The Classics Society Mk II

I believe you have. I'm not that active on here so I just post every now and again! Do you have facebook. I'm keen to get to know some people who I may be potentially going to uni with ^_^

To do today: Reasearch to what extent Augustus maintained republican traditions.

Actually Classicists who get exposed early on (i.e A levels) no non Classicy subjects like Eng Lit, Anc Hist, Economics etc do quite a bit better: more chance of well developed critical ability without learning the (often unfounded) assumptions of the discipline. I know some of my Anc Hist lecturers always seemed to think so and I kind of see it myself.

I completely agree. I studied maths at A level along with Latin and Greek and I feel that it has allowed me to approach classics from another viewpoint.

Oh I can definitely see that. I actually think that Maths is the best (pre-Uni) preparation for Comp. Philology. I know pretty much all my work in this area benefits massively from the ability to deal with (reasonably) complex Mathematics and Excel.

Seriously Excel is a god send for linguistics. God bless you Microsoft. I can stick 500 words in and use its search function to find any irregularities. I remember the first time we were shown how to do this we were like

Plus Maths is great training for ANYTHING.

Actually Classicists who get exposed early on (i.e A levels) no non Classicy subjects like Eng Lit, Anc Hist, Economics etc do quite a bit better: more chance of well developed critical ability without learning the (often unfounded) assumptions of the discipline. I know some of my Anc Hist lecturers always seemed to think so and I kind of see it myself.

I know pretty much all my work in this area benefits massively from the ability to deal with (reasonably) complex Mathematics and Excel.

Yes I have facebook. I'm not gonna post a link to my fb here but here's the oxford 2012 applicants group - you can find me therein http://www.facebook.com/groups/oxford2012entry/. I'm Grainne B.

I should totally be doing some notes on hippolytus or Catullus or something....unfortunately one of my first exams is Modern History (Ireland 1900-25) and it's just so boring. At least studying WWII (which I swear is all I did for the last 4 years in history, only with slightly different focuses) was vaguely interesting. Really wish my school did Ancient history

/rant

A lot of what Keith Hopkins wrote seems really interesting to me, because of his background in sociology. It seems a shame that the disciplines are so discrete and there's ever greater specialisation (which, obviously, also has its positives) that those kind of switches are still very rare. (And, of course, very few sociologists would have the knowledge to be able to switch, whereas they'd probably more easily be able to move into modern history or something.)

However, I studied A-Level economics, and I can confirm that it too has its fair share of unfounded assumptions (as no doubt do other subjects). But being exposed to the dusty old axiomata of many different subjects does at least allow you to see their often mutual incompatibility, which may be useful.

What kind of complex maths do you do? Statistics, chi-squared and that kind of thing?

I've sent you a request.

My school doesn't do a Classics A2 so I'm just reading around the syllabus and am going to sit it for fun along with the A2s I'm studying in college. It could go very wrong but as it's only a hobby at present I don't mind.

I'm studying RS and Philosophy for A2 and have already sat Music

I actually do Maths A level. I did AS physics last year too.

ergh I don't know, I think it's just a general frustration with Irish history and how it's taught. Since I'm in a Catholic school in NI there's a very, very, very obvious bias that runs through everything and trying to avoid my own political views coming through in my essays (in case my examiner is a mad loyalist) is very difficult. I have family connections to the Irish Volunteers and IRA (and the free staters) so it's very hard to be objective (as do many of the people in my class, and, indeed, my teacher). So, thinking critically? Avoiding unfounded assumptions?
I think not

There are other options on the exam that could have been taught; teaching the French Revolution or something would have been more interesting - I just generally think GCSE and A level have far too much emphasis on 20th century history tbh.

Cool - I hope it goes well for you! Self teaching is where it's at I was actually too scared to attempt to self teach Classics after I saw the 'recommended' books lists nevertheless good luck

So will you be doing course IIA or B then? Do you know what college you're going to or are you the person who said they had an open offer? (I can't remember, sorry )

I'm going to be doing IIA. I love the Greek language a bit more than Latin but I prefer Latin history/literature better so that's what I'm aiming for :3

I do have an open offer. The suspense is killing me. If I don't get the grades I'll NEVER know what college and it leaves applying for accommodation a bit late which sucks because I want to apply for a room on the ground floor preferably!

D'ya know when offer holders apply for accommodation?

Reading some more of 'The Aeneid' later. Books 5 and 6

Oh yes, and the beautiful Bethany's going to be talking about priestesses and poetesses tonight [at 9pm on BBC Two]; it seems to be a fecund season for popular classics docs at the moment.

I said this quote. Why yes, I do believe I did.

Obviously, mainly because its considerably easier. It is a shame though.

What makes you say this?

Modern history? cultural connection, greater familiarity, cleaner sources etc all make it much easier to teach to large numbers of people. Which is essentially what pre-U education ought to be about. Easy to digest content while getting across increasingly complex principles so that students will eventually be able to go on and think for themselves.

One of the criticisms often levied at the new Class Civ. A level is precisely that it does a poor job at teaching anything about the ancient world and doesn't get the critical element down as good as history, English etc. As it stands its best use is for someone interested in Classics/not sure about it and want to try it rather than as prep for a degree. Its a new subject though, as you can understand, the first iterations of any syllabus are always a bit shaky.

Generally though dealing with ancient stuff requires a completely different mind set to dealing with modern stuff. Actually if you've ever had the (unfortunate?) opportunity of speaking with a few History seniors/grad students/lecturers there seems to be a very definite bias against the REALLY modern stuff i.e Victorians and onwards as being sooo much easier even at degree level.

I find it weird to accept that, for example, one of my friends who specialised in 12-400's Europe, mainly Franco-German relations, was required to know three languages (French, Old German and dialects, and of course Latin) as well as having a good grasp of various sources, archaeology etc worked like a maniac and got a solid if middling 2.i whereas another friend of mine did the Victorians to the 1960s (!!) and basically spent all their time reading Dicken's and other crap and scored quite a bit higher. I know which one I'd think of as intelligent. Hint: its the one that can chart the development of certain heretical Christian sects and their affect on the centralisation of European nations through several languages.

Many people say, and it seems to stand to reason, that those periods are also more relevant. The history stuff we started with when we were young was Greeks and Romans. You CAN deal with that stuff at a simple level. And you can go into much detail and intellectual discussion on modern topics. don't really know what you're on about.

I had an interview for a scholarship this morning. A lady in the jury was teaching History. She actually asked me, if I think history can be relevant to modern days, why I did ancient history, that remore stuff. Someone I knew was rejected from a scholarship for her PhD in Ancient History with the justification that her subject is irrelevant.

Of course this is sad. But it doesn't mean that you have to be equally stupid and disregard other disciplines. What do you think where we'll get if we do only Classics?
This morning, the same lady was puzzled when I said I don't think it's the end of our culture if people learn less Greek at school. NO, I DON'T think that everybody should do a degree in Classics. That would be quite desastrous.

Quick question:
I fancied a little bit of Ovid tonight, because I'm not likely to do any actual revision (Charles I, yawn) and I feel I haven't done anything classical since my interviews. Want something quick and easy, so I'm on Perseus, and I've got two English translations of the Metamorphoses to chose from: Arthur Golding, 1567, or Brookes More, 1922. I figure I'm probably going to go for the more modern one (it's not like I'm going at it from an academic perspective, I want some bedtime reading) but wanted to check I'm not missing out on a real gem with the Golding.

Tl;dr: Is Arthur Golding's 1567 translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses worth the extra effort (i.e. dealing with 16th century spellings of English) if it's just light reading?