HOME ECONOMICS:Home Economics will be examined in the Leaving Cert today, but the syllabus reflects a kind of distaste for actual cooking, writes TOM DOORLEY

HOME ECONOMICS – Scientific and Social, better known as Home Ec, is what people of my age used to call Domestic Science.

But Domestic Science garnered a wholly misleading reputation for being exclusively concerned with jam-making and darning socks and so the name was changed. I’m guessing here but I’d be willing to bet that this is what happened.

Looking at a few recent past papers from the Leaving Cert higher level, I’m seriously impressed at the breadth of knowledge required to answer enough questions in sufficient detail to get a B, let alone a C.

And it strikes me that you would need to be something of a polymath to teach the subject, capable of being equally inspiring on issues as diverse as the role of Bord Bia, poaching (strictly in the culinary sense) and housing policy.

You also need to be sound on quite a lot of biology, aspects of business and marketing, and health policy while finding time to take an interest in textiles, domestic appliances and fashion. Phew!

Two things immediately strike me. There must be very few teachers who can teach a subject that covers so much and still manage to spread their interest and enthusiasm with any semblance of evenness. And where is the food?

Oh, there’s plenty of food. As in reading the nutritional information on the label and comparing and contrasting the pros and cons of different sorts of bread and the thorny question of dextrinisation of starch (which has me stumped, I’ll be honest).

But where is the food as in . . . well, preparing the stuff? You know, putting a meal together?

It strikes me that the syllabus here reflects a kind of distaste for actual cooking. You may be required to know what’s involved in pot roasting (tough meat, liquid, low temperature, plenty of time, but I’m not sure I’d get full marks for that) but in one recent paper you could have got away without knowing anything at all about cooking.

Mind you, a knowledge of microwave ovens and food additives was required, so perhaps the syllabus merely has an eye to a rather nightmarish future.

List three classes of food additive. I wonder if “profit-driven” would qualify. But I digress.

If you were to sit me down, without warning, and tell me to sit Leaving Cert Home Economics at Higher Level, I suspect that I would fail.

List four sources of calcium in the diet.Easy. Milk, cheese, nuts and kale.

Name two factors that inhibit calcium absorption.

Oh dear . . . Er . . . Fizzy drinks (can’t remember why) and chocolate? I’m struggling.

State two different functions of An Bord Bia in the food industry.

Well, I’d certainly avoid quoting Richard Corrigan in the answer to this one.

As to being able to outline the main provisions of the Fire Safety (Domestic Furniture) Order or the Protection of Young Persons (Employment) Act, I’m ashamed to say that I would be guessing. And probably very badly.

While cooking appears to be a mere detail in terms of the examination, the big question (80 marks as against 50) seems to concentrate on what you might call Big Dietary Issues like fat and fibre.

But in terms of food, the emphasis seems to be squarely on processing. Consider the phrasing of this question from 2006:

Outline the range of processed foods available and discuss the merits of including processed foods in the modern diet.

Merits? Modern diet? It looks like this question was written by the food industry.

Here we have food (and nutrition and digestion and dietary implications for health) completely removed from any kind of cultural context.

In terms of the actual exam paper, it’s all about safety and basic biology, food preparation (as distinct from cooking) food preservation and “consumer trends”.

To be honest, it's all very bleak. Not only would I fail one of these papers, I think I'd lose the will to live when, having heard of a family's need to have a management plan, I would have to tackle this kind of thing: Using the components of management (inputs, throughputs and outputs) explain how the Brown family could apply a management system to ensure that Mondays run smoothly in the household.

To be honest, I’m not at all sure what Home Ec is for.

I suppose it is the only opportunity at second level to study some elementary sociology and it might spark an enthusiasm for food processing (although I’m not sure how early such a flair is likely to strike).

It certainly teaches some of the fundamentals of domestic management and consumer rights.

And a knowledge of the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, which is essential if you want to go into the food business, comes as part of the package.

Of its nature, judging by recent exam papers, much of Home Ec is about rote learning and received wisdom.

It’s hard to imagine any student getting full marks for questioning the role of functional foods or the morality of fortified foods, for example.

But overall what impresses me – about the young people who study the subject rather than those who created the syllabus and set the papers – is the vast, eclectic sweep of content and the need to know about so many, not obviously related, things.

As to what you can do, once you have crammed it all into your head, is hard to say.

But in its lack of neat categories (okay, very multidisciplinary character), it can be argued that it reflects life as lived by real people. In that sense, and with some adjustments, perhaps it should be compulsory. For girls and boys.

Tom Doorley is the

Irish Times

restaurant critic and a food writer