History at Oxbridge
alex skilton
> i'm thinking of applying to cambridge or oxford to do history, but im
> apprehensive about the fact that i am not a walking-talking history
> text book. at school, we've mainly concentrated on modern history
> (nazi germany, cold war) but i fear that i will need to show that i am
> familiar with the crusades, or richard III to get across my
> enthusiasm. the main reason for applying is that i love doing the
> history that we are doing now, at school, but im unsure as to whether
> i will need to cram the history of the world into my head to show that
> im interested...
>
> please help! do i need to have such an extensive knowledge of history
> to apply, and get in?
Take a look at the profiles for History on http://oxbridge-info.co.uk ...
they might be of interest to you.
HTH,
--
alex
visit http://oxbridge-info.co.uk
[ sponsored by waveflex.com ]
Phil Martin
There's another thread called History at Oxford that's recent, see
below somewhere. But that's more specific about Oxford and variation
across colleges.
On the coverage of history, from what I've been told .....you arent
expected to be a walking reference book of world history from
prehistory to now, but they do expect some breadth of interest. I
can't imagine there would be any problem with a specific interest area
though. However you refer to 20th century topics and I have feeling
that both Oxford and Cambridge dont't particularly emphasise this
period. Places like York and Bristol have strong history with a more
recent emphasis, I think - anyone confirm. Look through the coverage
of history at both unis from their web sites. You should then be able
to judge whether they offer enough of the 20th centuury stuff for you.
Realistically in the First year you/we're going to have to do more
broadly based stuff.
Only going on what I've found out and been advised but hopefully
others can confirm.
Becca Taylor
> apprehensive about the fact that i am not a walking-talking history
> text book.
If you knew everything already thay wouldn't be able to teach you anything!!
My advice would be to check out exactly what the unis cover on their course
(based on experience with english scholars in Oxford I'd say that they'd
both concentrate more on pre-20th century stuff in history too) and see
whether you'd like it or not. With an arts subject like english or history
you really need to be enthusiastic or interested in the stuff you're
studying because you get so few timetabled hours that you need to be really
disciplined to force yourself to read up on something you don't like.
If you do decide to apply or ox or cam you probably would need a greater
knowledge of history - see the oxbridge info site for past applicants'
experiences on this one.
Becca
katy lindemann
"Nick Masters" <bigfoots...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c73cc90.02031...@posting.google.com...
> hi,
>
> i'm thinking of applying to cambridge or oxford to do history, but im
> apprehensive about the fact that i am not a walking-talking history
> (nazi germany, cold war) but i fear that i will need to show that i am
> familiar with the crusades, or richard III to get across my
> enthusiasm. the main reason for applying is that i love doing the
> history that we are doing now, at school, but im unsure as to whether
> i will need to cram the history of the world into my head to show that
> im interested...
>
> please help! do i need to have such an extensive knowledge of history
> to apply, and get in?
I'm in my second year at Somerville (Oxford) studying history, and although
I happened not to have done any C20th history before I came here, I'm the
exception to the rule - loads of people in my year had only ever done C20th
history (exactly the same stuff you're studying) and they got in and did
fine.
The main thing tutors are interested in is potential: as long as you know
your C20th stuff well, and can argue and think convincingly about it, you'll
be in a far better position than trying to talk about the Crusades when
you've only just looked at it for the first time.
The way the course works is that during your 3 years, you have to study at
least one period of medieval (pre 1300), one period of early modern
(1300-1700) and one period of modern history (post 1700). Some people get
these requirements over and done with in their first year- so a few of my
friends who only ever did Nazi Germany etc and really wanted to specialise
in it are now doing practically only C20th for their finals.
Whilst they will want to see an eagerness to learn about other periods of
history, they certainly won't expect you to know loads and loads about
periods you've never studied - they're much more interested in *how* you
think about what you have studied.
Hope that helps!
Katy
Gaurav Sharma
>
> thanks a lot for the advice/info you guys gave; i feel much more
> confident now! just one last teeny weeny question...... what is there
> to decide between cam and ox for history? both have the same broad,
> wide, range of courses, both have good research ratings, i live the
> same distance away from each etc. (i could go on!): is it just a
> question of which colleges take my fancy?
