Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Linda)
    my parents are paying for my undergraduate studies, and simply refused to let me apply for philosophy... We compromised with PPE. I could always drop economics the third year and do eight philosophy papers and two in politics or something like that... But it's not like I'll get in anyways.
    Awww, that's a pity. My dad keeps saying it's the best degree I CAN do! He's very excited that I'm going to do philosophy
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    TOK is very different to Oxbridge philosophy though. I mean I love ToK, it's my favourite subject but the prospect of doing loads of logic exercises \o/ doesn't exactly appeal to me. The economics courses are also very different (with university economics being MUCH more maths based). At the end of the day though, I'm just waffling out loud, just do whatever course really appeals to YOU xthup
    I love formal logic! And calculus! Seriously, I could just sit around doing logic puzzles and finding derivatives from the first principle all they long! I'm doing my option in further calculus and right about where I thought nothing could be more fun than derrivation, there it was; intergration! And I love the way math is taught. You get presented the theory, and then you get a problem to solve on your own using the theory. It's like a game. there are certain rules and then you just have to use your imagination to apply the rules to certain set problems, and doing it is fun, fun, fun!!! I do hope they give me some logic puzzles at the interview...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Linda)
    I love formal logic! And calculus! Seriously, I could just sit around doing logic puzzles and finding derivatives from the first principle all they long! I'm doing my option in further calculus and right about where I thought nothing could be more fun than derrivation, there it was; intergration! And I love the way math is taught. You get presented the theory, and then you get a problem to solve on your own using the theory. It's like a game. there are certain rules and then you just have to use your imagination to apply the rules to certain set problems, and doing it is fun, fun, fun!!! I do hope they give me some logic puzzles at the interview...
    You strange strange girl . I'm definitly more of an "artsy fartsy" type myself
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    You strange strange girl . I'm definitly more of an "artsy fartsy" type myself
    I figured, you must be, applying to read history!
    Personally, I don't like the way history is taught in school (not in my school anyways). Lectures upon lectures, study only to memorize dates and facts, no room for objections as to what we're being taught. I like philosophy of history much more (Carr is great!). I'm sick of writing "limitation-bias" on source evaluations, I want to write limitations of knowledge gained trough reading historical documents! (My history teacher was rather upset when I did not mention that Marx' the Communist Manifesto was biased and subjective etc. I argued that Marx is not neccesarily the answer to what communism is, or even should be, debated the nature of it .Marx claimed it was an historical analysis of class struggle and capitalism, wich, in my opinin, could classify it as a secondary source, hehe... I guess I'm being to ToKish for him, the poor old man). But he did love my final draft of it (modifed to fit convention). Sad thing is, I didn't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Linda)
    I figured, you must be, applying to read history!
    Personally, I don't like the way history is taught in school (not in my school anyways). Lectures upon lectures, study only to memorize dates and facts, no room for objections as to what we're being taught. I like philosophy of history much more (Carr is great!). I'm sick of writing "limitation-bias" on source evaluations, I want to write limitations of knowledge gained trough reading historical documents! (My history teacher was rather upset when I did not mention that Marx' the Communist Manifesto was biased and subjective etc. I argued that Marx is not neccesarily the answer to what communism is, or even should be, debated the nature of it .Marx claimed it was an historical analysis of class struggle and capitalism, wich, in my opinin, could classify it as a secondary source, hehe... I guess I'm being to ToKish for him, the poor old man). But he did love my final draft of it (modifed to fit convention). Sad thing is, I didn't.
    Oh I hate the way history is thought in my school as well. Our history teacher made no secret about the fact that his teaching philosophy was “listen, read, regurgitate”- simple as. I’m lucky to have a great relationship with my school’s UCAS person (she thought me English for IGCSE and is also a history teacher) who literally told me to completely ignore my teacher and get on with my own reading/exploring of the subject xthup. When are you going to be in Oxford then?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    Oh I hate the way history is thought in my school as well. Our history teacher made no secret about the fact that his teaching philosophy was “listen, read, regurgitate”- simple as. I’m lucky to have a great relationship with my school’s UCAS person (she thought me English for IGCSE and is also a history teacher) who literally told me to completely ignore my teacher and get on with my own reading/exploring of the subject xthup. When are you going to be in Oxford then?
    December 7th-10th I think...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, and the history teacher got so baffled when I tried to argue that "history is contemporary", hehe. Boy, did I have fun that day
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Allrighty then, it would be nice if my college got around to inviting me to interview, but hey you live in hope I suppose.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Linda)
    Oh, and the history teacher got so baffled when I tried to argue that "history is contemporary", hehe. Boy, did I have fun that day
    Postmodernism /o\. *shakes head*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    Allrighty then, it would be nice if my college got around to inviting me to interview, but hey you live in hope I suppose.
    They haven't invited me over, haven't even sent off written work yet (will tomorrow, by DHL or something).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Linda)
    They haven't invited me over, haven't even sent off written work yet (will tomorrow, by DHL or something).
    Yea, I was thinking about doing that, it seemed a bit expensive though :\. So I decided to stay up until 4am on Sunday night/Monday morning to finish the thing so I could send it on Monday. Wahey /o\
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by serendipity)
    And to do what?

