The Student Room Group

How valuable is a History degree?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by 4RealBlud
Yh but, so what? There are plenty of people studying sciences that can argue as well as those studying arts and humanities. As for analysis n shizzle, well science coursework is like 6000 words of pure analysis and observation of our universe from which you create a hypothesis about. Science is the observation of our surroundings. Science is basically the application of raw logic, which is arguably the fundamental basis of analysis, debating, etc. My point is that these skills you pick up aren't unique. Many people develop these skills without direct education. There are other courses that enhance these skills as well, but do more on top of that. My point is, i bet after i study either one of engineering, science, law, economics, etc i can do the same job a history graduate can do, just as good, assuming he's not working in a museum or something.


I honestly can't tell if you're actually trying or just trolling?


You wrote 6k words, you must be awarded a history degree to go with that science one.
Original post by Agenda Suicide
I honestly can't tell if you're actually trying or just trolling?


You wrote 6k words, you must be awarded a history degree to go with that science one.


...you're twisting my words. Obviously having studied history you know the cold war inside out, well done. Although, that knowledge itself is big tits on a nun unless you're working in a museum. Are you trying to tell me that you won't learn how to argue and analyse with a science degree? That's what i'm on about, the skills you obtain with a history degree can be obtained elsewhere, it's not unique. Not to mention that nearly all humanities and arts enhance such skills. When studying sciences, engineering, economics, law, etc, the actual content of the knowledge they've obtained is more likely to come into use. This is perhaps why so many jobs that are open to A&H graduates are also open to science graduates and the such.

As for the 6k words, yh that was my A2 biology coursework, which from talking from my pals who studied A2 history, is about the same length of A2 history coursework. So what? what's your point?
Original post by 4RealBlud
...you're twisting my words. Obviously having studied history you know the cold war inside out, well done. Although, that knowledge itself is big tits on a nun unless you're working in a museum. Are you trying to tell me that you won't learn how to argue and analyse with a science degree? That's what i'm on about, the skills you obtain with a history degree can be obtained elsewhere, it's not unique. Not to mention that nearly all humanities and arts enhance such skills. When studying sciences, engineering, economics, law, etc, the actual content of the knowledge they've obtained is more likely to come into use. This is perhaps why so many jobs that are open to A&H graduates are also open to science graduates and the such.

As for the 6k words, yh that was my A2 biology coursework, which from talking from my pals who studied A2 history, is about the same length of A2 history coursework. So what? what's your point?


You are honestly deluded if you think that writing so many words makes your subject magically preach you certain skills.


And I don't think it's quite the same really is it? I'd know having studied some of the subjects you're talking about. Law is absolutely terrible and simply definition/interpretation crunching at the best of times.

Like previously mentioned, you've obviously never studied history properly. If you think the skills you gain aren't useful I ask you to look at why your current chancellor of the exchequer did not do economics, but history. Oh and Gordon Brown, and many before him. What was that useful scientific knowledge and economic knowledge you gain that gives you them skilsl that's also useful knowledge that history doesn't provide?

You're running on empty trying to attack history, you also are under the illusion that "I did so many words look how useful my subject is" is a valid point. I rest my case and am no longer interested in what you have to say to be quite honest :smile:
In order to do many jobs, your employer will only want to know that you have a degree, and what it is in, may not matter. The purpose of a college education is not to get training for a job, but to learn how to learn, no matter the degree.

If you're just interested in a job, a technical training school might be better than college.

Useless degrees? No such thing. Degree that will get you the most money? Engineering. Degree that will get you the least money? Education.
Original post by Agenda Suicide
You are honestly deluded if you think that writing so many words makes your subject magically preach you certain skills.


And I don't think it's quite the same really is it? I'd know having studied some of the subjects you're talking about. Law is absolutely terrible and simply definition/interpretation crunching at the best of times.

Like previously mentioned, you've obviously never studied history properly. If you think the skills you gain aren't useful I ask you to look at why your current chancellor of the exchequer did not do economics, but history. Oh and Gordon Brown, and many before him. What was that useful scientific knowledge and economic knowledge you gain that gives you them skilsl that's also useful knowledge that history doesn't provide?

You're running on empty trying to attack history, you also are under the illusion that "I did so many words look how useful my subject is" is a valid point. I rest my case and am no longer interested in what you have to say to be quite honest :smile:


Look mate, CHILL. No-ones attacking anyone and i didn't mean to upset you by devaluing your degree, ok?

Me writing so many words was just me giving you an example. Get over it. It's not an important part of my argument. I studied history up to GCSE and i didn't say the skills you gain aren't useful. I said that they're not UNIQUE. You can obtain them elsewhere. A point to make out is that the degree you study to be chancellor and other political positions isn't that helpful to them. What is important is WHERE they studied (you'll notice that Oxbridge and UoL are mainly where they're from) and the CONTACTS that they have along with the fact that they are white and went to private school. I'm not saying you cannot succeed with history, i'm saying that it's harder to succeed with history than more sciency degrees and law n all that shiz, because they open so much more doors than you. You'll notice that the jobs that History graduates go to are open to all graduates and even then you'll realise that science graduates are favoured just as much as the A&H graduates. It's just that science graduates tend to stick more to science, finance, banking and management where they can make more money.

