I read somewhere that what separates the discipline of history from simple, sterile antiquarianism is the realization of its relevance. I wouldn't presume to say I know from the little you've told me what your teacher's view of history is, but there's loving history and there's understanding its significance. It's possible to have the one without the other (notably, people who view history as a collection of neat facts tend to love history without understanding it). In my view, whatever else history is, it is first and foremost our only real means of contextualizing ourselves (insert Cicero quote here - I'm sure you know the one I mean).
Naturally, the question of the institution of public education is more complicated than either what I've just suggested or what they teach in your class. But the French Revoluionaries were some of the earliest theorists of free, mandatory, (more or less, depending on the project in question) secular public education, for them, and for their 19th century emulators (at least in France and in the US), forming citizens was a large part of the goal. Did others take up the idea for other reasons (including and especially the ones you mention)? Of course. Was the practical element absent from the Revolutionary educational projects? Of course not. Is there ambiguity within and overlap between the two currents (particularly in the 19th century)? Naturally. It's worth noting that in less democratically inclined countries, there was far greater emphasis on the second current than the first, which tended to disappear entirely. That said, the first current really is first in a chronological sense and it could be argued that the second current is a much a perversion of the original idea as the modern American educational system.
As for why your classmates would take an AP class they're not interested in? I'm afraid you've just answered your own question: they're taking it for the sake of their college admissions prospects. Which goes back to the perversion of the educational system; their goal is what the educational system as it stands tells them it should be: to make as much money as possible, not to be better citizens or to enrich their minds or to understand the world around them. And no, not even to learn something interesting (ie, the "neat facts" school of history - which can also be applied to other disciplines, although ironically, the terms are flipped in a discipline like math, where those who think purely of its practical applications, extremely useful though they are, tend to miss an important part of its significance).
no subject
I read somewhere that what separates the discipline of history from simple, sterile antiquarianism is the realization of its relevance. I wouldn't presume to say I know from the little you've told me what your teacher's view of history is, but there's loving history and there's understanding its significance. It's possible to have the one without the other (notably, people who view history as a collection of neat facts tend to love history without understanding it). In my view, whatever else history is, it is first and foremost our only real means of contextualizing ourselves (insert Cicero quote here - I'm sure you know the one I mean).
Naturally, the question of the institution of public education is more complicated than either what I've just suggested or what they teach in your class. But the French Revoluionaries were some of the earliest theorists of free, mandatory, (more or less, depending on the project in question) secular public education, for them, and for their 19th century emulators (at least in France and in the US), forming citizens was a large part of the goal. Did others take up the idea for other reasons (including and especially the ones you mention)? Of course. Was the practical element absent from the Revolutionary educational projects? Of course not. Is there ambiguity within and overlap between the two currents (particularly in the 19th century)? Naturally. It's worth noting that in less democratically inclined countries, there was far greater emphasis on the second current than the first, which tended to disappear entirely. That said, the first current really is first in a chronological sense and it could be argued that the second current is a much a perversion of the original idea as the modern American educational system.
As for why your classmates would take an AP class they're not interested in? I'm afraid you've just answered your own question: they're taking it for the sake of their college admissions prospects. Which goes back to the perversion of the educational system; their goal is what the educational system as it stands tells them it should be: to make as much money as possible, not to be better citizens or to enrich their minds or to understand the world around them. And no, not even to learn something interesting (ie, the "neat facts" school of history - which can also be applied to other disciplines, although ironically, the terms are flipped in a discipline like math, where those who think purely of its practical applications, extremely useful though they are, tend to miss an important part of its significance).