Model bachelor's degree in history curriculum

If flaja wants to post a course of study, what's the harm in that?

Calculus
Chemistry
Physics
Biology
Foreign language
English Literature and composition

Quote:

Calculus
Chemistry
Physics
Biology
Foreign language
English Literature and composition

Such would be learnt (or 'studied' as you say) at grammar school, and not when studying history at university here in Germany.

ooo a lovely double major in pre-history and mythology.

come to us

we will show you where the path was

Quote:

Calculus
Chemistry
Physics
Biology
Foreign language
English Literature and composition

Such would be learnt (or 'studied' as you say) at grammar school, and not when studying history at university here in Germany.

A Gymnasium in Germany is usually thaught to be equal to an American high school.

Each course lasts one academic term, which consists of 9 calendar weeks. Each course has one lecture class each weekday and at least one 180-minute laboratory class each week.

Students take 3 courses per academic term and will need 10 academic terms to complete the program.

Each calendar year will have 5 academic terms.

Introduction to Logic: An introduction to the process of constructing logically sound arguments.

Historiography: An examination of the various ways in which history has been recorded and interpreted from the ancient world to the present time.

Introduction to Statistics for Social Science: Students will learn how to gather, interpret and present statistical data in order to explain topics pertaining to history and the other social sciences.

Darwinism/Creationism I: A comparison of the theory of Evolution and Creation Science.

Introduction to Archaeology: A survey of the tools and techniques archaeologists use to collect and evaluate human artifacts in order to explain past cultures.

Introduction to Paleontology: A study of the tools and techniques paleontologists use to collect and evaluate fossils.

Introduction to Sociology: Students will examine the fundamentals of how human societies are organized and how they operate.

Introduction to Astronomy: Students will examine the basic structure and function of the universe so they can understand the issue of cosmogony and also understand the celestial bodies that formed the pantheon and the timepieces for ancient societies.

Darwinism/Creationism II: A survey of the history of the Darwinism-Creationism conflict.

Introduction to Cosmogony: An examination of various explanations that have been used to explain the origin, structure and operation of the universe from the earliest civilizations to the present day.

Archaeological Science: An examination of how scientific procedures are used to analyze archaeological artifacts.

Introduction to Paleography: A study of writing systems and how various written scripts have been discovered and translated.

Introduction to Psychology: A study of human psychology designed to give students an understanding of why historical figures behaved the way they did.

Chronology: A study of the calendars and time pieces used in the past as well as the various methods historians and scientists use to date fossils and artifacts.

Mythology I: A study of the myths and legends associated with the Ancient Western Civilizations from the Fertile Crescent to the fall of Rome.

History of Life: An examination of the history of life on earth as determined by the earth's geological and fossil records according to the interpretations of Darwinists/Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists.

Archaeology Survey I: A survey of the archaeological work that has been conducted in the Fertile Crescent, the Mediterranean Basin and Europe up to the time of Charlemagne.

Mythology II: A study of the myths and legends of Europe (Celts, Norsemen and various Barbarian Peoples).

Introduction to Human Geography: An examination of the interrelationships between human societies and their physical environments and how these relationships have shaped history.

Archaeological Survey II: A survey of the archaeological work that has been conducted in Africa, Asia and the New World.

Mythology III: A study of the myths and legends associated with Asia and the New World.

Writing Workshop: Students will examine a wide array of current literature pertaining to history from the popular and academic press and gain experience writing on historical topics.

Human Origins: A study of the various theories regarding the origin of human beings and their geographic distribution as well as the origin and classification of human languages.

Prehistory I: An examination of the origins of civilization in the Fertile Crescent.

Socio-Economic Foundations: Students will compare and contrast the economic and political systems that human societies have implemented throughout history.

Research I: Students will use primary source documents to conduct a research project and then present their findings as both a written and oral report.

Prehistory II: An examination of the origins of civilization in the Indus River Valley and Hwang Ho River Valley.

History of Technology: An examination of the historical development of technology from the earliest times to the present day.

Research II: Students will gather and analyze statistical data to conduct a research project and then present their findings as both a written and oral report.

Prehistory III: An examination of the origins of civilization in the New World.