Didn't mean to upset you man, i'm sure you'll do fine anyway :smile:

Oh and what do you mean that "Law is terrible"??? What's your point? You haven't actually made one when saying that.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by digitalfever
In order to do many jobs, your employer will only want to know that you have a degree, and what it is in, may not matter. The purpose of a college education is not to get training for a job, but to learn how to learn, no matter the degree.

If you're just interested in a job, a technical training school might be better than college.

Useless degrees? No such thing. Degree that will get you the most money? Engineering. Degree that will get you the least money? Education.


Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
I know many people who did degrees and are stacking shelves in Asda.
Some degrees and uni's are worthless.


Original post by Agenda Suicide
You've obviously never studied history at any level more than GCSE if you are honestly saying that.

History is real people. Real events. Real politics. Real views. Real opinions. Biased opinions. Biased sources. Liberal sources. Conservative sources. Intentionalist sources. Naturalist sources. Full sources. Distorted sources. Propaganda sources. There is so much to consider, so much to research, find and consider when placing an argument it's slightly different from law (both of which I have studied) where you simply go well I analysed the evidence from teh event and find that it is most likely this...

Throwing economics in there to make up the numbers or just being generally ignorant?


And you don't have a ****ing clue how science works.
Anyone with half a brain and good social skills can get a 2:1 in essay based degrees. All you have to do is remember events and say whos opinion is more logical. That is not hard.
With science based degrees you have to learn and understand every theory and law. You can't guess and piece things together based on some monarchs personality, culture etc, you have to understand why an event happens. You also have to look at sources and new theories as to what could be right or wrong.

You go on and on about it being real. Well no **** Sherlock. You are not going to learn about fictitious events and people are you? :facepalm:

Agenda Suicide

History opens doors.

People seem to assume the study of the past is only relevant to the past.

The skills you gain are invaluable for lots of jobs and it develops your argumentative, analytical and overall skills that become useful in every day life.

Many history graduates go on to work in law, politics, the civil service, estate agents, museums, teachings and a surprising amount also go into working with money. (I still have no idea why this is, ps Gordon Brown, George Osborne. Guess what they studied).


So yeah, don't listen to all that piffle. History is a great traditional subject, very employable, very useful and at the same time very fun if you like it.


That is just wrong.
Almost no law firm for the last few years has been hiring anyone. I know many law grads with 1st or better who interview brilliantly who can not even get an interview.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by 4RealBlud
Look mate, CHILL. No-ones attacking anyone and i didn't mean to upset you by devaluing your degree, ok?

Me writing so many words was just me giving you an example. Get over it. It's not an important part of my argument. I studied history up to GCSE and i didn't say the skills you gain aren't useful. I said that they're not UNIQUE. You can obtain them elsewhere. A point to make out is that the degree you study to be chancellor and other political positions isn't that helpful to the. What is important is WHERE they studied (you'll notice that Oxbridge and UoL are mainly where they're from) and the CONTACTS that they have along with the fact that they are white and went to private school. I'm not saying you cannot succeed with history, i'm saying that it's harder to succeed with history than more sciency degrees and law n all that shiz, because they open so much more doors than you. You'll notice that the jobs that History graduates go to are open to all graduates and even then you'll realise that science graduates are favoured just as much as the A&H graduates. It's just that science graduates tend to stick more to science, finance, banking and management where they can make more money.

Didn't mean to upset you man, i'm sure you'll do fine anyway :smile:

It's not my degree, I am chilled and your sentences aren't making sense :smile:

You would also be naive not to note the amount of history graduates that go into law. (Look it up, it's incredibly high:wink: .

And again you're talking rubbish, it's so annoying. Do a bit of research, real research. You will see how many financiers, bankers and especially, especially managers of all shapes and sizes have done history.

This is a perfect example of just going with what you think sounds right.

Science might sound awesome in terms of getting more jbos in the science industry, but exactly how many compete well in the civil service etc?

I'm done here anyway, because you've made half the stuff up and the other half doesn't make sense.


stop shamelessly plugging your blog.:tongue:
Original post by Agenda Suicide
It's not my degree, I am chilled and your sentences aren't making sense :smile:

You would also be naive not to note the amount of history graduates that go into law. (Look it up, it's incredibly high:wink: .

And again you're talking rubbish, it's so annoying. Do a bit of research, real research. You will see how many financiers, bankers and especially, especially managers of all shapes and sizes have done history.

This is a perfect example of just going with what you think sounds right.

Science might sound awesome in terms of getting more jbos in the science industry, but exactly how many compete well in the civil service etc?

I'm done here anyway, because you've made half the stuff up and the other half doesn't make sense.


