Cambridge History Students and Applicants

OP

jjpp

I have to respect Niall Ferguson as he really is a genius, original etc. But I don't agree with a great deal of what he says, he's often controversial simply for the sake of it. His conterfactuals throw up one very interesting thing for me which is about historical determinism, there is a guy at my college who is really big on marxism and determinism and says counterfactuals are irrelevent because history is inevitable etc.

Same. Though it was really weird, at the start of the discussion group, our DoS asked us whether anyone believed in determinism, and would be willing to argue it (or even whether anyone would be able to argue it for the sake of it), and no one spoke up. Everyone seemed to be ready to argue against determinism (and therefore see some value in counter-factuals in some way), but actually when we got down to it, out of a group of 10, we had three or four die-hard determinists arguing against me (and a couple of others). People seemed to be determinists without even knowing it.

Reply 22

The West Wing

18

jjpp

I don't believe that's quite what 3232 was saying (he'l correct me if i'm wrong) he was saying that there should be a division between institutional and governmental politics, power politics if you will, and the wider ideas of politics as human interaction which do penetrate most things. But that type of politics as in relations between families is very different than that of say relations between countries and paralells are quite difficult to draw between the two.

Congratulations on your offer from Clare btw, they do great ents and make a nice shortcut for me on my way to the UL!

edit; balls 3232 got there before me,

Thanks

It's almost impossible to concentrate on revising for modules at the moment because I'm still on a high from knowing that it's rather likely I'll be studying at Cambridge in ten months time :eek:

What I was trying to say is that "power politics" is too ingrained in everything to divide from institutional politics. In a dictionary they would separate the two definitions of the word, but I don't think it's possible to do so in practice as the distinction of what does and doesn't constitute the governmental type politics is too vague.

E.g.

Kids in a playground deciding what game to play. One ends up almost having their way by the virtue that their idea is the most popular, but suddenly another one becomes dissatisfied and ends up punching the "leader" who ends up running away and crying so they have to do the alternate game as nobody can execute the original.

This (ridiculously abstract example) has nothing to do with institutions, but is clearly political and should be analysed comparatively with "modern" political situations.

Reply 23

jjpp

3232

Same. Though it was really weird, at the start of the discussion group, our DoS asked us whether anyone believed in determinism, and would be willing to argue it (or even whether anyone would be able to argue it for the sake of it), and no one spoke up. Everyone seemed to be ready to argue against determinism (and therefore see some value in counter-factuals in some way), but actually when we got down to it, out of a group of 10, we had three or four die-hard determinists arguing against me (and a couple of others). People seemed to be determinists without even knowing it.

i just don't think determinism works, especially when you take into account things like force majeure which are ostensibly unforeseeable events. I mean you can argue that things like that are just minor blips and that over the long run things are inevitable, but I think it's really easy to argue that history was inevitable when things have happened. There are certain things that just stand out as being real turning points, one for me is this; during the rebellion against Richelieu the Comte de Soissons was right on the point of defeating the cardinal on the battlefield, he rode along, stopped pushed the visor on his helmet up with his pistol and accidently blew his brains out. Now if he'd not done that and gone on to defeat Richelieu the implications would have been outstanding for French history and possibly the revolution. I know that's a counterfactual but it's one i think that has a lot of worth. So yeah i don't agree with determinism.

Reply 24

Chess Piece Face

Rudrax

Can any of you historians at Cambridge drag some law undergrads onto the law thread so they can shed some light on the course? Btw, the Cambs History course looks amazing! I should have applied for History!!

The West Wing

I totally and utterly agree! I was reading the history prospectus on the Cambridge website last night and thinking why I hadn't applied to do it in the first place.

Hehe - seeing the jealousy engendered by the Cambridge history course makes me especially proud of my Cambridge history offer. :smile:

However, if you really want, you can always switch to history for Part II! Assuming all goes well, I might try to convert you once we're actually there... Come on, you know you want to!

Also, regarding the above conversation about counterfactuals - why are the vast majority of counterfactuals right-wing? Certainly that's the impression that I get by looking at all the contributors to "Virtual History" - not just Niall Ferguson, but also Andrew Roberts, etc. I know that there's always the element of wishful thinking (I think Tristram Hunt pointed out once that Richard Evans said that most counterfactuals are more "if only" than "what if"), but I haven't worked out why this is the case. It's not inherently right-wing, I know - there are left-wing counterfactuals too - I just thought that it was quite interesting to point out how counterfactuals seem to be dominated by those with some kind of political agenda.