Labs in history courses? What do you plan to do? Put historical events in a beaker and heat them over a Bunsen burner?

Any electives?

Useful for a historian, but not necessary.

flaja wrote:

Introduction to Statistics for Social Science: Students will learn how to gather, interpret and present statistical data in order to explain topics pertaining to history and the other social sciences.

Very useful for a historian, but not necessary.

flaja wrote:

Darwinism/Creationism I: A comparison of the theory of Evolution and Creation Science.

Completely useless for anyone, including historians.

Not very useful for most historians, except historians of ancient civilizations.

flaja wrote:

Introduction to Paleontology: A study of the tools and techniques paleontologists use to collect and evaluate fossils.

Completely useless for historians.

flaja wrote:

Introduction to Sociology: Students will examine the fundamentals of how human societies are organized and how they operate.

Not necessary for most historians.

flaja wrote:

Introduction to Astronomy: Students will examine the basic structure and function of the universe so they can understand the issue of cosmogony and also understand the celestial bodies that formed the pantheon and the timepieces for ancient societies.

Completely useless for historians

flaja wrote:

Introduction to Cosmogony: An examination of various explanations that have been used to explain the origin, structure and operation of the universe from the earliest civilizations to the present day.

Absolutely useless, a complete waste of time.

flaja wrote:

Archaeological Science: An examination of how scientific procedures are used to analyze archaeological artifacts.

Not necessary for most historians.

flaja wrote:

Introduction to Paleography: A study of writing systems and how various written scripts have been discovered and translated.

Interesting, but not necessary for most historians.

flaja wrote:

Introduction to Psychology: A study of human psychology designed to give students an understanding of why historical figures behaved the way they did.

Not necessary for historians.

flaja wrote:

Chronology: A study of the calendars and time pieces used in the past as well as the various methods historians and scientists use to date fossils and artifacts.

Completely useless (and the word you're looking for isn't "chronology," it's "horology").

flaja wrote:

Mythology I: A study of the myths and legends associated with the Ancient Western Civilizations from the Fertile Crescent to the fall of Rome.

Interesting, but not necessary.

flaja wrote:

History of Life: An examination of the history of life on earth as determined by the earth's geological and fossil records according to the interpretations of Darwinists/Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists.

Completely useless for historians.

flaja wrote:

Archaeology Survey I: A survey of the archaeological work that has been conducted in the Fertile Crescent, the Mediterranean Basin and Europe up to the time of Charlemagne.

Not necessary for most historians.

flaja wrote:

Mythology II: A study of the myths and legends of Europe (Celts, Norsemen and various Barbarian Peoples).

Useless.

flaja wrote:

Introduction to Human Geography: An examination of the interrelationships between human societies and their physical environments and how these relationships have shaped history.

A worthwhile subject, but not necessary for historians.

flaja wrote:

Archaeological Survey II: A survey of the archaeological work that has been conducted in Africa, Asia and the New World.

Not necessary.

flaja wrote:

Mythology III: A study of the myths and legends associated with Asia and the New World.

Useless.

Most history programs emphasize writing in all of their classes. To the extent that there is a specific writing workshop for historians, that is often covered in the historical methods course.

flaja wrote:

Human Origins: A study of the various theories regarding the origin of human beings and their geographic distribution as well as the origin and classification of human languages.

Completely useless.

flaja wrote:

Prehistory I: An examination of the origins of civilization in the Fertile Crescent.

This topic can be covered in a survey course for non-specialists.

flaja wrote:

Socio-Economic Foundations: Students will compare and contrast the economic and political systems that human societies have implemented throughout history.

Worthwhile, but not necessary.

Again, this type of work is usually covered in all history classes. Methods of research are covered in the historical methods class.

flaja wrote:

Prehistory II: An examination of the origins of civilization in the Indus River Valley and Hwang Ho River Valley.

Can be covered in a survey course.

flaja wrote:

History of Technology: An examination of the historical development of technology from the earliest times to the present day.

Worthwhile, but not necessary.

flaja wrote:

Research II: Students will gather and analyze statistical data to conduct a research project and then present their findings as both a written and oral report.

Covered in a historical methods class.

flaja wrote:

Prehistory III: An examination of the origins of civilization in the New World.

