Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The economics course looks very similar to how we do it, except here there's no actual econometric stuff in the first year.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajp100688)
    Apparently they'll offer bursaries including 100% fee bursaries to those who warrant them from low income backgrounds. However that doesn't really change anything. If I was from a low income background and had triple A's I'd be looking to get into Oxbridge, not some for profit squatters in the UOL. I'm surprised the UOL even cut a deal with them, the last thing we need in Senate House is a bunch of extreme Eton educated rahs.

    Looks god awful. Tons of theory about historiography, a whole bunch of classical literature which belongs in a Classics degree and such thrilling subjects as Blasphemy, irreligion and the English Enlightenment 1650-1720.

    Ferguson is only a visiting professor too, the other history professors mentioned don't elicit much enthusiasm.
    But that's a good thing? Why is studying a lot of historiography bad? History, to a lot of people, seems to be about learning what happened when, rather than adopting a methodological way of looking at the world, so it seems to me like a step in the right direction. I think the module options are definitely limited though, but that doesn't seem too surprising considering it's new.

    Anyway, the possibility of 100% bursaries and possibly courses costing something like £7,200 a year seems decent. I'm very interested now, to be honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ajp100688)
    I'd still rather not pay £18k p/a for them, considering you get the same degree I got for £9k overall. I mean it'd be great to have one on one tutition with Niall Ferguson but it's not worth that much and won't affect my career prospects. Plus the History curriculum they have up there totally wastes Ferguson's talents.

    Also the university title is awful. Should totally have called it Prince Phillip College London.
    Thats actually even worse, but I agree the name is quite dodgy.

    There is no obvious gap in the market, since the UK hardly has a shortage of great humanities/social science based universities, but the oxbridge style with high fees worked for Buckingham, the difference there being that entry requirements were much, much lower.

    And agreed, Ferguson is wasted with the current course content.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    The Economics course - the first year maths/stats looks similar to here [although it's one paper here]. The fact they've bundled the micro/macro into one course makes me doubt the depth of it, while there seems to be less emphasis on placing the theory in real world context, as we do with both politics and history. The micro/macro description for second and third year looks like the stuff we've covered this year. It just seems a bit, well, average.
    Agreed, it looks pretty underwhelming.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    But that's a good thing? Why is studying a lot of historiography bad? History, to a lot of people, seems to be about learning what happened when, rather than adopting a methodological way of looking at the world, so it seems to me like a step in the right direction. I think the module options are definitely limited though, but that doesn't seem too surprising considering it's new.

    Anyway, the possibility of 100% bursaries and possibly courses costing something like £7,200 a year seems decent. I'm very interested now, to be honest.
    Historians eschew theory because we don't deal in abstract terms. The people we write about are or were real people with real emotions and real actions. Historiography is the art of historical navel gazing; yes it has its place but people who spend their lives studying only the writings of other historians aren't historians at all. They're glorified literary critics and deserved to be exposed as such.
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    I think I will apply even if I'm at university just to see if I get in
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    What is History? :ninja:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    It was more that you said supervison (like a tab) but partly corrected to tutorial (like an Oxonian). I'd rather have a tute than a supe.
    I hadn't even noticed I'd done that - probably because I had just read the blurb on the NCH website - you'd never catch me saying tutorial in real life.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Historians eschew theory because we don't deal in abstract terms. The people we write about are or were real people with real emotions and real actions. Historiography is the art of historical navel gazing; yes it has its place but people who spend their lives studying only the writings of other historians aren't historians at all. They're glorified literary critics and deserved to be exposed as such.
    I see, but it seems to me historians don't eschew theory at all. Historians seem to spend more time talking about why x happened and y didn't, rather than saying what happened. There would be very little to teach if all a History degree involved was cataloguing facts; I'm not saying people should spend all of their time reading other historians, but I also don't see what is so wrong with having a History degree which attempts to teach students how to interpret those facts rather than simply knowing what happened when.
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    Reading calls them (essay) tutorials.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    What is History? :ninja:
    History is what was and what will be.
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    History is what was and what will be.
    It was a reference to the Carr book as it fitted with the conversation and could also be taken as the question. Clearly it was lost on you
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    I see, but it seems to me historians don't eschew theory at all. Historians seem to spend more time talking about why x happened and y didn't, rather than saying what happened. There would be very little to teach if all a History degree involved was cataloguing facts; I'm not saying people should spend all of their time reading other historians, but I also don't see what is so wrong with having a History degree which attempts to teach students how to interpret those facts rather than simply knowing what happened when.
    People come to their interpretations in their own way, which is what makes historians idiosyncratic. To understand why something happened the historian will make a choice about what sources to seek out to do so. A lot of it is by instinct rather than following a particular theory. History has never been about cataloguing facts, that is a popular, media driven misconception of what History is and what it ever has been.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    It was a reference to the Carr book as it fitted with the conversation and could also be taken as the question. Clearly it was lost on you
    Ah but you see, you could turn Carr's question two ways: what is history(?) and what is History (?) for the two are not the same.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    People come to their interpretations in their own way, which is what makes historians idiosyncratic. To understand why something happened the historian will make a choice about what sources to seek out to do so. A lot of it is by instinct rather than following a particular theory. History has never been about cataloguing facts, that is a popular, media driven misconception of what History is and what it ever has been.
    Perhaps. My opinions of History are based on how I've had to study it so far though, and I can't say much about degrees as I'm only at A Level, and that (cataloguing facts) is exactly how I've experienced it so far. And I was put off studying it at university because the undergraduate courses seem rather similar.

