This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Strange history question...

Hi I love history and am considering studying it at Oxbridge.
Only one problem: i am very fussy and only like modern history (20th century)
is it possible to study history at either camb or oxford and only do modern history???

Reply 1

Minerva

Not confined to 21st Century - or even 20th. You would definitely be expected to cover more ground than that over the three years at Oxford or Cambridge.

There are probably other unis that do offer some very specialist history courses but you would have to look on UCAS to find them.

Reply 2

Franc Vouloir

It might be possible to concentrate on modern history, but I doubt that, at undergraduate level, it would be possible to concentrate solely on the 21st century at any university.

Reply 3

Minerva

L.T.R.G.

It might be possible to concentrate on modern history, but I doubt that, at undergraduate level, it would be possible to concentrate solely on the 21st century at any university.

I think it's unlikely too, but there are some very odd courses out there and you never know. Definitely any V100 course will require a broader range of study than that, particularly in the first year. Some universities do offer a wide range of options though and are less prescriptive about compulsory courses than others. The OP will just have to work his way through the individual prospectuses and see what's what.

Reply 4

Chiron

I can't speak for Oxford with any knowledge, but at Cambridge you are required to study at least one module pre-1750 in Part I (that's the first two years).

To be honest, I'd imagine that you may well find non-modern history quiet interesting when you start studying it. That was certainly the case with me.

Reply 5

HCD

coren111

Pick the perfect course for you, then pick the uni. You've got the order wrong. If Oxford/Cambridge don't do the course you'd love to do, but another uni does, go there.

Reply 6

Consie

I reckon anything but modern is **** too personally, especially after just studying a term of medieval, its gash. I think in the Oxford handbook it says you have to do at least one medieval, early modern and modern period. I just got the medieval out of the way in my first term, esp. since it was just a blowout and I didn’t do much work anyway. I’m hopefully going to tick the early modern box by doing the French revolution this year too, and then I think I can stick mainly to the modern period in second and third year.

So, the amount of choice in the Oxford 'syllabus' means you can do the modern period in several different ways through the three years, so it in no way gets repetitive. If you dislike the other two periods, the best way at Oxford (if I am right in assuming the handbook says you need to do at least one topic in each period) is to just grind them out in the first year so you can do stuff you like in the final two years, where the work you do will be properly examined and it will matter.

I assume when you say modern period you mean like mainly 19th and 20thC? Plus, just remember to put it in perspective. While I thought medieval was boring, there was still the 'historical process' going on in that period just as there are others, so it still had a little interest. I also kept reminding myself that it wasn’t GCSE French, which was like 3 years of constant water boarding, to put it in perspective.

Reply 7

epitome

Chiron

To be honest, I'd imagine that you may well find non-modern history quiet interesting when you start studying it.

Indeed. Unless you know *from experience*, rather than supposition (which in normal cases I would doubt -- year 8 Medieval studies Does Not Count) that you do not like older stuff, then perhaps be open to the opportunity to have to study more than just your school interests. If I'd have chosen my literary era when I joined the university I (1) Wouldn't have found the period that I now absolutely love; (2) Wouldn't have read anywhere near as much Shakespeare, and certainly not his "dry and boring" histories (they are now my favourite plays); (3) Wouldn't really have found out a little bit of what's out there -- I would have stayed in my comfort zone, and never really ventured out of that. 3rd yr is where we get the most choice...and I will be doing *completely* different papers from the ones I came in wanting to do (like, there's about 500 years between them).

So if you are willing to 'have a go', then perhaps dive into a course that offers the opportunity to study things you don't really know about, but which sound 'boring'...you might be surprised!

Or, you know, find a university that does a course that you like. Because Oxbridge won't let you *only* stay in C20th & C21st.

Reply 8

Chess Piece Face

coren111

I'd say that you'd quite possibly be able to study mostly 20th century, but certainly not all of it. Indeed, especially when you consider that you'll often have to study changes in a particular theme over a long period of time, you will often find it impossible to limit yourself to one era. Spread your wings a little! If you like 20th century dictators, for example, I'm sure you'd love the likes of Offa or even Julius Caesar! Given that many elements of human nature have remained constant, you may find that the difference between these (older) periods are merely in terms of political structure, material differences and to an extent mentalities, but with many human elements being the same.

However, if you really are that fussy, the LSE's course in International History is reputedly very modern-orientated, but I do genuinely think that the right period or the right book can hook you on ancient, early modern or medieval history for life! :biggrin:

Reply 9

Boolean Julian

HCD

Pick the perfect course for you, then pick the uni. You've got the order wrong. If Oxford/Cambride don't do the course you'd love to do, but another uni does, go there.

He knows what course he wants to do: history. He's trying to find out the specifics of the history courses at Oxford and Cambridge, and I think an Oxbridge forum is a pretty good place to do that, don't you?

Reply 10

HCD

Boolean Julian

Ah, yes, but it's already been said that he wouldn't be able to completely focus on what he enjoys in particular about history. The International History course at LSE seems more appropriate to his preferred century. Surely it's better to compromise on university to get the perfect course than to compromise on course to get the "perfect" university?