Can be covered in a survey course.

Labs as in extended class periods. The German language class I took in college required students to meet once a week with a German language tutor. These tutoring sessions were scheduled the same way lab classes were for biology, chemistry and physics courses. All of the courses in my curriculum would require lab periods as a way to equalize the amount of class time needed; a 4 credit hour history course (or English, or psychology or math or anything else) should require just as much class time as any biology, chemistry or physics class should. The same degree should require the same amount of work regardless of the academic field.

Quote:

Any electives?

No. They wouldn't be needed.

n the same vein no one would earn a bachelor's degree in American History. You would get a bachelor's degree in history and then a master's degree in American History followed by a doctorate in some narrow aspect of American history. You would end up with a broad knowledge of history with a more thorough knowledge of American history and then be an expert is something like the American Revolution or the Civil War, or American labor relations or American foreign policy etcetera.

Historians can function when they cannot construct and recognize logically sound arguments or recognize logical errors in what others tell them?

I am ever mindful of what the professor for my first college history course told the class: there are 3 kinds of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics.

I can easily envision situations in which historians try to argue a point by using numeric data- which can be manipulated in its presentation. If you don't know how numeric data can be examined and presented, you could easily get hoodwinked.

Why? Darwinism and Creationism are the fundamental philosophical foundations of modern society. In popular culture and public academic settings history is presented as if Darwinism were true and Creationism were false. So why would studying them be useless to historians?

Tell that to the people that work on the History Channel program "Cities Underground". Not everything archaeologists work on is all that old. Anything that ends up buried falls within the scope of archaeology be it a 6000 year old potsherd or this morning's garbage.

Why? The earth's natural history falls within the context of its geopolitical and socio-economic history. The earth's natural history has as much importance for historians as it does for scientists if not more.

Why? Isn't history really the study of human societies? So why wouldn't a freshman level sociology course be useful to historians?

Useful for the purposes given in the course description which is context to all aspects of history.

I don't see history as an assortment of compartments. Before you can be an expert on one subject or a particular time period, you should have a broad knowledge of all of history. This will allow you to put your specific part in context. The origins of the earth are part of the historical context of everything.

]Where did the myth develop that archaeology has such narrow applications? Archaeology is not limited to the ancient world or even the distant past.

Why? If a historian wishes to examine historical documentation that is in written form, shouldn't he know something about how the documentation was prepared, preserved and analyzed?

Suppose someone "discovered" a German magazine article about the Nazis from say, 1926, but the original document is printed in Roman type. Any historian who knows nothing of paleography may not know that in 1926 printed material in Germany was all in Fraktur, a thick Gothic style typeface. So the original magazine document is most likely a forgery.

You don't think that knowing something about the mind of a Caesar, a Napoleon, a Stalin or a Hitler would be useful to people who study the history of the ancient world, 19th century France or 20th century Russia or Germany?

A while back I read several of Bruce Catton's books on the Civil War. At one point Catton's description of George B. McClellan lead me to think that maybe McClellan was bi-polar. One minute he was convinced that the country was about to make him military dictator because his battlefield genius was going to save the country, but then he'd turn around and insist that the enemy had him so out-numbered that he didn't dare fight a battle. Knowing psychology could help explain a lot about historical figures like McClellen.

]This course wouldn't be entirely about hour to hour, day to day timekeeping. Its major thrust would be the tools and techniques used to put historical events in their chronological order. I realize that in the past 20-30 years learning dates of historical events has fallen far out of fashion, but this is high folly since history is about putting past events in order.

You really think the world's myths and legends don't have at least some historical counterparts? Could you really study late Roman Britain without studying King Arthur? Could you really understand King Arthur if you know nothing of European mythology in general?

Same context as cosmogony. Nothing in history happens in a vacuum. You cannot be an expert in any part of it without knowing something of the context of all of it.

Quote:

flaja wrote:

Archaeology Survey I: A survey of the archaeological work that has been conducted in the Fertile Crescent, the Mediterranean Basin and Europe up to the time of Charlemagne.

Not necessary for most historians.

Necessary to give background context for whatever the historian happens to be studying.