    Mine's Nottingham to do English Lit - it'll never happen!
    Oxford..Law Ba
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    Postmodernism /o\. *shakes head*
    Postmodernism? Huh? It's a famous quote by Benedetto Croce "all history is contemporary", haven't you read your Carr...?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Linda)
    Postmodernism? Huh? It's a famous quote by Benedetto Croce "all history is contemporary", haven't you read your Carr...?
    I've read Carr yea, he is very old hat though :\. Postmodernists have seized on this mantra that "all history is contemporary" in order to argue that we can only see history through our own (contemporary) eyes. They argue that it is impossible for a historian to "transport himself" into the past and look at history with what is usally reffered to as a "historical perspective" whereby all events are relative to the time and climate (political, social and otherwise) in which they occurred. The conclusion of this arguement is therefore that studying history is pointless :P. I apologise if I managed to completly and utterly miss your point though xthup
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kildare)
    I've read Carr yea, he is very old hat though :\. Postmodernists have seized on this mantra that "all history is contemporary" in order to argue that we can only see history through our own (contemporary) eyes. They argue that it is impossible for a historian to "transport himself" into the past and look at history with what is usally reffered to as a "historical perspective" whereby all events are relative to the time and climate (political, social and otherwise) in which they occurred. The conclusion of this arguement is therefore that studying history is pointless :P. I apologise if I managed to completly and utterly miss your point though xthup
    No, except for the conclusion, perhaps. But the idea developed in the 20th century, therefore the "huh, postmodernism" remark. It doesn't make studying history pointless; it's just a limitation to what we can actually know from studying historical works.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Classics at Oxford is my first choice, otherwise Durham.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    You are of course right though, Carr does indeed refer to Croce's remark in "What is History". It's just not a view I personally agree with as I feel that history can only be examined history can only be examined "historically", considered all events in the light of the situation at the time of the event's happening. I think any history which tries to examine the past with one eye to the present is prone to bias as it often assumes ceteris paribus when this is never really the case. Of couse the great thing about studying history is that all of these issues are open to live debate and people are free to draw their own conclusions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Linda)
    No, except for the conclusion, perhaps. But the idea developed in the 20th century, therefore the "huh, postmodernism" remark. It doesn't make studying history pointless; it's just a limitation to what we can actually know from studying historical works.
    I think a good historian can rise above his limited vision of his own situation in society and history however...At the end of the day it did really happen and we can, if we are scruopulous and self-critical find out how it happened and reach some tenable though always less than final conclusions about what it mean.

    nottingham medicine
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Oxford to read PPE

    Otherwise a tie between Bath to read Economics and Politics, or Southampton to read Economics.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

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.