[Phantom_X]

(Original post by Ory)
19 people agree that "No he is the best historian in history - ever. " Presumably, these people are history students or graduates.

That speaks volumes about the man, and his ilk, and the stuff that they teach, doesn't it.

Or, they are trolling you. If this is the case, then it speaks volumes about you, your apparent intelligence and the stuff you have learnt throughout your studies.

and if you didn't get that, yes, I did imply you are still a moron.

[Ory]

Which all speaks volumes about you and your lack of ability to tackle the subject rather than wanting to lash out like a hurt child...

Back on topic please...

[Ory]

The real question for Niall fans is - what will you do with your undoubtedly valuable history degree?

Poundland or 99 p Store?

Or back to shovel more money into the mouths of history professors, for that all useful MA in History?

[Phantom_X]

(Original post by Ory)
The real question for Niall fans is - what will you do with your undoubtedly valuable history degree?

Poundland or 99 p Store?

Or back to shovel more money into the mouths of history professors, for that all useful MA in History?

or work in consultancy, law, politics, research and development, academia, journalism etc.

is your dislike toward Niall Ferguson or to History degrees themselves?

[D.R.E]

(Original post by Ory)
The real question for Niall fans is - what will you do with your undoubtedly valuable history degree?

Poundland or 99 p Store?

Or back to shovel more money into the mouths of history professors, for that all useful MA in History?

I'm not a history student, but your views on this subject are quite mistaken. Firstly, most good degrees are not vocational courses. Even law and engineering are academic courses which teach almost nothing about legal practice and professional engineering respectively. Secondly, you have to keep in mind that when employers recruit people, they don't recruit you by virtue of which degree you happen to have, it's much more your overall package as a person. And yes, which degree you have read does come into it, but in my opinion it plays a very small part - by this I mean the raw knowledge you learn from the degree. Academic degrees are there to teach you some simple, but very important mental skills; and for the most part, I think most of them do. You said earlier that Economics and History are 'pseudo-subjects' (or something to that extent), but to be honest, Econ and History grads are some of the most impressive people you will meet. They can absorb large amounts of information and offer extrapolations easily, and they have developed logical systems that they can apply to everyday life. And those are the kinds of skills employers like.

As for Niall Ferguson, he is an interesting man. As I said, I'm not a history student, but I think his work on counterfactuals is interesting (although I disagree with it), but where he stands best is economic history. I doubt you've read his papers on financial and economic history because they aren't exactly mass-market stuff, but they are top level stuff. I also quite like his attempts to frame a more 'international' history. Most historians seem to focus on specific microcosmic events or periods, or countries, Ferguson tries to show the interwoven nature of human society where everyone else in the British historical tradition seems obsessed with writing writing about the Tudors, or the Industrial Revolution as if it were some ingenious British invention without any international context whatsoever.

This does leave him open to the accusation that he simplifies things somewhat, and I think at times he does, but this is valid approach in my opinion - well at least it's more interesting than the stylings of David Starky and the like who just want to just want to feed their nationalistic fervour. I would recommend everyone read/watch his The Ascent of Money for a good example of some serious financial history.

That being said though, I do think some of his more recent stuff about empires and such are somewhat questionable. His recent 'Civilisation could have been much better in my opinion, had he taken a strictly analytical approach. Unfortunately, I feel he let far too many of his own normative biases enter into the discussion which more or less degraded into a jingoistic rant. Quite disappointing in my opinion.

By the way, his The War of the World is also quite interesting and takes a unique look at the 20th Century - well worth looking into.

[Ory]

Well friends, I guess when a truck driver, doctor or accountant gets it wrong, they are responsible and have to pay damages.

But when your opinion is worth nothing, just like NF's then you don't pay anything - there's no damage because the opinion is well, worth nothing.

Sad days for NF fans.

[Ory]

(Original post by Clumsy_Chemist)
You don't need to use the knowledge from a history for it to be useful. By the same reasoning, English, philosophy, art and many other subjects are useless. I

A lot of people here seem to agree that history is useless - even a PhD.

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-...nt-line-2012-5

[Dux_Helvetica]

(Original post by Ory)
A lot of people here seem to agree that history is useless - even a PhD.

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-...nt-line-2012-5

Of course the comments section of ONE website (called 'Business Insider') under its FINANCE section is not going to attract people who are sympathetic towards history degrees.

Also, judging from your comments on this thread, and the fact that you made the effort to resurrect a long-dead thread to post one measly link, makes me think that you have some serious issues in your life. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you were molested by your history teacher when you were 11 years old, it would explain a lot.

[Ory]

(Original post by Dux_Helvetica)
Of course the comments section of ONE website (called 'Business Insider') under its FINANCE section is not going to attract people who are sympathetic towards history degrees.

Also, judging from your comments on this thread, and the fact that you made the effort to resurrect a long-dead thread to post one measly link, makes me think that you have some serious issues in your life. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you were molested by your history teacher when you were 11 years old, it would explain a lot.

That's a very telling post because it's obvious you cannot argue the point being made. It's also very offensive. But of course all the people commenting in the article here are wrong, and you are right. I'd invite you to read it again and this time respond without an ad hominem attack.

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-...nt-line-2012-5

The sad reality is that practically anyone undertaking a history degree in 2012 or from 2000-2012 is wasting their time. I happen to know doctors, lawyers and moms who know more about history than the average indoctrinated BA grad. They could all publish direct to the internet these days and let the market speak without any history degree or 'peer reviewed' articles because they know how to use primary resources. Patrick Buchanan is another example - his recent book on Churchill was outstanding - no history degree required.

