I'm just wondering what qualifications everyone here has in the field of history. I have recently started an Arts degree this year, majoring in Ancient History and probably Latin.
So what about you guys?
Printable View
I'm just wondering what qualifications everyone here has in the field of history. I have recently started an Arts degree this year, majoring in Ancient History and probably Latin.
So what about you guys?
Oh, none. I just read books.
Ditto that. I'm just an enthusiastic amateur, nothing more. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Third(ed). Nothing more than what I pick up here and there in perusings.
I'm going to work on a history degree eventually.
I did a BA and studied about half medieval Europe and half modern Europe and Asia.
Fourth. Played God of War,then got hooked on ancient Greek mythology,which lead to ancient Greek history. Now,here I am in a world of hoplites,Spartans,dorata,and aspides. Despise those darn Trojans,though.
Good luck with your degree,Count. :2thumbsup:
Yes good luck. I don't like to discourage you but you had better be good at history if you want to make a career out of it. One of my lecturers, who had studied in the UK, was pretty frank about it- it is great to research and/or teach something that fascinates you but due to the dearth of jobs in the field (especially in Australia) you won't get one unless you are really outstanding.
Thanks guys :2thumbsup:
Well fortunately, I am going to the most prestigious arts-related University in Australia (Sydney), which should hopefully give me a leg-up. I'll probably end up teaching or something, but I remain optimistic about a professorship (Pending completion of a PhD of course...).
Good luck! I'll describe my curriculum, but since the german university system is a bit different I can only try.
I have a Magister Artium (roughly equivalent to todays Master, I think) in Medieval History, currently working on my doctoral thesis (finishing it with Dr. phil., which should be roughly equivalent to PhD). I was lucky to get a 3-years-scholarship for this. What comes after this, I don't know. In order to teach properly, I would have to take a second qualification (called "Habilitation", I think only Germany has this, it's another 6 yrs.). I'm not sure about taking this. I'll try to take a route into museums or publishing industries maybe.
I took AP European History in High School earlier this year. Otherwise, most of my knowledge is gained from books or from other people.
BA in History with Honors, but nothing beyond that. I've contemplated a PhD before, but the time commitment is simply absurd for someone who has to work full time. I'll stick with my armchair history education, rather than another 5-7 years of schooling.
PhD is the abbreviation for Doctor of Philosophy. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by I of the Storm
I have choosen history on my mature exam and I passed it very well.
Then I had history of law in the world and history of polish law at my studies.
Played Empire Earth :sweatdrop:
And studied 5 years of hs. And I watch the History Channel.
Agreed, although I did get the history award in year 12. Australian history is boring as all hell though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
Would love to do an Arts degree (focusing on Ancient history/ classics) but am too busy with my Engineering degree at the minute, lol.
Haha, yeah. Our history really isn't even remotely interesting :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaius Scribonius Curio
Oh god tell me about it. I did ancient history in the last two years of high school to avoid having to do Australian history for the enth year in a row.
:inquisitive: What's there to study...? I mean, it aint like there's much of anything to study...Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Agreed, I wanted to do ancient history, but my school didn't do it, so I chose to do a form of history. At least the Cold War was slightly more interesting! The only reason I did it really is because I enjoyed my history classes in England (and was going to do it as a GCSE) so it seemed like a natural progression. I was soooo wrong!
Not to be discouraging, but the way it seems to me is that going to a prestigious university doesn't mean much. Wherever you go the best way to get any leg-up whatsoever is simply to work hard and belong in the top part of the students, certainly if you're looking for a good job in teaching and/or want more contact with the better lecturers.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
What does 'with Honors' mean, exactly? Is it a particular series of grades or following extra classes?Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
If you seek a job in a place where no one knows anything about Australian universities (which would be anywhere other than Australia) then obviously it won't make a difference which university you went to. On the other hand if you seek a job within Australia you will face the associated preconceptions. Certainly where I live employers in certain professions will give a graduate more consideration for a job based simply on the fact that they went to the university that is the city's oldest and hardest to gain entry to. In some cases this is not unfair because some of its faculties are much better than those at other universities. If you're after an academic job (which seems more likely if you study ancient history) then it helps simply to have gone to a university that is known in the academic community to have a quality history faculty with expert staff, of which Sydney is one. On the other hand as far historians are concerned a BA from James Cook University in Queensland is an unknown quantity because JCU has no separate history faculty.