Quote:

flaja wrote:

Mythology II: A study of the myths and legends of Europe (Celts, Norsemen and various Barbarian Peoples).

Useless.

What if you want to study Nazi Germany? How could you do this if you don't understand the myths and legends that drove Hitler and the Nazis? The road to the Nuremberg Nazi Party rallies runs through Valhalla.

Quote:

flaja wrote:

Introduction to Human Geography: An examination of the interrelationships between human societies and their physical environments and how these relationships have shaped history.

A worthwhile subject, but not necessary for historians.

So geography doesn't affect history? Tell that to the British Navy and the American pioneer.

You really think the world's myths and legends don't have at least some historical counterparts? And even if myths and legends are not true it doesn't stop some people from acting as if they were and how people react to what they believe is true does influence history.

Most history courses I took required a term paper of some sort. But a historian cannot make a living writing term papers (at least not and remain honest). It would be good to expose students to the types of work they may end up doing in the real world.

BTW: I find it odd that you don't reject to this course outright when you've objected to related courses- astronomy, cosmogony, paleontology, archaeology et cetera. Could you take a course on pre-history without having these other courses as prerequisites?

Politics, economics and history are not inter-related and mutually dependent?

Of the 10 or so history courses I took in college I had to use original source documents in only 2 of them. And in neither case was I taught anything about how to locate such documents (apart from the micro-materials in the school's library) or how to evaluate them for content or accuracy.

So history and technology don't ever influence each other? Kelly-Bessemer had nothing to do with the socio-economic history of the late 19th century? That Canal in Panama has had no influence on history? Fertilizer and pesticides have had nothing to do with the Green Revolution and the subsequent global population of 6 billion people?

My curriculum doesn't include anything known as "historical methods class".

Suppose a historian wishes to write a book on the history of gangs in Los Angeles. Consider the things that the historian would need to consider:

The general history of the ethnic groups involved, meaning he would have to know something of European history, Latin American history and likely Pre-Columbian New World history.

The history of specific neighborhoods where gang activity is found. This would involve studying the origins of these various neighborhoods and this could require some archaeological work.

Psychology in order to understand the mental factors that drive gang membership and activity.

Sociology in order to understand how gangs are established, how they are organized and how they operate as a subset of society in general.

The role of heroes and martyrs in society, which means the historian would need to understand the process by which myths and legends develop. He'd also need to know something about specific gang-related myths and legends and this could easily tie into the myths and legends that come from the background cultures of the people who are involved in gang activity.

Paleography, in order to understand how gangs develop, propagate and communicate with graffiti.

Well, in my experience, labs counted toward the semester hour totals in science classes.

You really don't understand how things work, do you?

Most people are capable of constructing sound logical arguments without taking a logic class.

Some historians use statistics all the time. Others don't.

Just because some do does that mean that all of them have to take the course?

Because it ain't history.

The vast majority of historians who work outside of the ancient history field don't get their information from old garbage pits.

A few might, and for them some background in archaeology may be useful, but for the rest it's just another waste of time.

Paleontology ain't history.

Because sociologists look at questions in a different way from historians and utilize different methods of research.[/qutoe]

But historians need not know anything about how societies are organized or how they operate- you know things that would be covered in a freshman level sociology course? How could a historian study Franco-Norman society if he's had no exposure to rudimentary sociology concepts?

Quote:

Astronomy ain't history.

But what we know about astronomy does influence what we know about history.

Tell how could an Egyptologist understand the Sothic Cycle if he hasn't studied rudimentary astronomy?

Quote:

Not so. The origins of the earth predate history. That's why we call it "prehistoric."

Tell me, if historians need not study prehistory, why does any scientist need to study paleontology? Paleontology is the study of prehistory, so what purpose does the study of paleontology serve? If prehistory is of no use to a historian, how can it be of any use to anyone at all?

Quote:

As I said before, for most historians it would be a waste of time.

You say most, but you don't give any examples.

BTW: have you ever studied history in a formal academic setting? What qualifies you to comment on what a historian needs to know?

Your comments seem to be more of the same. You make claims without backing any of them up. So rather than prolong my reply I will stop here and give you an opportunity to discuss specifics.

You don't discuss science, religion, politics or history on the net very much, do you?

