History Or English Literature A Level ??Watch
which one is more interesting ? I'm better at lit but I've heard that history there's actually a formula or a method to answer the questions whereas english lit doesn't , so this gives the impression that history is easier. But the topics I'll study at a level are Tsarist Russia and The Making Of The Modern Britain (AQA exam board) neither appeal to me but if it's easy them I'm willing to suffer but english lit (OCR exam board) does seem like something would interest me more it might be harder. Which is more highly regarded? Which would be more helpful with medicine and essay writing? Which gives more knowledge? & Overall which is better ?
Trust me, if you don't like it, then it won't be easier. If you don't have the interest, you'll find it hard to focus in lessons, work outside school, and learn key information (as well as practice). Regardless of 'difficulty', do the subject you prefer, because by the end of the year, you'll be happy you did.
If you have a good interest in the topics you will be doing in History, I would go for that. I did English Lang and Lit, and History and out of both, enjoy the latter much more. Then again, I am biased as I've always loved History. It is a subject that has a method and structure to the essay far more than English imo, but then again as I did Lang and Lit, I may be wrong. I had friends who did both Lit and History and they all preferred History a lot more. At the end of the day, it really depends on what you feel you would do better in and what would keep your interest because both are fairly heavy subjects. Sorry, I couldn't be more helpful!
I'd suggest doing English Literature. It's as hard as History but respected slightly more. As well as this, I'm sure you'd find the texts you study in English to be far more interesting than that of the topics in History (which don't interest you).
No, not really. I studied the Tudor dynasty and Nazi Germany, so different subjects to what you would be doing. I really enjoyed it and didn't find the work at all strenuous. Nevertheless, some in the class did find it difficult especially because there was so much to learn for the exam. If you have a keen interest and are prepared to put the hours in, it shouldn't be a problem.
As someone who studies both, history is actually a lot more reading (and work).
Which one do you prefer ? & which do you find easier ?
Ohh that's surprising, I would of though Lit would have been. Do you ever find that you struggle with answering the questions in lit and feel like you're just shooting in the dark with no real direction because that is like the only thing that I fear about english lit (the lack of structure and direction when answering exam questions) & why do you think lit is more respected ?
The problem I have is answering the questions (especially with the "how far do you agree with so and so" questions) & exam technique. But the fact that you didn't find it strenuous sounds quite promising. What other subjects did you take ?
Both are equally respected, I don't feel that as much in the AS; in the AQA paper it's very easy to find a general structure. You usually end up reading 2 books, 2 sets of poems and 2 plays for your coursework per year. History is my favourite, but I would point out the English grade boundaries can be very low.