It's kind of a bastardized cum laude that is awarded on the basis of the quality of the senior year thesis rather than GPA. I missed out on "with High Honors" because of crappy proofreading. :wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey S
The explanation from my university:
http://www.wesleyan.edu/registrar/transcriptkey.pdfQuote:
Honors: Since September 1979
The B.A. degree with Honors or High Honors in a department, program, or College has been awarded to students who meet departmental criteria with work of distinguished quality. High Honors requires work of unusual distinction.
The degree with Honors or High Honors in General Scholarship is awarded to students who have fulfilled the expectations for general education and completed a cross-disciplinary honors project deemed distinguished by the Committee on Honors.
I am the official "guy" to cover most historical and geographic questions for my quiz bowl team.
I just read a lot.
I've read quite a few books hobby-wise and plan on getting a history degree in archiving or something of that sort at a local college here in California. It also has some military history courses too so that's quite a nice little bonus.
I see, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Hey, you went to the same Uni as Bill Bellichek and Mike Carlson!Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Oh, uh, I have not a single history qualification. Not even a GCSE (ie I stopped at 13. I couldn't take any more of "is this evidence primary, secondary or tertiary?" :wall: )
I have my BA (Honours) with a major in History (my school is too small to offer subject distinctions for history, though we used to have North American History program). By June I will have my BEd (Bachelor of Education). Of course this means I am on my way to become a history teacher :beam: And hopefully inspire a new generation to love history as I do (as pretty much everyone else here does hehe). Since getting my masters in history wouldn't really help my career much, I have applied to several education masters programs.
History is an interesting field. Even if you do not love it coming out of high school, it really can grab you later in life. I am still rather young and have loved history the whole way through, but I know many people who gained an appreciation for history at an older age.
Does having a degree in history make you more knowledgeable? I don't think so. What a degree will do is hone your research skills and develop higher ordered thinking. If you take any historiography (in my school is was a requirement), you will learn how to read history with a critical eye. Some of the most knowledgeable people I have met online do not have qualifications in history, or any other field for that matter. History is so broad that you can't learn it all, so amateurs can specialize in certain areas and become more knowledgeable than people with degrees (even PhDs). I know several people who have graduated from my program that know absolutely nothing about history, but rather their capacity for alcohol consumption! :medievalcheers:
Agreed. That's also what my course focuses on: understanding why people write history, and honing research and writing skills with work lectures and papers. While amateurs can learn the facts and often learn many (as is evidenced by internet...) they aren't going to be the people who put things in perspective or dig deeper for underlying causes and subtle effects.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellowMelon
To be honest, after starting the course I cannot possibly read many books with the same eyes again.
I'll also give a thumbs up to Historiography, which was also a requirement for a History degree at my school. It was pretty much the only class which taught me something that I was unlikely to pick up eventually through reading history books. It was pretty boring when I was taking it, but far more practical in the long-run than any other single course.
I was really lucky that my High School taught a basic class in historiography at an extension level and I know that some of the senior units at University offer a much more detailed thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
"Uh, we fought Turks in the Great War!"Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
I believe only Greeks would appreciate that.
On the whole I am glad our history is so boring. Countries with interesting history behind them also tend to be hung up on stupid vendettas or constantly harping on about some battle that no one else cares about, Greece and Turkey being a perfect example. But it does make history classes a drag.
* Admittedly we do harp on about Gallipoli, but not because we hate Turks.
Apart from tidbits I picked up in high school, and the philosophy history I'm pretty comfy with, I'm like the most an enthousiastic amateur who gains knowledge via encyclopedia, books, video games and the internet.
Canada has an equally boring history...though I do love the Boer War ;)
No formal qualifications in history whatsoever.
Lots of amateur history reading effort beginning at age 6 -- my parents claimed that I actually cried upon learning that George Washington was dead.
Always a military history buff, current history channel junkie.