Reply 11

epitome

...and LSE is hardly a "compromise" in terms of level of education! :smile:

Reply 12

HCD

Precisely! :p:

I've heard stories of many rejections for their international history course, from people who got into Oxford or Cambridge. It's likely that this is because their personal statements didn't reflect an interest in LSE's course in particular, but were general and mentioned interest in areas LSE don't cover. By the sound of it, though, the OP's interests and LSE's course seem to fit together fantastically. :smile:

Nevertheless, the lines on their site might be discouraging:

For those who come convinced that only Twentieth Century History is relevant, think again!

So, in your first year you begin by studying broader, survey courses, which look either at the history of a particular part of the world, or particular themes, over a longer period of time.

The course itself is found here. If you're really interested in the most modern History you can get, you could do the following:

Year 1:
HY114 War and Society from the Renaissance to the Napoleonic Era, c.1500-1815
HY117 Rule Britannia: Britain and Empire from 1780 to the Present Day
HY113 From Empire to Independence: the Extra-European World in the Twentieth Century
"An approved paper taught outside the department"

Year 2:
HY221 The History of Russia 1682-1825
HY209 The Spanish Civil War: its Causes, Course and Consequence
HY222 France in International Affairs, 1940-1981: European, Colonial, and East-West Conflict (These 2 picked arbitrarily from Selection List A, on which there are many more 20th Century topics)
"An approved paper taught outside the department"

Year 3:
HY314 Representing the Past: Historiography and Historical Methods
HY304 Germany’s New Order in Europe, 1939-45
HY311 Limited War During The Cold War Era: The United States In Korea (1950-53) And Vietnam (1954-75)
12 HY300 Essay

Obviously I don't know your particular interests, so that structure is fairly arbitrary, but it should give you some idea of the level of modern History you can do. :smile:

Reply 13

coren111

sounds like a great use of three years!
what does an approved paper taught by another department mean?
could i choose to do economics/maths etc?
how is the course assessed- are all the exams at the end of the year or are they after youve learnt them?
thankyou
and the previous posters were correct I AM CHOOSING THE COURSE not the university just wondering what exactly was in that course in the particular university. and thankyou for pointing me in the direction of LSE's course
Im not one of those priks who would do anything to get into oxbridge (i.e. choose a course they don't like because its easier to get into etc)

Reply 14

HCD

I think it is things like Economics/Maths you can choose, probably. Can't be certain, though. It's not really clear on the site. "BA History degree first and second year students can take one course from a wide range offered by other departments in the LSE."

It could well mean you're allowed to sit in on any course at another LSE department. It says "wide range", so there's a good chance there'll be something in there for you, but I couldn't personally find a list of "approved" courses on the website. Sorry for perhaps implying you were one of the people who want "Oxbridge" for Oxbridge's sake, but it's good that you're not. :smile:

Reply 15

FadeToBlackout

For Cambridge, as people have said, you've got to study pre-20th century history.

The reasons for this are simple. You have no idea what History is like at undergraduate level. It is different to anything you've done before, and people are often surprised by how much different it is. The reason why you have to do pre-C20th is because C20 is the most-taught century at school. Everyone thinks, "oh, Nazis, communists, etc." and that's all they've done year in, year out. The exact quote I can give you, from Dr. Mark Goldie, is that they MAKE you study pre-C20th, is so that "when you say, "I REALLY hate studying Tudor economics!" you've really studied it and KNOW you hate it!"- you aren't just saying that.

And you might well be surprised. I came to uni. expecting to hate anything pre-1830. As far asI was concerned, civilisation and interesting things didn't really happen until then. Having had the Civil War, Tudor policy, and Chartism forced down my throat- to name but a few- at secondary school, Hitler and WWII seemed farmore interesting. Nevertheless I really enjoyed looking at early modern Europe- that's 1400 to 1700. I loved studying the Roman Republic, despite it being the period prior to the Empire which, before then, I'd found the most interesting. I studied the Black Death and late medieval Europe in detail. Basically, it has broadened my mind. My dissertation is on C19th, and one of my final year papers is on C20th too- but the other's on Roman Britain, and modern attitudes towards it- so C0th and C20th/21st at the same time.

In short, don't close your mind straight away. History at university is different. You might be surprised. If you're that interested in applying, work out which you like best- you can't of course apply to "Oxbridge", you have to pick one. And Cambridge is clearly better for History too :wink:

History isn't like an inverted pyramid, with loads of interesting stuff happenning now and there being less and less stuff the further back you go. Life wasn't simpler then, things were just as complex and worth studying back in C0th, C4th, as C19th and C20th.

Reply 16

Chess Piece Face

FadeToBlackout

Having had the Civil War, Tudor policy, and Chartism forced down my throat- to name but a few- at secondary school, Hitler and WWII seemed farmore interesting.

Hehe, I tend to be the other way round - I've become quite adverse to the 20th century, which is probably due to the fact that I have had Hitler shoved down my throat (not literally, that would be quite painful) too many times. However, there are so many aspects and angles of a particular era, I'm not going to say "I'm not going to study the 20th century", as there are tons of interesting bits of it - Clement Attlee's post-war administration, for example - but I must say that I, and I imagine quite a few other historians, have developed something of an allergic reaction, at least to studying Nazi Germany! Even then, however, there may be different, obscure themes in that era that I might find interesting, so I'd say that the general lesson, OP, is not to rule anything out.