Oxford History Students and Applicants

Original post by Maxm79

I don't think it was a political movement. But you have to ask why there was a basic lack of respect for property among some (but not all) people in very poor areas within cities.

We have to ask why they decided to join in... only for free stuff. People are greedy, yes, but that cannot surely be the primary cause else we'd have riots all the time and not only by socially disadvantaged people in inner cities.

Anyway, don't want to debate this on the history at Oxford thread :P But essentially it was neither political nor a random, spontaneous display of human evil. It's a bit more complicated than that :P

Original post by Historophilia

True, and I'm not sure we'll ever get to the real bottom of why it happened, I'm sceptical that interviewing rioters will give us an insight. It's human nature that they will seek to justify their actions.

The other motto of historians may have to be used here 'Stuff happens and sometimes we don't have clue why'. :P (shared with Physicists incidentally).

Haha, glad you've taken to it! :biggrin:

The riots are technically history already, but trying to analyse it when we don't yet have all the facts nor know all the consequences is a bit silly. Data data data, we can't build bricks without clay! :wink:

I so agree with that motto as well. Free will is a wonderful thing; it means that when we think we know exactly what pressures and influences are acting on a person, and therefore what they would logically do, that sometimes all goes flying out the window and they do something totally irrational. Ah, humanity, how we love thee...

Reply 902

Historophilia

Original post by Incarnadine91

Haha, glad you've taken to it! :biggrin:

The riots are technically history already, but trying to analyse it when we don't yet have all the facts nor know all the consequences is a bit silly. Data data data, we can't build bricks without clay! :wink:

I so agree with that motto as well. Free will is a wonderful thing; it means that when we think we know exactly what pressures and influences are acting on a person, and therefore what they would logically do, that sometimes all goes flying out the window and they do something totally irrational. Ah, humanity, how we love thee...

Exactly! We are Historians and we require FACTS! :biggrin:

Particularly when they do things that are in the complete opposite of their own economic self interest. what I always find amusing is that the country that fits least with the rational, Marxists theory of History is Russia under Sovietism :tongue:

Reply 903

kjb2112

Original post by Historophilia

Definitely agree with this. My view is use what we want to analyse and to try and explain History but don't go into with with a kind of pre-determined bias as to what makes things happen. all that you will end up doing to missing important things.

If you a look at History, economic factors or the drive to survive is hugely important and can explain many things, but if you then stop there and say that's all there is without looking at what else was involved you end up with an unbalanced view of History.

And there are such basic flaws with Marxism, how on earth can economic factors explain the impact of infectious disease, the shape and nature of the terrain and the weather on human history? That was actually what won me the argument :tongue:

Genuinely that is out motto. That along with 'As a Historian who is therefore well-rounded and analytical...'

Impossible to go into History without any bias, predetermined or not.

Reply 904

PhateGBR

I don't think you guys have really understood what you've read of Marx. Marxist theory does not, as Historophilia thinks, make the claim that history falls into neat, predictable patterns. It's a myth, popularised by people like Karl Popper, that Marxists are determinists who claim to know the future of history. It is also false to claim that Marxists see human action as a sort of epiphenomena, or that they don't believe ideas, culture or religion (or environmental factors) are meaningful.
There are lots of criticisms to be made of Marxist theory, but it's important that you understand what you are criticising or you make the mistake of attacking straw men.

Anyway, love the motto :P

Reply 905

Quercus1

It would also be nonsensical to claim that there isn't a degree of pre-ordained order to the development of human society. In its broadest terms, Braudel's plurality of social time (especially the longuee duree part) clearly explains that there are greater forces at work than the individual driving historical change; which by consequence means that the individual to an extent, is constrained by the environment in which he/she operates. The individual and their thoughts/actions are constrained by their environment, e.g. a caveman couldn't have thought let alone proceed to build a spaceship could he,? - when his thoughts etc. were constrained by the environment in which he operated. History is to an extent determinstic.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 906

Original post by PhateGBR

I don't think you guys have really understood what you've read of Marx. Marxist theory does not, as Historophilia thinks, make the claim that history falls into neat, predictable patterns. It's a myth, popularised by people like Karl Popper, that Marxists are determinists who claim to know the future of history. It is also false to claim that Marxists see human action as a sort of epiphenomena, or that they don't believe ideas, culture or religion (or environmental factors) are meaningful.
There are lots of criticisms to be made of Marxist theory, but it's important that you understand what you are criticising or you make the mistake of attacking straw men.