You make claims without backing any of them up.

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, in my experience, labs counted toward the semester hour totals in science classes.

Depends on the school and the course. A German course at Emory required 3 50-minute lectures each week, a 180-minute session with the tutor and then yet another 50 minute afternoon activity session with the professor. But a German course had the same credit as a history course that only required 3 50-minute lectures each week.

Quote:

Most people are capable of constructing sound logical arguments without taking a logic class.

You don't discuss science, religion, politics or history on the net very much, do you?

Quote:

Some historians use statistics all the time. Others don't.

Regardless of whether or not a historian uses statistical data in his everyday work, all historians should have a working knowledge of how the social sciences use statistical data. That way they can understand statistics when they happen to come up.

Quote:

Just because some do does that mean that all of them have to take the course?

At the undergraduate level I wouldn't assume that every student always knows what he wants to specialize in so I wouldn't tailor the undergraduate curriculum to each student. My bachelor's degree curriculum is meant to prepare students for whatever sub-field of history they may later want to specialize in. I don't want students to be locked-in to any particular specialty because the courses they took early on.

Quote:

Because it ain't history.

Zoom!! Right over your head.

Quote:

The vast majority of historians who work outside of the ancient history field don't get their information from old garbage pits.

But how does this mean that all historians shouldn't have a working knowledge of archaeology? Could you become an expert on the American Revolution if you don't understand the archaeological work that has been done at places like Valley Forge or Yorktown? Could you become an expert on the Civil War without digging up Gettysburg or Andersonville?

If a historian is an expert on the Indian Wars, but knows nothing about archaeology, he may find that he isn't as much of an expert as he believed he was.

Quote:

A few might, and for them some background in archaeology may be useful, but for the rest it's just another waste of time.

Can you give some examples of historians who need not know anything about archaeology?

Quote:

Paleontology ain't history.

Then why do paleontologists study natural history?

But historians need not know anything about how societies are organized or how they operate- you know things that would be covered in a freshman level sociology course? How could a historian study Franco-Norman society if he's had no exposure to rudimentary sociology concepts?

But what we know about astronomy does influence what we know about history.

Tell how could an Egyptologist understand the Sothic Cycle if he hasn't studied rudimentary astronomy?

Quote:

Not so. The origins of the earth predate history. That's why we call it "prehistoric."

Tell me, if historians need not study prehistory, why does any scientist need to study paleontology? Paleontology is the study of prehistory, so what purpose does the study of paleontology serve? If prehistory is of no use to a historian, how can it be of any use to anyone at all?

Quote:

As I said before, for most historians it would be a waste of time.

You say most, but you don't give any examples.

BTW: have you ever studied history in a formal academic setting? What qualifies you to comment on what a historian needs to know?

Well then, the solution isn't to make history classes longer, it's to make foreign language and science classes shorter, or else to count all class time toward semester hour credit.

The people on internet discussion forums who can't form a coherent argument are unlike historians in two important respects: (1) they are not amenable to instruction; and (2) they are, by and large, idiots. There are, of course, historians who fit into that category, but I doubt that a logic class would help them much.

I don't necessarily disagree. I took statistics classes even though I rarely relied on statistical research. I'm just saying that, for many historians who won't use statistics in their own work, it's not necessary for them to know statistics in order to be good historians. Your Procrustean approach to training historians doesn't allow for these kinds of differences.

Quote:

Just because some do does that mean that all of them have to take the course?

At the undergraduate level I wouldn't assume that every student always knows what he wants to specialize in so I wouldn't tailor the undergraduate curriculum to each student. My bachelor's degree curriculum is meant to prepare students for whatever sub-field of history they may later want to specialize in. I don't want students to be locked-in to any particular specialty because the courses they took early on.

Quote:

Maybe they take a variety of courses because they want to figure out what kind of special field they want to get into. Your approach doesn't allow that kind of exploration.

Maybe they should take a statistics course to see if they are interested in historical statistics.

Maybe they should take an archaeology course to see if they are interested in archaeology.

Maybe they should take a paleontology course to see if they are interested in paleontology.

You say students should take a variety of courses, but when I include a variety of courses in my curriculum, you object. You entered this thread to argue, not discuss.