If you think that the masses of Joe Public out there think that a history major is or Ferguson are something special - think again. Everyone knows that they could enroll their great aunt into one of even the most 'prestigious' history programs available.

All they need to be able to do is fog a mirror and write a check/cheque.

Now tell us how the commenters on that article linked were all wrong. I'd like to hear your reasoning.

[Ardilla]

(Original post by Dux_Helvetica)
Of course the comments section of ONE website (called 'Business Insider') under its FINANCE section is not going to attract people who are sympathetic towards history degrees.

Also, judging from your comments on this thread, and the fact that you made the effort to resurrect a long-dead thread to post one measly link, makes me think that you have some serious issues in your life. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you were molested by your history teacher when you were 11 years old, it would explain a lot.

I very much agree with you, but you should know that Ory has descended from the heavens themselves to tell us what is right or wrong and that history has mainly been made by tanks and his mom. (see my previous "discussion" with him)

Unfortunately every time you make a point he cannot answer due to the fact he can't comprehend anything but his own self-satisfying mirrorimage, instead he takes it personal tells you stuff like "go for the ball not the man" whilst doing the exact same thing- if not worse himself.

As for Ferguson and Historians being worthless is perhaps some sad time in his life or because he only accepts people who produce material stuff- preferably tanks.
Although, as I have pointed out earlier and Time put Ferguson on the list as one of the most influental persons in 2004.....
http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...970858,00.html

+ Siegmund Warburg, the great banker, found historians some of his best employees.

Yet, Ory cannot accept the fact that he is very alone in this debate and has decided that everyone else than he himself is wrong. Funny thought: in he recent post he says that one should not say "ahhh everyone else is wrong" as he argues in his article, yet the Poll suggests support for Ferguson and so does the main bulk of comments made in this thread.

Of course he will comment on this post and use the "go for the ball not the man" rhetoric as mentioned- yet doing the exact same thing, just much worse himself. I'll sit back and enjoy this hypocrisy.

[Dux_Helvetica]

(Original post by Ardilla)
I very much agree with you, but you should know that Ory has descended from the heavens themselves to tell us what is right or wrong and that history has mainly been made by tanks and his mom. (see my previous "discussion" with him)

Unfortunately every time you make a point he cannot answer due to the fact he can't comprehend anything but his own self-satisfying mirrorimage, instead he takes it personal tells you stuff like "go for the ball not the man" whilst doing the exact same thing- if not worse himself.

As for Ferguson and Historians being worthless is perhaps some sad time in his life or because he only accepts people who produce material stuff- preferably tanks.
Although, as I have pointed out earlier and Time put Ferguson on the list as one of the most influental persons in 2004.....
http://www.time.com/time/specials/pa...970858,00.html

+ Siegmund Warburg, the great banker, found historians some of his best employees.

Yet, Ory cannot accept the fact that he is very alone in this debate and has decided that everyone else than he himself is wrong. Funny thought: in he recent post he says that one should not say "ahhh everyone else is wrong" as he argues in his article, yet the Poll suggests support for Ferguson and so does the main bulk of comments made in this thread.

Of course he will comment on this post and use the "go for the ball not the man" rhetoric as mentioned- yet doing the exact same thing, just much worse himself. I'll sit back and enjoy this hypocrisy.

Yeah. I think he's a troll that was probably overfed over the course of this thread. It's probably for the best to leave him to wallow in his own hatred.

[Ardilla]

(Original post by Dux_Helvetica)
Yeah. I think he's a troll that was probably overfed over the course of this thread. It's probably for the best to leave him to wallow in his own hatred.

Yep.. you'd have a more adult discussion with you fridge. + it would probably have some better arguments

[Ory]

Nothing you say convinces anyone that history is a useful thing to spend so much money and time on at university in the kindle age.

History degree grads sought after in finance? Wow. What a shame all the jobs have gone - and in 10 years will all be in India and Asia. The fact that anyone who passes school can get a history degree these days says it all. It is not an elite degree at all - I would say that learning how to be an electrician would be more difficult.

Even studying a minor language - such as Vietnamese - would be more useful than anything Niall Ferguson offers in history.

Tell me something, how many degrees in history did Tacitus have?

Or how many degrees in history do the people blogging about what's happening outside their window in Japan right now have?

The modern high school education for most people is enough and gives them the basic tools needed to be an historian. Combined with a library card or kindle subscription there is little they cannot do that NF can, except unlike NF, they wont try to make sweeping generalizations that mean nothing.

I mean its like NF's Chimerica could be compared to Pre WWI europe and we should invent a nonsense called Prusstania because Germany and England were major trading partners and their ruling royal families were related.

It's nonsense, but if you want to worship it - go ahead and worship at the feet of this clown.

[Ardilla]

Ah, but was tacitus a great historian? And are random people in Japan good historians?

The problem is that you have reached a conclusion on a man, who you know nothing about. - I suppose you still haven't read any of his books. In fact you make a mistake you learn to avoid studying history: everything you say is based on a notion or conclusion on this man without having done any research whatsoever. In other words, you reached your conclusion before starting your research.

And I could probs. build a car or fly an airplane.- Wouldn't do well, but I'd do it. So I suppose pilots and car engineers should get their money back from their degrees now.

It's rather embarrassing for you to continuously trying to force your view upon others with child-like rhetoric. If you have not noticed the trend on this thread, you're pretty much alone in your absurd- history hating crusade. And you still tells us NF is worth nothing; again: Times Magazine disagrees- so does almost everyone else in here.