>
> thanks again for the help,
> Nick
Cambridge was recently rated higher for research in History than Oxford.
Not that it matters/means much, just thought I'd let you know in case it
helps you decide.
HTH,
--
Gaurav, Computing1/IC
http://www.gauravsharma.com
Matthew M. Huntbach
> i'm thinking of applying to cambridge or oxford to do history, but im
> apprehensive about the fact that i am not a walking-talking history
> text book. at school, we've mainly concentrated on modern history
> (nazi germany, cold war) but i fear that i will need to show that i am
> familiar with the crusades, or richard III to get across my
> enthusiasm. the main reason for applying is that i love doing the
> history that we are doing now, at school, but im unsure as to whether
> i will need to cram the history of the world into my head to show that
> im interested...
So it really is true what they say, these days "history" at school is
nothing more than endless Nazis and Communists? What a bore - mediaeval
and ancient history is much more fun.
Maybe they still have some old-style history text books in your
public library (or maybe not, seeing the way public libraries have
gone in recent years) which go through history starting at the Stone
Age, which you could read to get a bit of an overall picture. If you
can get through school education these days and not get an overall
picture of this country's history that's shocking!
Apart from that, while I'm sure they wouldn't expect you to be a
complete expert, if you have any real interest in history at all,
surely you would be doing your own reading in it as well as what
is part of the school curriculum. I used to read a lot of history
for pleasure when I was doing my A-levels (which were Maths, Physics
and Chemistry).
Matthew Huntbach
Sophie N
> fellow posters,
>
> thanks a lot for the advice/info you guys gave; i feel much more
> confident now! just one last teeny weeny question...... what is there
> to decide between cam and ox for history? both have the same broad,
> wide, range of courses, both have good research ratings, i live the
> same distance away from each etc. (i could go on!): is it just a
> question of which colleges take my fancy?
>
> thanks again for the help,
> Nick
Nick
From what I can gather, you can argue that Cambridge may be a better
place for History than Oxford. It seems to have a better resourced
History Faculty but whether this makes any measurable difference at
undergraduate level I would doubt. History at Oxford has taken a knock
in the latest research ratings.Both are strong in History although
from what I can detect not particularly so in the 20th century. Don't
forget other places that have very strong History depts - eg Warwick
and LSE both have more emphasis on recent history than Oxford and
Cambridge and score more highly than Oxford in some league tables such
as those developed by the Guardian.
Going through the same decisions as you (although I'm not so bothered
about the 20th century ) the sort of things I've looked at are:
- the place - where would I like to live for three or more years
- the colleges - are there specific places that seem to fit for me
- the course - does the spread of coverage match some of my interests
- the tutors - don't know how crucial this is (Katy - any views??) but
I think it wouldn't be good to go to a college where there wasn't some
match with at least one of the tutors in the main periods you are
interestd in ......or doesn't this really matter.
My decision initially was Oxford, but my tutors are putting other
options to me including abroad. I think there is a slight worry that
Oxford's History needs to make sure it doesn't slip in funding.
The only other factor is that I've been told that there is growing
concern at several unis that there is too much emphasis on issue based
history and recent stuff in some schools...so you need to make sure
you don't get interviewed by someone who is anti, not supportive of,
your interests and it may be that some colleges have a more
traditional approach to the subject than others.
Sophie
James Gregory
"Matthew M. Huntbach" wrote:
> So it really is true what they say, these days "history" at school is
> nothing more than endless Nazis and Communists? What a bore - mediaeval
> and ancient history is much more fun.
>
> Maybe they still have some old-style history text books in your
> public library (or maybe not, seeing the way public libraries have
> gone in recent years) which go through history starting at the Stone
> Age, which you could read to get a bit of an overall picture. If you
> can get through school education these days and not get an overall
> picture of this country's history that's shocking!
>
(this is from when I was at school a couple of years ago now):
Throughout primary and secondary school you study British history from
various periods.