Anyway, love the motto :P

Well, no, but Marx did make predictions of what he thought was going to happen at least in the broad strokes - aristocracy being overthrown by the middle class, who are then overthrown by the proletariat some time later, etc - so while modern Marxists may have agreed that there is no longer this strict progression there is still an element of inevitablity to their analysis, which can lead to a teleological viewpoint where agency can be forgotten. Similarly, while they understand the importance of culture, religion etc they depict them as essential structures that make up and inform society, the same as (though possibly less important than) government and the economy. They are structuralists and therefore see the development of society as top-down rather than bottom-up - at least the classical Marxist theory does, Neo-Marixists like Gramschi have a much more fluid view. In my opinion I think the bottom-up view is far more important than Marxists give it credit for, yes structures like the economy are important but they are ultimately driven by human beings who can choose what they do, so no apparatus of control (no matter how ingrained the ideas they spread) is ever going to trump free will. Again, I'm sure modern Marxists understand this but by prioritising class and the economy they don't give individual choice the precedence it deserves. As researchers we need to combine the two forces of structure and agency if we want to get anywhere. But that's just my personal opinion - Marxism is still incredibly useful as an analytical tool!

Original post by Quercus1

It would also be nonsensical to claim that there isn't a degree of pre-ordained order to the development of human society. In its broadest terms, Braudel's plurality of social time (especially the longuee duree part) clearly explains that there are greater forces at work than the individual driving historical change; which by consequence means that the individual to an extent, is constrained by the environment in which he/she operates. The individual and their thoughts/actions are constrained by their environment, e.g. a caveman couldn't have thought let alone proceed to build a spaceship could he,? - when his thoughts etc. were constrained by the environment in which he operated. History is to an extent determinstic.

Braudel does the same thing I think in prioritising larger structures (in this case geological features of the environment) over individual action, which is fine and a useful way of looking at the way we are constrained, but it's not the be-all and end-all. The way we are brought up conditions the way we think, but there are abbarations in that otherwise modes of belief and ideas would be constant within a certain area and timeframe, and they're not. The caveman might not have thought about building a spaceship, that's an evolutionary leap too far, but he might well have thought of flying - stories from all sorts of cultures show ways in which they constructed hypothetical scenarios in which this was possible. When the individual goes out to do something, even if it's a failure, they change the course of intellectual development and thus the course of history. They are constrained but not controlled by the loungue duree - calling individual action the "epherema on the wave-tops of history" as Braudel does is a mistake, I think. Choice and free will and all the chaos that implies means that nothing is inevitable and determined, only made more likely by extant conditions.

As you might have guessed, I come down quite hard on the agency side of this debate, but I understand that structuralism is still very interesting and makes some good points - that's why it's still a debate :tongue:

Reply 907

flywithemma

Not sure whether I will get a reply, but from current students...what OS did you do in your first year? Would you recommend it? Any ones that I should avoid?
I really want to do the Rise and Crisis of European Socialisms, but it's capped at 8 people, so there's a very good chance that I won't get it...none of the other ones really stand out, I'm currently thinking about either the French Revolution one, or one of the Ancient and Modern papers...any advice?

Reply 908

Original post by flywithemma

Not sure whether I will get a reply, but from current students...what OS did you do in your first year? Would you recommend it? Any ones that I should avoid?
I really want to do the Rise and Crisis of European Socialisms, but it's capped at 8 people, so there's a very good chance that I won't get it...none of the other ones really stand out, I'm currently thinking about either the French Revolution one, or one of the Ancient and Modern papers...any advice?

