Is History the most pointless subject to do a degree in?

So many tools on TSR. Every time someone wants to undermine a subject here, it's always

1) I could learn that for free on the Internet; and

2) What specific skills does X give you? What career does X qualify you for?

I have a friend doing his final year of a four-year law programme.

He isn't optimistic about finding a job. Apparently there are a lot more law graduates than there are law jobs.

Best of luck to you. Hopefully in reality you're a much more eloquent and well-informed individual than you come across as on here

Maths gets far more complicated than that, and you know it.

History does not get more complicated than recalling what happened in the past.

I am

Beginning to become fairly certain you're a troll, but nevertheless...

Go on then, I challenge you to do so. I'd be interested to see just how well you successfully 'learn' it.

In answer to your question: your argument was that you can learn all there is to learn about history on wikipedia. I just gave you an example of why you can't. Your argument is invalid.

They could have done better degrees ad got the same jobs more easily and still nourished their interest in history via Wikipedia.

I'm not a science student.


Could I find a cure for cancer using the internet in my room? No.


Science is far more useful.

There's no need to really 'learn' it though, especially in this day and age of mobile internet. If at a particular moment I'm interested say WWII I can spend few hours reading about it on the internet, satisfying my interest.

If I ever needed to recall anything specific, not that I would because its pointless, I could quickly get my phone out and refresh my knowledge of said thing.

History is only useful to satiate interest.

But if it doesn't give you any specific job skills whats the point of doing it? Just feed your interest with Wikipedia.

But people with a history degree could probably spell cycle, and know the difference between your and you're. Forgive me for calling you out as an idiot.

Maths gets far more complicated than that, and you know it.

History does not get more complicated than recalling what happened in the past.

i like history for its vast array of answers and the way in which arguements are deduced and to say history is stupid is rather silly seeing as everything around us is formed by events in history ie. Margret Thatcher. It also provides a persons anaylitcal views to grow for instance i could have flamed you for hating on history but i'd rather attempt to find the logic for your ideas

But i also like science for its direct approach because it allows to me understand how things work in a certain way and why they do

So what sort of "better degree" do you do?

I STRONGLY disagree with OP.

The most common misconception people have about History is that it is an assortment of chronologically arranged facts that are "out there", simply waiting for us to "go out" and learn them, forever closed to reassessment, revaluation or fresh analysis.

This however, is not true. Not only is new information constantly coming to the fore as a result of declassification of primary documents (as in the Ottoman and Russian Cold War archives) and archaeology, but new intellectual trends and analytical tools (such as post-colonial theory and spatial politics) are constantly emerging as well, which are helping us to look at these historical facts in a new light, helping us gain a more nuanced and more balanced understanding of the past.

These developments are at the very cutting edge of Historical Studies. And as far as I can tell, these developments are only discussed and engaged with in higher education settings and not on "wikipedia" or in secondary schools, the latter specifically using a very nationalistic, watered down and somewhat less nuanced version of history.

Not to mention, being a historian today has increasingly meant mastering a language or two (sometimes esoteric ones like Ancient Greek, Classical Arabic or Ottoman Turkish) before one can begin to search the archives for primary sources which are the building blocks of a historian's craft. These languages are highly specialized and can only be learned in universities or extremely specialized institutes. Reading and analysing these documents also requires the skills developed in a higher education setting.

So if someone wants to be a historian today, he has to get undergraduate and post-graduate degrees in the subject.

Lastly, all this reading and understanding complex processes and arguments inculcate in a person the sort of problem solving and thinking skills employers like. One cannot build such a formidable intellectual and analytical base by reading facts off "wikipedia" which is a non-peer reviewed, basic knowledge database for use to acquire "quick" facts.

It has its uses but to suggest its a substitute for a degree is ludicrous.

I'm a man of leisure.

THIS.

It's interesting how many people who think that history is just the pointless recitation of facts also seem prepared to blindly accept one version of the events presented to them. People need to wake up.

There's no need to really 'learn' it though, especially in this day and age of mobile internet. If at a particular moment I'm interested say WWII I can spend few hours reading about it on the internet, satisfying my interest.

If I ever needed to recall anything specific, not that I would because its pointless, I could quickly get my phone out and refresh my knowledge of said thing.

History is only useful to satiate interest.