Once you reach GCSE and A-level, courses study one time period in depth.
Exam boards offer different syllabuses studying different time periods,
but as I understand it most schools choose to only offer the 20th
century history syllabus - except in very large schools I don't think
it's practical to offer everyone a choice of which period they want to
study, and as 20th century history is in general most popualr with
students, it ends up with pretty much everyone having to study it.
Undoubtedly there are history syllabuses available at GCSE and A-level
which aren't 20th century history though - and whilst at secondary
school I had no choice to do modern history GCSE, when I moved on to a
Sixth From College I had a choice of 4 different time periods (Ancient,
Medieval, Modern (which means 16th century for some reason), 20th
century).
20th century was the most popular of the choices.
Still, in my anecdotal experience people say they like 20th century
history because they assume it involves tanks and guns and war and
armies and the like, but in reality studying Nazis and communists
actually involves less learning about wars and armies and battles than
does other time periods - that's why I chose 'modern' history at A-level
- I didn't have to endlessly study how kings got into power or gained
popular support or things like that, I got to learn cool stuff about
international trickery and battles and alliances and shenaniganry.
I still got a D though.
James
Matthew M. Huntbach
> "Matthew M. Huntbach" wrote:
> > So it really is true what they say, these days "history" at school is
> > nothing more than endless Nazis and Communists? What a bore - mediaeval
> > and ancient history is much more fun.
> Still, in my anecdotal experience people say they like 20th century
> history because they assume it involves tanks and guns and war and
> armies and the like, but in reality studying Nazis and communists
> actually involves less learning about wars and armies and battles than
> does other time periods - that's why I chose 'modern' history at A-level
> - I didn't have to endlessly study how kings got into power or gained
> popular support or things like that, I got to learn cool stuff about
> international trickery and battles and alliances and shenaniganry.
> I still got a D though.
There's plenty of international trickery and battles and alliances and
shenaniganry in pre-20th century history as well.The development of the
modern British state, roughly coinciding with the 16th and 17th
centuries seems such a crucial and interesting thing, that it's a great
pity it gets overshadowed by endless Nazis and Communists. I am told
it's common to do Nazis and Communists in the first years at
secondary school, Nazis and Communists for GCSE, and Nazis and Communists
for A-level. I suspect Nazis are done endlessly not so much for the
historical value but to try and make the point "look kiddies, don't be
nasty to ethnic minorities".
Matthew Huntbach
Sara Vero
wrote:
>There's plenty of international trickery and battles and alliances and
>shenaniganry in pre-20th century history as well.The development of the
>modern British state, roughly coinciding with the 16th and 17th
>centuries seems such a crucial and interesting thing, that it's a great
>pity it gets overshadowed by endless Nazis and Communists. I am told
>it's common to do Nazis and Communists in the first years at
>secondary school, Nazis and Communists for GCSE, and Nazis and Communists
>for A-level. I suspect Nazis are done endlessly not so much for the
>historical value but to try and make the point "look kiddies, don't be
>nasty to ethnic minorities".
My entire A level history course was the French Revolution. It sounds
really limiting, but it was /absolutely/ fantastic - it's too easy to
think of it as Bastille Day and forget about all of the rest, but we
got to study how it influenced modern political thought right up until
the present day, and there were plenty of wars and scandals and
international intrigue tied up in it, without a Nazi or a Communist in
sight.
At the time, memorosing all those bloody constitutions which they came
up with - which, inevitable, failed in time - was a pain, but having
arrived here and having to study vast swathes of constitutional law,
it was much more valuable than looking at the causes of the second
world war for the nth time.
--
Sara
katy lindemann
news:808f0426.02031...@posting.google.com...
> bigfoots...@yahoo.com (Nick Masters) wrote in message
news:<c73cc90.02031...@posting.google.com>...
>
> From what I can gather, you can argue that Cambridge may be a better
> place for History than Oxford. It seems to have a better resourced
> History Faculty but whether this makes any measurable difference at
> undergraduate level I would doubt. History at Oxford has taken a knock
> in the latest research ratings.Both are strong in History although
> from what I can detect not particularly so in the 20th century. Don't
> forget other places that have very strong History depts - eg Warwick
> and LSE both have more emphasis on recent history than Oxford and
> Cambridge and score more highly than Oxford in some league tables such
> as those developed by the Guardian.
