Printable View
What should i expect from history courses in college. Im a history major (probably going to option in education, dont really want to but i dont know how else to make a living with history :juggle2: ). Anyways, What can i expect, a vast improvment over high school? Same old same old?. I have two history courses first semester, Western Experience 1, and U.S History to 1865. :book:
Any knowledge you have would be welcomed.
I cant really answer your question about history since I didnt study in your country. I do know one thing though that I think is correct all over the world: If you do not want to be a teacher do not aim to become one.
You spend so much time of your life at work so at least try to get a work you would enjoy. Being a teacher is also an extra hard work (and an important one), not something to take lightly. If you dont like it you will not be a good teacher and if you dont like it the work and the stress put on you from rebellious children, stubborn parents and maybe a not so understanding principal will eventually brake your spirit. It will hit you harder then a mtw charge from a fullsize spanish lancerunit in the back of ur battleline.
Also pupils will very quickly notice if you truly have an intrest in them and in your job and when they notice you have not you will suffer (and in the end also the pupils). So think of your choice before going down this road.
But do not let this stop you from studying history. Why not try for an academic career, or become a librarian, journalist, author or whatever. Remember for instance Tom Clancys Jack Ryan, he was a student of history :P
Kalle
Ya, every person around me tells me, "well why are you gonna take history you going to teach"
I've considered it, isnt that i wouldnt want to do it, its just that, i feel like i would want to do something.......idk more involved with history, then teaching a bunch of fourteen year olds about George Washington crossing the potomac. And lincon freeing the slaves.
History can be both a great subject in College or it can be complete trash. It all depends on the way the professor handles the course. If its straight out of a single textbook it gets to be boring very fast. If the professor follows a textbook but encourages discussion and advocates using other sources it can be very fulfilling in taking the course.
In short it all depends on the professor more so then the textbook.
I agree with Redleg. And it holds for just about any subject. The quality of the course is entirely dependent upon the instructors. I had a history class once taught by the curator of the LBJ Library at the time. Amazing class. He'd bring in stuff. Incredible stuff. He passed around a little lead object once, in class. Asked us to tell him what it was. When it got to me, I saw that it was a sort of distorted ovoid of lead with what looked like teeth marks in it. I suggested that it was a bullet, just on a hunch. Turns out it was a bullet. A Civil War bullet used by a battlefield surgeon to give to his un-anaesthetized patients to bite down upon while in pain. Man, what a class that was. You never knew from day to day what you'd see in class; but all of it was directly to the point we were studying at the time.
Most of the history majors I know of, who aren't teaching classes in academia, are authors. My favorite would be Harry Turtledove ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Turtledove ), but Shelby Foote has to rank up there also ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_Foote ).Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Guardian
So work hard on polishing your prose! :laugh4:
History in university can be eye opening and a test of your courage. If your professors are worth their salt they will challenge your perceptions and chop your arguments to pieces,...thus *forcing* you to do the research and *proove* your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Guardian
Growing up I always loved history and planned to become a teacher. I went to university, got my degree, did my student teaching, excelled at it,....and quickly quit the profession. If you become a teacher just remember that you will be teaching and re-teaching the same curriculum for the rest of your career. That wasn't for me.
Any growth or expansion outside of the courses you are told to teach have to be done on your own time. You will need to strive for a masters or PhD. As others have posted, if you absolutely are not passionate about teaching, do not do it. In my case I joined the army as I pursued my love of history throughout the last 25+ years.
That counts for EVERY course you are going to take. To be sure, some classes (calculus for instance) don't lend themselves to discussions. But, so long as you can ask questions and the professor doesn't just read to you, you can have a good time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Good luck. Oh yeah, and expect lots of liberals. Thousands of them.
Azi
Like everyone else has said it will depend on the instructor. I'm a History major as well specializing in European history.
Most courses can be divided into either lectures or discussion groups. Lectures are note intensive but very informative, they usually involve slides especially if your Professor has traveled in the regions he's talking about. Oh, and if slides are being shown get far away from the projector, being the guy who focuses it isn't fun and then everytime you start taking notes again the table with the projector shakes and you get told not to shake that table.