I did Witchcraft and Witch-hunting in Early Modern Europe, and it was definitely the best paper I've ever done. So much fun to read and write about, you got to study real demonology texts for goodness' sake! Some of the most prominant historians in the field work in Oxford at the minute, so if you're interested in studying under the people who write the textbooks then this course is worth a shot.

In general, though, don't be afraid of applying to one with a small cap. My current FS is capped at 12 but I still got in, remember everyone will be thinking the same way! If one in particular calls to you then go for it, the worst that could happen is you get your second choice, and you might very well enjoy that one anyway. :smile:

Reply 909

flywithemma

Original post by Incarnadine91

the worst that could happen is you get your second choice, and you might very well enjoy that one anyway. :smile:

Wrong. Turns out the worst that can happen is that I don't get either, and now have to choose between 8 papers that I really don't want to do :/

Currently got it down to

Theories of the State
Bede
Conquest and Colonisation, Spain and America.

:frown:

Reply 910

Original post by flywithemma

Wrong. Turns out the worst that can happen is that I don't get either, and now have to choose between 8 papers that I really don't want to do :/

Currently got it down to

Theories of the State
Bede
Conquest and Colonisation, Spain and America.

:frown:

Oh really? We had to make sure one of our choices had a cap of over 21, so it was almost certain we'd get one or the other, so that's just very bad luck. :frown:

Conquest and Colonisation doesn't look too bad, and plenty of people do Theories of the State, so it's not the end of the world!

Reply 911

flywithemma

Original post by Incarnadine91

Oh really? We had to make sure one of our choices had a cap of over 21, so it was almost certain we'd get one or the other, so that's just very bad luck. :frown:

Conquest and Colonisation doesn't look too bad, and plenty of people do Theories of the State, so it's not the end of the world!

Think I'm doing Theories of the State. But yes. It's put the cherry on the top of a horrific week all round :frown:

Reply 912

econhist

Hi all,

I've received an offer to do a DPhil in History at Oxford - more specifically in the economic and social history division - and have some questions about that.

What is the relationship between the department and the ESH division? Is ESH largely self-contained, with different requirements and methodology, or is it a more fluid kind of thing? For example, research seminars - are they department wide, or ESH only? [The reasons I ask is that my background is in economics and political science, very little straight history. I did a lot of economic history at the LSE, but there it was different: they had a whole economic history department, with it's own requirements etc. So I guess I'm wondering what it's like to be in a history faculty…]

Despite being in the History department, my supervisor would be an economist. I've heard that these kinds of combinations can be problematic, because economists will expect one kind of methodology and argument, while historians expect something completely different. Can anyone comment on this?

Finally, any remarks in general about being a research student in the history department at Oxford?

I also have some rather specific questions: Does anyone know when I can expect to hear about funding? Do most DPhil students get funding? Does it matter what college I end up in? Will I be expected to move to Oxford for the first year? Finally, my offer is conditional (I'm currently an MA student); is this normal, and how stringently are they going to hold me to the conditions?

I realize this is a lot, please answer whatever you can or are comfortable with. Also, please feel free to forward to any other DPhil students you know…

Thanks in advance...

Reply 913

Original post by flywithemma

Think I'm doing Theories of the State. But yes. It's put the cherry on the top of a horrific week all round :frown:

Awww *hugs* I hope it all gets better soon. Cheer up, one paper you don't enjoy isn't a disaster, and who knows, you might find you like it anyway! The amount of freedom you have to choose increases as you go along, so later on in your course you'll be able to do exactly what you like. :biggrin:

If you need any help with anything, you have only got to ask.

Reply 914

Kiki09

9

Original post by econhist

Hi all,

Finally, any remarks in general about being a research student in the history department at Oxford?