I don't know too much about History at Cambridge, but I can vouch for the
fact that the Oxford History fac is extremely well resourced - I've never
had any problems with regard to teaching/books/texts etc etc
A large number of people in my year at my college are doing exclusively
C20th and they are being taught by some of the world leaders in their field
eg. my friend Fran is specialising in Ireland and the troubles in the C19th
and C20th, and has been taught by one of the greatest scholars in this area
(Foster) - and that's just one example. You may well find that other places
have courses that are more what you're looking for, and that's fine, but
don't discount Oxford or Cambridge on the basis that as 'traditional'
insititutions they won't offer good teaching/research in C20th as well.
> Going through the same decisions as you (although I'm not so bothered
> about the 20th century ) the sort of things I've looked at are:
>
> - the place - where would I like to live for three or more years
> - the colleges - are there specific places that seem to fit for me
> - the course - does the spread of coverage match some of my interests
> - the tutors - don't know how crucial this is (Katy - any views??) but
> I think it wouldn't be good to go to a college where there wasn't some
> match with at least one of the tutors in the main periods you are
> interestd in ......or doesn't this really matter.
Every college has a wide enough spread so that they can teach all the basic
papers - though you'll probably be taught by tutors at other colleges at
several times throughout the course, this only means you're getting the best
teaching for that particular course, and really makes very little
difference.
Your choice of college is very important, as is the city - though I'd say
that pretty much everyone likes where they end up, it's worth thinking
about. For example, Oxford is a lot larger and less dominated by the Uni
than Cambridge - whilst both courses might have suited me fine, I myself
find Cambridge tremendously cluastrophobic, and prefer Oxford enormously.
Do look at the Alternative Prospectus for wherever you're considering - they
give the honest, studenty view of the Uni/College - they're really really
helpful in dissecting the official blurb and finding where you might like.
> My decision initially was Oxford, but my tutors are putting other
> options to me including abroad. I think there is a slight worry that
> Oxford's History needs to make sure it doesn't slip in funding.
I've honestly never encountered any problems in the slightest. Like all
faculties, there were cuts in opening hours for libraries a few years back,
but the provision is more than adequate and I have considerably less
difficulty in getting books etc than my friends doing other courses, both at
Oxford and elsewhere.
> The only other factor is that I've been told that there is growing
> concern at several unis that there is too much emphasis on issue based
> history and recent stuff in some schools...so you need to make sure
> you don't get interviewed by someone who is anti, not supportive of,
> your interests and it may be that some colleges have a more
> traditional approach to the subject than others.
I can't speak for other colleges, but I know that my tutors have said time
and time again that the thing they're interested is potential and ability to
think - they really couldn't give a toss about having learnt a load of facts
parrot-fashion: they'd much prefer to see how you tackle a problem, no
matter whether it's medieval or modern. As I've said, there are people
doing history in my year who openly admitted that they were predominantly
interested in C20th and got all earlier pre-requisites out of the way at the
start (and actually really enjoyed them!) - this didn't stop them getting in
or getting 1sts or high 2:1s in their first year exams. Though other tutors
might feel differently, doing C20th won't be a disadvantage at my college,
to the best of my knowledge and experience,
katy
James Gregory
"Matthew M. Huntbach" wrote:
>
> James Gregory (jrg...@york.ac.uk) wrote:
> > "Matthew M. Huntbach" wrote:
>
> > > So it really is true what they say, these days "history" at school is
> > > nothing more than endless Nazis and Communists? What a bore - mediaeval
> > > and ancient history is much more fun.
>
> > Still, in my anecdotal experience people say they like 20th century
> > history because they assume it involves tanks and guns and war and
> > armies and the like, but in reality studying Nazis and communists
> > actually involves less learning about wars and armies and battles than
> > does other time periods - that's why I chose 'modern' history at A-level
> > - I didn't have to endlessly study how kings got into power or gained
> > popular support or things like that, I got to learn cool stuff about
> > international trickery and battles and alliances and shenaniganry.