Reply 25

Lottie

9

You must've met Gina in the Paper 6 and 11 lectures, Tony? She's in Queens' and seems to me to be incredibly nice. :smile:

At the moment I'm putting off finishing my essay. I have two timed essays to do and another essay to write before I get back on Thursday.

Reply 26

jjpp

Lottie

You must've met Gina in the Paper 6 and 11 lectures, Tony? She's in Queens' and seems to me to be incredibly nice. :smile:

At the moment I'm putting off finishing my essay. I have two timed essays to do and another essay to write before I get back on Thursday.

what college are you at? that's a serious workload i only had one essay and a presentation over holidays.

Reply 27

OP

kay_oh_dee

Oooh...this is new...
Hi everyone, just thought I'd introduce myself. I've just got an offer for History this October, Queens' College. Really looking forward to it! Are you all mainly enjoying the Cambridge History experience so far, or is it living hell :p:

? Do you know any Queens' historians by any chance?

I've really enjoyed it so far, the course has been interesting and challenging. The workload is a bit of a bitch, but everyone muddles through in the end. This thread has some stuff about how it's different from A Level, and my post in there is how I was feeling about it all after three weeks:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=470586

Reply 28

OP

Chess Piece Face

Also, regarding the above conversation about counterfactuals - why are the vast majority of counterfactuals right-wing? Certainly that's the impression that I get by looking at all the contributors to "Virtual History" - not just Niall Ferguson, but also Andrew Roberts, etc. I know that there's always the element of wishful thinking (I think Tristram Hunt pointed out once that Richard Evans said that most counterfactuals are more "if only" than "what if"), but I haven't worked out why this is the case. It's not inherently right-wing, I know - there are left-wing counterfactuals too - I just thought that it was quite interesting to point out how counterfactuals seem to be dominated by those with some kind of political agenda.

I'm not sure political orientation is necessarily a factor at all, it is more likely to simply be a result of the predominance of counterfactual theorists at institutions like Oxford and Cambridge, where people tend to be right wing. I'm not sure one has necessarily caused the other, more that they're both unrelated factors (apart from, of course, left wing Marxist historians, who need to see history as deterministic in order to prove their theory). The Oxford and Cambridge schools of history are generally the most prominent, so it's not surprising that some of their (mainly) right wing scholars are also counterfactualists.

Reply 29

Rudrax

12

The West Wing

Why did you apply for law and not history?

Because I'm a dumbass.
But really, I'm one of those people that likes any subject that can spark up a debate and lets you form your own conclusions. So naturally I love English, History etc and at one stage I was even considering doing Politics, Theology or Philosophy at Uni. Obviously I can't have them all and thought that Law would be a compromise as it has quite a bit of philosophy (Jurisprudence), a lot of history and quite a bit of politics. It'a also got the interesting feature of being both a very vocational and theoretical course (I only have to do 7 options to qualify as a Lawyer - the rest can be theory stuff) and I've always wanted to become a Barrister lol. I love Law a lot but History, from having studied it and not Law, seems more interesting to me at the minute. I'll probably fall in love with Law once I'm at uni.

Reply 30

Chess Piece Face

3232

I'm not sure political orientation is necessarily a factor at all, it is more likely to simply be a result of the predominance of counterfactual theorists at institutions like Oxford and Cambridge, where people tend to be right wing. I'm not sure one has necessarily caused the other, more that they're both unrelated factors (apart from, of course, left wing Marxist historians, who need to see history as deterministic in order to prove their theory). The Oxford and Cambridge schools of history are generally the most prominent, so it's not surprising that some of their (mainly) right wing scholars are also counterfactualists.