Have you been to the new Canadian War Museum? Let me tell you, it's completely worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellowMelon
Ok, its modern history isn't too bad, but being beaten over the head with colonial history in school left a bad taste in my mouth. But no, I don't get out to Ottawa much so I haven't seen it, though my friend was a tour guide there and he said it is quite good. I hear the museum of civilization is pretty fantastic as well.
You live in Ontario and you've never been to the Museum of Civilization? :inquisitive:
It's great as well, but the new war museum is excellent. It's massive - I was in there for a good five or six hours, and could've stayed much longer. There's big room near the base full of old tanks, artillery, APCs, and more. I especially liked the medals - that's almost a little hobby for me.
The battlefield models are excellent, and the sections on the War of 1812, the Boer War, and WWII are expanded significantly. There are many more artifacts on display than in the old museum, and the Cold War section has some very nice touches, such as an antique teddy bear with Trudeau's face. I've been to the old one twice and the new one once, and they don't even compare.
I'd make the trip to Ottawa for the museums alone, and indeed I have in the past. :yes:
Ontario is a big place :medievalcheers:
Well hope you enjoy it.
History here was crud, so I finished first year papers and am now taking Classical
History. I bet Sydney will be wat better than where I am. So you should have a really good library.
I expect Ancient History is far more wider than Classical history, or is just the Greeks and Romans?
I would also avis Greek lit, I have found it really fun and helpful. If you did Antigone and Oedipus Rex and the Aeneaid at highscholl (like me) it should also be easy.
I do feel taking History gives you a chance to better understanding than those whom don't, primarily because of you're lecturers, thes guys know loads and their knowldge is wide open to you and far greater than most books you can get at a normal shop. I have spent many hours talking to my lecturers, its very good:2thumbsup:
Goodluck:yes:
Oh but just as an aside, are you majoring in anything else, uh, more practical?
I would advise it.
I taking IR. That coupled with classics I have been told by the head of the Washington School of Political science, is a good mix. Look it up.
I know - lived in rural Ontario for a long time. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by YellowMelon
On the library - yes there is an incredible library. I think they said it is 14 rolled into 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bopa the Magyar
Ancient History is primarily focused on the Greeks and Romans, through the entire scope. However, there are also Archaeology courses that focus on the East and the New World.
I'm not doing Greek Literature because I don't want to learn a new alphabet that I am never going to have a use for. Instead I am taking Latin, which seems much easier to learn and achieves the same end (Allowing me to do post graduate work).
So yeah, no other majors, just Ancient History and Latin. I don't want to do anything else that could be considered practical. I have always and will always do what I want - not what will get me money. In the end I may have to go into teaching, but I don't know, I'll see what happens.
The Fatal Shore by Robert Hughes for instance, brother Kamikhaan. I read it after I stumbled upon his equally great book on Barcelona.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
MA here, by the way. Modern History.
:bow: I shall see if I can find it. What specifically does it cover?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Early Australian history. Convicts. Aboriginals. Bushrangers. It is an epic story, really: a few hundred thousand people who managed to turn a prison camp into a nation in one or two generations. Hughes disclosed lots of sources that were never used before because, well, precisely because people thought Australian history was crap. Which it isn't. And because they had trouble facing the truth about their origins, the 'Stain' of convict ancestry, brutal treatment of the natives and such. Hughes has a love-hate relationship with his native Oz, he feels at home in its easy-going culture, yet he has also said that Australia could be 'towed out to sea and sunk for all I care'.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
It is crap when you have to study it for a decade. It is also morally indecisive because when you're in primary school it's presented to you as the conquest of a harsh land by heroic settlers, then when you're an adolescent they add the shameful addendum. I.e.
"Oh yeah by the way, we didn't mention it earlier but those heroic settlers you learned about in primary school killed loads of black people and took their land."
I understand what you mean, brother Furious Mental. The glorification of conquest and the suppression of essential elements such as the 'Stain' must be what made 'official' Australian history so tedious, even downright offensive to honest minds. It bored the crap out of brother Hughes as well. Hence his effort to get to the real story, which to my highly limited knowledge he did. What I was trying to say is that there is a real story behind the whitewash, and a herioc tale to boot, considering the limited capacity of humans to do any good at all under similr circumstances. It was after all an involuntary conquest of nature as well as of native lands by a few hundred thousand people, many of whom were murderers, thieves, beggars, orphans, prostitutes, etcetera before they set foot on that shore. In a sense they reclaimed civilisation for themselves. That was their true conquest and that's what makes it a beautiful story. Without romanticising it, because its beauty is in its truth, in the harsh realities that it deals with, rather than the pretty picture into which it was transformed later on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
Currently doing a history degree
So I dont have much spare time to visit this wonderful place anymore.
I do critical thinking and absorb as much history as possible through the tv (History Channel) and literature, what does that make me?Quote:
Originally Posted by YellowMelon
It makes you a Brave amateur, brother. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave
I had never really thought about it that way Adrian II. I like that perspective.
Speaking of which: doesn't Australia have it's own John Steinbeck?Quote:
Originally Posted by Furious Mental
I mean, I just realised I don't know Jack Split about Oz literature... :shame:
From what I did at school, Australian history is rather boring. Did ancient history at school, and now read some books on ancient and medieval warfare, ancient history, Chinese and Japanese history.
The documentaries shown on FTA TV are sometimes interesting, but the movies or TV "based on historical events" are usually wildly inaccurate. I usually find myself thinking that the arms and battle tactics have only a vague if any relation to fact.
I generally like history, but I dunno about doing a whole degree on it, not sure I'd be able to finish it.
I know more history than most people, but unfortunately that doesn't really say all that much most of the time. People's ignorance of just about anything to do with major world events (or countries) is worrying. No wonder we continue to fail to learn from history! :wall:
Im taking History at GCSE??? Dont read much, just sticks in my head better than numbers
When I got half-way through secondary school, my programme was loaded with sciences and languages, and I could only find room for either geography OR history. As my geography scores had been mostly 10/10 til then and I was bored with lists of kings, I dropped history. I didn't really give it a second thought until I discovered TW, and then started reading voraciously having built up an unexpected thirst for knowledge over the intervening 30 years :bow:
B.A. in History, M.A. in Liberal Studies (with a concentration in History/Public History), plus multiple conference and random lecture attendances....and I'm still a meaningless clerical worker. :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help:
I grew up in a house were my bed time stories were of hamburger hill or the run up iwo jima or Riech the first step towards conquest. Man good times...
Alright, after thinking a little more about what I'd like to do here it is.
I plan on transferring from my junior college (or JC) to San Jose State University in California. I hope to study to be an archivist while minoring in Military History. Then if possible, go to grad school or whatever the next step is in England and hopefully find a job at one of their museums or whatever else. It's tentative but that's the general outline.
As to qualifications, I hold a MA from Lancs in Historical Research, as well as a "cand.mag" (2-year master level) in general history from Copenhagen Uni. My thesis was on statebuilding in the renaissance with special emphasis on colonial companies.
As for amateur vs. professional I believe that: Knowing something about a period / topic is something everybody can do by reading books and watching TV. I'm sure that *many* people knows more facts about history than I do. But actually writing history is something for the professionals, as it is a craft just like carpenting or engineering. It just seems, for the unaware, as a simple procedure of collecting facts and putting them together, but there is much more to it.
Does that make me a better person, or make my posts more intelligent? I must confess the answer is "no" i both cases :beam: But I will claim to be more trained in answering questions about "why" something happened, as that is my profession. Amateurs will be excellent in answering questions about "who", "where" and "when", and there is a time and a place for that as well.
/KotR
USyd? That's one nice Uni, especially in Arts/Law/Med.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Mostly I just have the History Channel on all the time or a good book on Loan from the State Library.
PS:
So you study in detail. Very nice indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
I'll bet ninety percent of historians grew up in such homes. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jkarinen
Seriously, story-telling is an essential tool for historians. From Herodotus through Gibbon, Le Roy Ladurie and Huizinga, great historians have always been engaging story-tellers.
Nice to know by the way, that so many young Orgahs are historians or History students. The fact that in these forums we mingle with computer nerds, gaming addicts and bloody amateurs from all walks of life makes the Org. a unique meeting place.