> > I still got a D though.
>
> There's plenty of international trickery and battles and alliances and
> shenaniganry in pre-20th century history as well.
That's what I meant. At A-level, I did study pre-20th century history,
and I'm glad.
Rather unclearly, I said "I didn't have to endlessly study how kings" as
a contrast to the fact that with 20th century history you do have to
endlessly study how leaders get to power, rather than what they did.
> The development of the
> modern British state, roughly coinciding with the 16th and 17th
> centuries seems such a crucial and interesting thing, that it's a great
> pity it gets overshadowed by endless Nazis and Communists. I am told
> it's common to do Nazis and Communists in the first years at
> secondary school, Nazis and Communists for GCSE, and Nazis and Communists
> for A-level. I suspect Nazis are done endlessly not so much for the
> historical value but to try and make the point "look kiddies, don't be
> nasty to ethnic minorities".
I bet Alex Warren will be just like you when he's a bit older.
James
Pete Bartlett
"James Gregory" <jrg...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3C95D78F...@york.ac.uk...
>
>
> "Matthew M. Huntbach" wrote:
>
> > So it really is true what they say, these days "history" at school is
> > nothing more than endless Nazis and Communists? What a bore - mediaeval
> > and ancient history is much more fun.
> >
> > Maybe they still have some old-style history text books in your
> > public library (or maybe not, seeing the way public libraries have
> > gone in recent years) which go through history starting at the Stone
> > Age, which you could read to get a bit of an overall picture. If you
> > can get through school education these days and not get an overall
> > picture of this country's history that's shocking!
> Undoubtedly there are history syllabuses available at GCSE and A-level
> which aren't 20th century history though - and whilst at secondary
> school I had no choice to do modern history GCSE, when I moved on to a
> Sixth From College I had a choice of 4 different time periods (Ancient,
> Medieval, Modern (which means 16th century for some reason), 20th
> century).
> 20th century was the most popular of the choices.
FWIW we were initially given a choice between Modern&Medieval and Twentieth
Century courses. Almost everyone chosen the latter and the former was
cancelled.
I have heard it advocated that the Twentieth Century course is slightly
better preparation for Proper Academic History as taught as university. This
is because there are lots of sources of evidence of all types for that
period on which to do your critical evaluation - thus allowing
cross-checking/fact-confirmation etc - so gives a good grounding in the
principles of historical research whereas, at least at GCSE level, studies
of older periods can descend into reading stories of Robin Hood etc. The
discussion I had related to GCSE history, not sure if it extends to A-level.
Pete
Sophie N
> My entire A level history course was the French Revolution. It sounds
> really limiting, but it was /absolutely/ fantastic - it's too easy to
> think of it as Bastille Day and forget about all of the rest, but we
> got to study how it influenced modern political thought right up until
> the present day, and there were plenty of wars and scandals and
> international intrigue tied up in it, without a Nazi or a Communist in
> sight.
>
> At the time, memorosing all those bloody constitutions which they came
> up with - which, inevitable, failed in time - was a pain, but having
> arrived here and having to study vast swathes of constitutional law,
> it was much more valuable than looking at the causes of the second
> world war for the nth time.
Yes we're doing the French Revolution rather a lot! Having spent most
of my secondary career in an International School before returning to
6th form in the UK, it is also something I have covered before. So
it's not just British schools that make you repeat things over and
over.
Coming into the English 6th form system I was surprised about the
variation in knowledge of my history studying friends. Some have seem
to know the Tudors, an issue like Crime/Punishment and the First World
War in depth but have absolutely minimal knowledge of anything else,
whereas others do genuinely seem to have a wide span from previous
study. It seems to me that some schools/teachers opt too quickly for
what they think is popular and neglect to cater for the needs of those
who want to take the subject further and have a vision beyond their
grades. I now feel quite lucky to have studied history outside the
English system (I must be the only person not to have studied The
Tudors!)as the coverage has been much broader and less parochial.