite university you're going to get a non-trivial number of nos to one or both.

[orichalcum.livejournal.com]

Well, no, but it might be well representative of "things that kids who go on to elite universities have read."

[thistleingrey.livejournal.com]

I had a similar thought. Some of us have a vague sense of how to adjust for guesses, but really, no. :) I mean, darkforge read Cixous in high school, not only Machivelli; his reading is completely unrepresentative of what "kids who go on to elite colleges" could claim.

(1. Yes, but not via coursework, not till halfway through college, and my undergrad reading range doesn't map to anyone's I know. 2. No, I read The Prince as the first text in an upper-div political survey, Machiavelli to Marx, because I needed an elective outside of my home department.)

If it helps any, orichalcum, the instructor for an upper-div special topic had to give the class a vague overview of Easter and Passover in order for (many of) us to understand what's up with Perceval not asking after the Grail (seder reference). Less obscure than Machiavelli, IMO, and yet....