Discussion groups vary a lot as well. If you have a large group then there's more of a chance of someone asking good questions and getting a good discussion going, on the other hand there's a lot of stupid questions asked as well. If you're shy don't be, if you have a question speak up or if you think someone is making a bad point challenge them and remember to challenge the professor as well.
Oh, and for uses for history majors here you go:
http://www.historians.org/pubs/Free/careers/Index.htm
I get that question a lot. I usually reply with "my short term career will be Army officer and then I'll travel the world and write history books and eventually become a professor" Although it's very vague and not a good answer for some people it has stopped further questioning from most people that ask me.
Or if you were born in the US you can be a President like that Yale history major of ours George W. Bush.
Thanks for the help and the insight guys, i appreciate it!
Short answer is: epect out of it, whatever you put into it. Your effort and desire to learn are the most important thing. They can overcome a bad prof, a poor course, or a weak readings list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic_Guardian
Conversely, if you don't put much into it, even a good teacher with a wonderful course on her pet subject will avail you little.
History is a good baseline for almost any other subject. Even hard sciences, like physics and calculus can be more readily understood if you *know* the historical antecedents. If you have a hard science mind, then go straight into them. I personally like to understand the why *and* the how of what I study.
One crucial thing about history is analysis. This is where you get into trouble with all the leftist professors. Like it or not academics (I love that word) flock towards, well, academia and their analysis factors strongly into the history they teach. Manuscripts and documents are good but you have to use your analytical abilities to fill in the gaps. Also remember that universities aren’t free speech zones. The more extreme your professor is in their opinions the more you should just listen and regurgitate.
A proper understanding of history is also important in understanding the present. Far too many people look at daily events through their own pre- and misconceptions and don’t look at things in the proper historical prospective. Truly knowing your history will help you counter the emotional, “intuitive” rhetoric you’ll get from the majority of the population.
College history won’t differ much from high school history I’m afraid. If you truly want to *know* history, you need a master’s degree. A PhD may be handy but I’d recommend a master’s as it’s intensely focused without being exclusionary like a PhD.
Why 's there a problem specifically with leftist professors?Quote:
One crucial thing about history is analysis. This is where you get into trouble with all the leftist professors.
Anyway, isn't history just a projection of the past molded in the present by a number of different epistemological approaches, as well as inherent predisposition to temporal and causative order and relations?
If that holds some truth then why not use as many methodological tools as possible and avoid a stance that promotes exclusion and not composition?
Are you asking why it's a bad thing for ideologues to interpret history? The "problem" exists is because they tend to dominate the teaching profession. However I've found this less so with military historians.
And no. Strictly speaking, history is the past. Not everyone applies such rigorous standards in distinguishing between what is known, unknown, and analysis/opinion.
And who's not an ideologue? One could say just as well that military historians are more biased than others. I won't start naming Keegans and VDHs, but it doesn't require a lot of thinking, even for a person with no special knowledge on military matters, to understand that military historians generally are right-leaning, conservative people.Quote:
Are you asking why it's a bad thing for ideologues to interpret history? The "problem" exists is because they tend to dominate the teaching profession. However I've found this less so with military historians.
I tend to disagree here; strictly speaking, the past is the past and history is history. I'll also add again that there is a quite some room for cognitive bias in the whole process, but by no means do I imply that the two aforementioned terms differ only in such a way.Quote:
Strictly speaking, history is the past
Here in England you can reasonably expect the college courses to teach that everything we ever did was evil, that the Empire is nothing to be proud of, that Churchill was really a rascist, that counter terror operations=genocide for the most part, there are a few good history courses around, however most of them are on non english history.
I agree with what most are saying but I would add…
If you have the opportunity (as an elective maybe) to take an art history class (western art) jump at it! I learned more “history” in those classes (4 of them) than I did in my regular history classes. Thankfully I have been able to get a much clearer picture of the moods, motivations and political climates via my art history classes than I could have ever gotten in my standard history classes.