Yh i did know that many history graduates go into law, i didn't say that they don't. My sentences do make sense and even if they don't (which they do) i'm writing quite fast so i on't care. Let's not get personal here, i know you'er a nice guy, so let's just cut to the chase and argue our points.

I can tell you that not many bankers are A&H graduates :lol:. They normally study Maths, Engineering, Economics and buisiness related courses and you wouldn't believe how many engineers go into into banking and finance, it's ridiculous. Managers? Yeah, probably, but tbh managers are graduates of so many courses and the fact that an actual substancial proportion of them have done economics and sciencey subjects is intriguing when you consider that management is relatively unrelated to the course they've done.

Not many science garduates go into civil service because they go into science, but engineering graduates go EVERYWHERE. Banking, finance, management, advertising, marketing, research, actuary, etc, etc, etc. You'd be surprised how large a portion of them DON'T go into engineering.

And it's not made up if YOU do your research. As a prospective engineering applicant, i know EXACTLY where i can go and many of the places i can go to, a lot of A&H graduates also go into. Oh and improve your English if you cant understand me, i mean being pedantic about grammar and spelling to run away from an argument is just about the most troll-like thing you can do.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Jimbo1234
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
I know many people who did degrees and are stacking shelves in Asda.
Some degrees and uni's are worthless.



When you aren't getting a professional undergraduate degree (such as Eng and Nursing), you won't have as many placements out of University as professional degrees will.
Original post by digitalfever
When you aren't getting a professional undergraduate degree (such as Eng and Nursing), you won't have as many placements out of University as professional degrees will.


Yes, but some degrees are so bad, you would be better off not having one.
Original post by Jimbo1234
Yes, but some degrees are so bad, you would be better off not having one.


I don't think you understand the purpose of higher education.
Original post by digitalfever
I don't think you understand the purpose of higher education.


Yes - it is an investment to enable you to go further in the workplace.
Original post by Jimbo1234
Yes - it is an investment to enable you to go further in the workplace.


Yeah, you REALLY don't understand the purpose of higher education.
Original post by IlliteratePedant
Yeah, you REALLY don't understand the purpose of higher education.


No - that is the purpose and anyone who thinks it is different is wrong. Uni is not an experience for drinking and pissing about, it is a very costly experience financially and time.

But please do tell me what you think the purpose behind uni is...
Original post by Jimbo1234
No - that is the purpose and anyone who thinks it is different is wrong. Uni is not an experience for drinking and pissing about, it is a very costly experience financially and time.

But please do tell me what you think the purpose behind uni is...


Universities have always been about learning for its own sake, with no motivation of a job at the end. Recent government policy has altered and perverted people's perceptions of universities so they, like you, mistakenly think universities are supposed to get you a job. Preparing you for employment was the purpose of technical colleges and apprenticeships; universities on the other hand have always been about extending and deepening human understanding, and that should always be their primary purpose.
Original post by Jimbo1234

That is just wrong.
Almost no law firm for the last few years has been hiring anyone. I know many law grads with 1st or better who interview brilliantly who can not even get an interview.


So those couple thousand Training Contracts every year just appear out of nowhere?
I would say that History is a good degree, but no better than a Politics, Psychology, Philosophy, etc degree. It's just another arts degree. People say that many historians go on to become city lawyers, but this is NOT because they've studied History, its because of the transferable skills picked up from any half-decent degree.
Original post by Ape Gone Insane
So those couple thousand Training Contracts every year just appear out of nowhere?


Ah, but here is the very unfair catch; they will train you, but there might (and most likely) not be a position for you once you finish training. Yes, it is baffling to think why would someone train you then not employ you, but this has been a problem for the last 5 years +, and seeing that a growing number of people are going into Law....:frown:


Original post by IlliteratePedant
Universities have always been about learning for its own sake, with no motivation of a job at the end. Recent government policy has altered and perverted people's perceptions of universities so they, like you, mistakenly think universities are supposed to get you a job. Preparing you for employment was the purpose of technical colleges and apprenticeships; universities on the other hand have always been about extending and deepening human understanding, and that should always be their primary purpose.


No they have not. Where did you get that idea from?
How can you warrant studying to degree level if you just want to learn for learnings sake?
This idea of going to uni "just 'cause" is absolute trash to justify doing crap degrees at crap uni's. You either go to help your career, or for a career in academia. Oh, and lets not forget, uni use to be free.:rolleyes:
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Jimbo1234
Ah, but here is the very unfair catch; they will train you, but there might (and most likely) not be a position for you once you finish training. Yes, it is baffling to think why would someone train you then not employ you, but this has been a problem for the last 5 years +, and seeing that a growing number of people are going into Law....:frown:


Trainee retention rates have risen at the top firms in recent months/year. A lot of top firms have figures over 50-60% so it seems you're more likely than not to be kept on. In any case, you referred to graduates with 1sts, not NQs.

I agree though there is an over-saturation in the market of law graduates and NQs. Good grades, good ECs and actual legal experience are pretty much the minimum requirements these days.
(edited 11 years ago)

Quick Reply