(no subject)

[hathycol]

Revision, despite driving me mad, is going suspiciously well. I think I'm going to get through it all and then - for the first time in my university career - acutually get through it all and have a chance to re-read the notes I made on it.

Today is not going quite so well, I have to confess. I was bone-tired last night and managed to cram about seven hours of sleep in, before barely making it to work this morning. We slowly - agonising slowly - dragged the work out to last for bout an hour and a half, and then scived for the rest of the half an hour. I spent a fair bit of it talking to a girl who is doing third year history, in an attempt to weigh up the following problem:

I despise 20th-Century History. It does nothing for me, because it doesn't have that strange sense of romance that older history does. I know that sounds stupid, but there we are. I like knights, and battles for faith, and crazy radicals who wander around Old London Town in their wigs and frock-coats and have little coffee shops and witches.

As such, next semester of modern history - 20th Century History dressed up in the guise of historiography - it terrifying. The only reason I might do it is because I want to do a bit of modern history at honours (early modern, I hasten to add) and I think it's a pre-requisite and because Professor 'Awesome' Bentley teaches some of it. Ahem.

My other option would be the second semester of first year Scottish history. That looks bloody ace, to my mind, because it encapsulates what I like about history. Do I go for enjoyment or duty?

Choices, choices. Anyone got any advice? shoe__gal?

And now, back to the Scramble for Africa. What glee.

Comments

[shoe--gal.livejournal.com]

SC1002 is a great module - and if you're already familiar with the period it covers in a British/European sense, then you would probably find it quite easy to do well. When it comes to something like the Reformation, for example, you'd immediately have an advantage over some students who have never covered that period of history before, and many haven't, since the course has a high percentage of JYAs/JSAs. The other thing about the module is that it's a lot more 'manageable' than some of the other modules - by that I mean that it covers a set period, 1469-1707, in only one country, there is a much narrower range of reading material if compared to modern history, and as such it is far easier to get to grips with the different historians' views, and with the primary documents. Exam questions tend to be fairly predictable! The lecturers also tend to be rated quite highly - Roger Mason and Steve Murdoch are I think sharing the lectures between them. Being in St Andrews, it's also the ideal course since so much of the Reformation history was centred round the town, and if you've been or are planning to travel round any parts of Scotland it's also pretty cool. As an undergrad, this was my favourite module of all...I guess I'm biased...but most people do tend to enjoy it. The period is full of fascinating characters and events, and if you're keen on kingship then the first half of the course is fantastic!

As for Bentley's module - I've not taken it myself because it's relatively new, but from what I've seen of it when I have been updating web ct, it doesn't seem to have just a C20th focus - there are lectures by Andrew Pettegree and Bridget Heal on the changing historiography of the Reformation. In my opinion, it is probably the most challenging of the sub honours modules, very theoretical, and not something I would have chosen at that stage. Saying that however, if you are planning on going any further with history after your MA, you might find the skills you gain from it to be really useful, and it would probably improve your essay writing in general. I had to take a theory of history class for my MLitt, and although it was without doubt the most frightening course I've ever done (there were 2 of us, and Michael Bentley!) it was certainly very good for me in an intellectual sense.

I'm not sure that I can really recommend one module over the other as it depends so much on what your intentions are with regards to honours, and even post-MA. Whilst SC1002 is (in my opinion) the more enjoyable, I think you would definitely get a lot out of both of them. You would need to check the pre-requisites for honours too - as the requirements are different depending on whether you're doing history, or modern history, or mediaeval. I don't know if you can access web ct yet for the modern history module but if so then the weekly readings and lecture schedule are posted up on there which would give you a good idea of what the course is about.

Let me know if you've got any further questions!

[calapine.livejournal.com]

I despise 20th-Century History. It does nothing for me, because it doesn't have that strange sense of romance that older history does. I know that sounds stupid, but there we are.

Substitute law in there, and that be me, yes.

Also Scottish history is clearly a fabulous thing, ably demonstrating that while the rest of Europe was constructing centralised government, we were busy blood feuding with the dudes in the next valley.

[hathy-col.livejournal.com]

Scottish history looks great. In medeival we're doing the history of the British Isles, and Scotland is being the best non-English bit. (I have a soft spot for the Plantangents. Sorry.) Also, since I am in Scotland, I feel I should, you know, learn some stuff.

[hathy-col.livejournal.com]

I think I'm going to talk to my advisor. If it's not a pre-requisite, even the draw of Bentley and Pettegree can't do it. Reading over my notes on the historiographical stuff they're dropping on us now, I'm remembering how much I disliked those lectures, let alone a full course of it...

Thanks!

[calapine.livejournal.com]

Hopefully they will lie to you and tell you Scotland is GREAT. Rather than about us pinching three hundred year old English laws cause we thought they looked shiny.