The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Is modern history less respected than traditional history to study?

I'm currently looking at studying Politics and History at university next year, but I've recently come across a few, namely Southampton that seem to be shooting up the rankings and have a fantastic reputation for most of their courses. Incidentally, Southampton does a joint in Modern History and Politics, and considering the history which interests me the most is around the mid 19th century to present this would be more relevant to my interests.

However, would studying modern history with politics be a bad decision lets say if I were to study just plain history and politics? It's not less respected in any way because I am specialising more? And would it be worth it to study at Southampton?

Thanks
Neither History or Politics is a vocational degree - it doesnt prepare you for a specific job the way Law or Nursing does for instance. Aside from academic careers which very few people ever manage, most graduates from Arts/Soc Sci subjects are recruited by mainstream employers not for the subject matter of the degree they did but their 'trained brain'. Therefore the distinction between Modern History and History and/Politics is actually utterly irrelevant.

Do the subject/course that you will enjoy most. Because that is what will sustain your interest and enthusiasm for three whole years of study and that is what will get you the best degree grade.

Dont get obsessed with 'reputation', 'rankings' or League Tables. It really is mindless nonsense. Most of it is based on things that will have no impact whatsoever on an undergraduate degree, like how much research funding the Medical School gets and how many journal articles a Professor in at totally different subject wrote last year. 'Fashions' in Unis come and go and what is considered cool and 'on the way up' now, probably wont be by the time you graduate in four years time. Employers dont have a clue about League Tables and what Uni is one tiddly point above another - all they care about is that you've got a 2.1 or a First and from a 'sensible' Uni that they've heard of.
I think it's just that we have 3000 years of history, and schools tend to place far too much emphasis on the last 100.
I can see why you might think that, but I don't think studying modern history is in any way looked down on. If you consider that the usual definition of "modern" is French Revolution onwards, that's a pretty sizeable chunk of incredibly well-documented time you're looking at. If anything, specialising means you'll come out with a more detailed knowledge of the area in question. Regardless, you should do whichever you think you will enjoy more.

To the above poster, I think the reason it gets more focus at schools is as a result of two factors: firstly, that it is seen as somehow more relevant (although this is only partly true), and secondly, that it is, as I said, the easiest to find accurate information on. I absolutely agree that there is often too much focus placed on it, but I also think students tend to find it more engaging, for whatever reason.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you