I also have some rather specific questions: Does anyone know when I can expect to hear about funding? Do most DPhil students get funding? Does it matter what college I end up in? Will I be expected to move to Oxford for the first year? Finally, my offer is conditional (I'm currently an MA student); is this normal, and how stringently are they going to hold me to the conditions?

I realize this is a lot, please answer whatever you can or are comfortable with. Also, please feel free to forward to any other DPhil students you know…

Thanks in advance...

Afraid I can't comment on the ESH division relations with history etc side of things as I am purely based in the history department but I can have a stab at the others. Though, the fact I am not aware of the ESH may something about its links to the history faculty as a whole... Equally though I personally have very little to do with 'the faculty' I have been on some of their training courses but otherwise my connections are with my supervisor and my relevant seminar groups ie: early modern Europe, Medieval Europe, Modern Britain. And you can go to any of the graduate seminar groups you think are relevant though most people have one 'main' seminar group and then maybe others they go to occasionally.

Can't remember when funding decisions came through - think it may have been a few weeks after the January application deadline decisions were made. Don't know how many PHd students get funding I'm afraid.
College is much less important for graduate students than undergraduates. You're supervision is faculty organised so the college can just be a place where you get library/food/accomodation or you can get really involved in the MCR - up to you. Obviously there is variation in terms of how many years youre guaranteed accomodation for, extra funds available, food, size of MCR etc.
There is a residency requirement - you have to live within 25 (I think) miles of Carfax (the centre of Oxford) for 6 (I think) terms of your PHd. So basically two years in Oxford. I don't think it is stated that your first year has to be one of those years. Personally though, I would recommend being in Oxford for your first year as there are orientation sessions, seminars etc that are your opportunity to meet other people who are just starting at the point when you're all in the same boat. Ifyou are not in Oxford you may miss out on some of that not to mention missing college MCR fresher's events
Yup, it is perfectly normal to have a conditional offer if you havent finished your masters and I would imagine they will hold you to terms of the offer (I applied post masters so didn't have that issue)

Finally, if you haven't come across it I think there is an Oxford graduate applicants thread in the postgraduate section of the TSR forums.

Hope this helps!

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 915

shoshin

10

Didn't realise how much I liked the Faculty Library till they said they want to close it :frown:

Reply 916

Original post by shoshin

Didn't realise how much I liked the Faculty Library till they said they want to close it :frown:

Agreed. I don't work there, but if all the people who do invade the Rad cam, I will be very peeved. What are they thinking?!?

Reply 917

Mook

OP

9

Original post by Incarnadine91

Agreed. I don't work there, but if all the people who do invade the Rad cam, I will be very peeved. What are they thinking?!?

I haven't been following this closely, but what is going to happen about being able to borrow books? It's all very well moving them to the Rad Cam - although even that is annoying - but being able to borrow books from the HFL was really important during my degree. One of the main perks of a History degree is that you organise your study time yourself, which is much harder to do if you can only use books in a reading room. College libraries' History provision often (in my experience) tends to be skewed towards the period specialities of the in-house tutors, so they can vary from having all of your reading list to virtually nothing.

Reply 918

nulli tertius

21

Original post by Mook

I haven't been following this closely, but what is going to happen about being able to borrow books? It's all very well moving them to the Rad Cam - although even that is annoying - but being able to borrow books from the HFL was really important during my degree. One of the main perks of a History degree is that you organise your study time yourself, which is much harder to do if you can only use books in a reading room. College libraries' History provision often (in my experience) tends to be skewed towards the period specialities of the in-house tutors, so they can vary from having all of your reading list to virtually nothing.

The RSL incorporated the Hooke and became a lending library. I suspect the same will happen with the HFL.

There seems to have been a power grab/economy drive to get rid of separate library management in the faculties and bring all university library provision under the Bod.

It does mean that individual academics will have less say over collecting policies. Effectively the chains of command only meet in Council and the VCs office.

Reply 919