Sorry to change the subject slightly, but - from your experience - how far do people tend to be right-wing at Oxford and Cambridge? I thought that a lot of academics typically have a socialist hue (although I suppose it's true that many historians immerse themselves in history as a refuge from any kind of social or political change going on around them), but I never thought there'd be any dominant political bent among Oxbridge people. I suppose there may be some trends at colleges with different demographics, etc, although I imagine that a lot of staff and students would be so immersed in their subject that they don't have time for political allegiance. :p:

Reply 31

OP

Chess Piece Face

Sorry to change the subject slightly, but - from your experience - how far do people tend to be right-wing at Oxford and Cambridge? I thought that a lot of academics typically have a socialist hue (although I suppose it's true that many historians immerse themselves in history as a refuge from any kind of social or political change going on around them), but I never thought there'd be any dominant political bent among Oxbridge people. I suppose there may be some trends at colleges with different demographics, etc, although I imagine that a lot of staff and students would be so immersed in their subject that they don't have time for political allegiance. :p:

To be honest, I couldn't tell you which historians are right wing and which are left. Politics just doesn't come into it. However, I'd be surprised if the majority of academics at Oxbridge weren't politically right wing - they're more often than not middle class, affluent, private/public schooled and (obviously) university educated, which tends to breed a more right wing attitude. It's not something that's telegraphed every time you walk into a lecture, but it's just a perception I've got (probably wrong, frankly).

Reply 32

Chess Piece Face

3232

To be honest, I couldn't tell you which historians are right wing and which are left. Politics just doesn't come into it.

Well, it shouldn't, true, although there have been fair few who've been a little too overt... *cough* Mr Ferguson... *cough* Or Marxists, for that matter. I do like the good ol' method of seeing which arguments seem the most valid based on the evidence, which I imagine is the ideal.

Reply 33

Schott

Lottie

You must've met Gina in the Paper 6 and 11 lectures, Tony? She's in Queens' and seems to me to be incredibly nice. :smile:

At the moment I'm putting off finishing my essay. I have two timed essays to do and another essay to write before I get back on Thursday.

Hey Charlotte I dunno I guess I might know of her, but I don't think so :s-smilie:

Homerton seems to have so many Historians that I don't end up talking to that many others apart from like you and Andrew and a guy called Vik. Should I know a Gina lol? :s-smilie:

*Feels guilty for ignorance*

Reply 34

Jacobite

Chess Piece Face

Also, regarding the above conversation about counterfactuals - why are the vast majority of counterfactuals right-wing? Certainly that's the impression that I get by looking at all the contributors to "Virtual History" - not just Niall Ferguson, but also Andrew Roberts, etc. I know that there's always the element of wishful thinking (I think Tristram Hunt pointed out once that Richard Evans said that most counterfactuals are more "if only" than "what if"), but I haven't worked out why this is the case. It's not inherently right-wing, I know - there are left-wing counterfactuals too - I just thought that it was quite interesting to point out how counterfactuals seem to be dominated by those with some kind of political agenda.

The political Right has, at least in recent times, been dominated by individualism. Counterfactual history tends to demonstrate (or exaggerate) the influence of individuals and accidents on events, as opposed to social and economic forces. There may perhaps be a connection here. Also, the Right tends to be sceptical about ambitious projects of reform; a view of history that emphasises its uncertainty and accidental nature may complement this pragmatism.

Reply 35

Lottie

9

tony_ron

Hey Charlotte I dunno I guess I might know of her, but I don't think so :s-smilie:

Homerton seems to have so many Historians that I don't end up talking to that many others apart from like you and Andrew and a guy called Vik. Should I know a Gina lol? :s-smilie:

*Feels guilty for ignorance*

Is Vik taking Democracy in an Anglo-American Perspective for T&S? I recognise his name from somewhere...

Gina goes to most lectures so you're bound to have seen her or maybe even spoken to her without realising it.

Anyone fancy a history meet-up/formal this coming term?

Reply 36

Schott

Yep sounds cooool. Jolly spiffing and all that. We just gotta make sure it's at a college that does cheap formals!

Vikram is a guy of like Indian origin I think, and he's doing Utopian Writing I think. He seems to be one of those strange people where loads of people seem to randomly know him. Must be a character or something lol.

Reply 37

Lottie

9

Well, they're £8.50 for 'outsiders' in Catz... I'm sure we can do better than that.

Reply 38

Schott

Might have a word with some people In Trinity, think I paid about a fiver when I went there for a formal once.

Homerton's out of the question, pricing their formals at something like £11.

Reply 39

OP