    (Although, I might just be really annoyed at the moment cos I have an exam on Friday and I'm hating the revision.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    People come to their interpretations in their own way, which is what makes historians idiosyncratic. To understand why something happened the historian will make a choice about what sources to seek out to do so. A lot of it is by instinct rather than following a particular theory. History has never been about cataloguing facts, that is a popular, media driven misconception of what History is and what it ever has been.

    Where does this 'instinct' come from though? To use a textbook saying, we all see data 'through a cloud of theory' even if this is not explicit. I think theory is fundamental, it guides the very research programme of the historian etc. and determines how they will interpret a source (although this is obviously a two-way process, data informs on theory too)
    • PS Reviewer
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Ah but you see, you could turn Carr's question two ways: what is history(?) and what is History (?) for the two are not the same.
    True enough. I think he was answering the latter (you will doubtless correct me here), I've not read the book in some years though - I will re-read it one afternoon in the summer as I will probably get more from it now. I'm pretty sure I have In Defence of History somewhere as well actually.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    What is History? :ninja:
    what has precceded what is now, and what we must learn from in order that we progress in future
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Geraldine)
    Where does this 'instinct' come from though? To use a textbook saying, we all see data 'through a cloud of theory' even if this is not explicit. I think theory is fundamental, it guides the very research programme of the historian etc. and determines how they will interpret a source (although this is obviously a two-way process, data informs on theory too)
    Right. Yes, see this is the kind of academic language that screws with History completely. The instinctive decision, on my part, to study History through the actions of ordinary people came from a reaction to the High Politics of my undergraduate course and from a desire to understand my origins as a person. The stories I grew up with from my grandparents were about the Great Depression, single-roomed tenements in Glasgow and so on. There was no theoretical guidance as to how to do it simply a sense of what ordinary people have left behind. And yes you are then drawn to books that have similar aims - Hobsbawm's Labouring Men or E.P. Thompson's Making of the English Working Class - but this comes later.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by D.R.E)
    But that's a good thing? Why is studying a lot of historiography bad? History, to a lot of people, seems to be about learning what happened when, rather than adopting a methodological way of looking at the world, so it seems to me like a step in the right direction. I think the module options are definitely limited though, but that doesn't seem too surprising considering it's new.

    Anyway, the possibility of 100% bursaries and possibly courses costing something like £7,200 a year seems decent. I'm very interested now, to be honest.
    Pretty much what Adorno said. If you study History at University you should be taught how to correctly construct historical arguments, how to use sources and where to find them and also the history of the various subjects you pick. By combining these skills you learn how to write history, how to analyse it for it's relevance to the present day and how to deconstruct others arguments and see the truth behind them. Also because of it's very interdisciplinary approach via learning History you may immerse yourself in fields such as Economics, gender studies, military theory, psychology, philosophy etc. People misunderstand just how much of an all rounder you need to be to write good history. It's not simply a case of knowing X happened to Y in Z year. This is one of the best skills History teaches you, the ability to take a vast amount of information, filter it, construct a narrative around it and place emphasis on the points which are most important.

    The study of historiography and 'theory' has little use to it unless you want to write a snoozefest of a book like 'What is History'. An English student could go through 6 history books and write a report on the current state of historiography on say WW1. It's not teaching any of the skills you need to be a historian or a good writer (one of the many side effects of being a historian) it's just teaching you to be a literary critic. Pointless.


    (Original post by spidergareth)
    Thats actually even worse, but I agree the name is quite dodgy.

    There is no obvious gap in the market, since the UK hardly has a shortage of great humanities/social science based universities, but the oxbridge style with high fees worked for Buckingham, the difference there being that entry requirements were much, much lower.

    And agreed, Ferguson is wasted with the current course content.
    Heh the name was meant to be tongue in cheek. I think the obvious name would be Queen Elizabeth College London but I doubt the Queen would want to be associated with something that's rather upper class and wealth orientated.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever been hacked?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.