Art reflects life and understanding the life part in addition to the facts and statistics might be beneficial if you plan on teaching.
:2cents:
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Ah well, I suppose that's where Braudel and his colleagues (who tried to 'lift' 'history' from it's former state of biographies of 'Important Characters In History' to a new kind of science, with it's own theory of relativity) proved themselves invaluable. The (5, I believe) diffrent layers of time: which makes your and my perspective just as good as someone else's. Since I agree with the idea that history is something that doesn't just exist as is, but differs from time to time, from one's perspective to another's and therefore there is no such thing as history, I consider your statement about 'wrong' and 'proper' perspective to be rather meaningless. There only was, is and will be someone's perspective of history and the past, but that's just my opinion, and therefore...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Because of my opinion as stated above, I cannot but disagree with the idea that someone can actually 'know' history, no matter what his scientific degree is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
And, maybe I'm just utterly stupid for not seeing the obvious reasons - if any, why should someone only 'know' history if he's a master, or Phd? Apart from my opion that 'history' is something personal, only existing the way it does to you in your very own mind, if we talk about history as something that can be 'measured' or that's just the same as the 'past' then why can't, for example, a journalist who digs through archives for a living know more about that part of history then someone who graduated on the same part of history years, if not decades ago? I see, it probably is a far fetched argument, but the point remains: why should scientific degrees be the true measure of knowledge about history?
Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
I recommend an Art History course myself - but I took it not to learn history but to enjoy the scenery...:inquisitive:
:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Redleg
Yeah, noticed that on the introduction week. Mind, my history group isn't too bad.
Although I am only almost a senior in high school, I have heard the same that everyone has been saying: it depends on you and/or your professor.
I, myself am going to be a history major. I hope to study as long as possible european history(can one go more in depth in his area of concentration?) and get a doctoral degree. While I am not particularly adverse to teaching history (at an advanced level) I do fear that it might be hard or get very dull. I also am afraid of those radicals that seem to be flooding our colleges. I am a confessed conservative and this might be a big problem with some activist professors.
Therefore, I have to hope for either a job where I can study what I want to study, mentioned above, and/or write for my life. Any ideas? I too am a very big fan of Harry Turtledove.
I am interested in taking history courses in college. I wanted to know.
What American schools would you recommend as having good courses?
If you are asking me then I must say from what I know of this subject(which is not terribly much) if you are studying colonial America, William and Mary in Virginia is supposed to be very good. What specifically are you looking to study?
1) Military History without military service
2)European History
3)Asian History
4)American Civil War History
5)Pre-WW1 History of Conflicts.
I don't have an answer for that but I would love to know the answer myself.
Many of the Universities in the states have decent to excellent history programs. Depending on what aspect you are wanting to study the most of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
As before it is not so much the University but the professor that you have to find. I know a few schools that have good History programs - but that is not always conclusive for what you are looking for. For instance last I heard Texas A&M and Baylor both have good history departments. So does the University of Texas. But where they rank in the nation I am not aware of.
New Mexico has some decent Native American history courses but not sure about their overall program. Same for Colorado.
Aquinas has one of the best history departments I have encountered. This years courses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marshal Murat
I would much like to get a history major in college, but like you I fear that teaching is just not the job for me. See if you can get connections to people who have history majors who aren't teachers, so you can get those kinds of jobs. That's what I'm going to do.
What did we learn in history lessons?
How to sit quiet at the back of a class.
With so many things open to question,
it's too late to cry - there's no one to ask.
Look what you get for following leaders,
who lead form the rear - where are they now?
The path of least resistance - a bland text book existence,
don't expect to find the answers printed at the back.
the only sound advice that's carried me through life -
when the cards are stacked against you - play the joker in the pack.
"History lessens" -Skyclad :book: :)
I know one, he is a smart guy, always asks if I want paper or plastic. Ha Ha! JK! Actually I do know one, he is a pharmaceutical salesman, we joke that he knows the “history” of the job better than anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon