What to expect from History courses in college?

[Celtic_Guardian]

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 ). 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.

Any knowledge you have would be welcomed.

[Kalle]

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

[Celtic_Guardian]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Aenlic]

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.

[Azi Tohak]

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.

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.

Good luck. Oh yeah, and expect lots of liberals. Thousands of them.

Azi

[spmetla]

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.

[Geezer57]

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 ).

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 ).

So work hard on polishing your prose!

[Pontifex Rex]

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 ). 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.

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.

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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 ). 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.

Any knowledge you have would be welcomed.

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.

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.

[Vladimir]

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.

[L'Impresario]

One crucial thing about history is analysis. This is where you get into trouble with all the leftist professors.

Why 's there a problem specifically with 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?

[Vladimir]

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.

[L'Impresario]

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 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.

Strictly speaking, history is the past

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.

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

Agreed.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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?