Model bachelor's degree in history curriculum

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.

You don't have much of an education do you?

There is always a minimum amount of time needed to cover the material that must be covered in any course. Shortening science and foreign language classes will mean you won't be able to cover the material that students need to learn.

Quote:

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.

Why wouldn't a logic glass help them much? Again you are spouting generalities that I am supposed to take at face value.

Suppose a historian who didn't study statistics loses his job and has to take work in another sub-field of history that does use statistics. Suppose a historian decides to seek a political office that uses statistics of a historical nature.

You talked about electives earlier; why? What purpose do electives serve if not to give a student a broader academic foundation for his career? A course on how to work with statistics is a way of broadening a historian's academic preparation for whatever work he wants to do now and whatever work he may want to do later and whatever work he may have to do because unemployment is the alternative.

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.

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.

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?

solipsister wrote:

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

come to us

we will show you where the path was

Who has said anything about a double major?

Do you deny that myth and legend can and do reflect history?

Quote:

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.

I think this statement is interesting. Does this mean the only discussion you will allow is agreement?

The material to be covered would be adjusted to the amount of class time available.

Because, by my definition, those historians would not be amenable to instruction and would be idiots. For those kinds of people, I doubt any class would be of much help.

You preent it as if Darwinian thought and Creationism just popped out of the blackboard. A study of the history of science and technology would include the context in which Creationism actually became a movement.

Science, like any practise , has a circuitous path of development that has included many appently unrelated discoveries . The history of how this came to be is more important than merely concentrating on DArwin or BishopUssher.
You need to understand vis plastica, Ibn Sinna, the contributions of Archimedes, the battles of Copernicus, Steno, Hooker and hundreds of others.

Paleontology, as a course in a program, has no context or meaning.

Im a geologist and I rarely use Paleontology , when I do, I gather real paleonytologists about me.

Paleontology is the understanding of the relationship of fossils to the history of the earth, so , if youre gonna require Paleo, youll need a course in historical geology, Physical geology, and sedimentology, and those are usually prerequisites for paleo. and paleoecology.

flaja wrote:

solipsister wrote:

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

come to us

we will show you where the path was

Who has said anything about a double major?

Do you deny that myth and legend can and do reflect history?

Congratulations flaja.

Your curriculum, as discussed, is nonpareil.

I assumed the double major from the two III's.

Nonesuchly, historians and statistical inference go hand in glove.

parados wrote:

Quote:

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.

I think this statement is interesting. Does this mean the only discussion you will allow is agreement?

I mean what I said. I am not here to argue but criticism for criticism's sake is pure argument. If you have constructve criticism to give, give it and be prepared to support what you say with bona fide facts and evidence. Otherwise don't waste my time.

joefromchicago wrote:

The material to be covered would be adjusted to the amount of class time available.

Meaning you'd have to take more courses to cover all of the material you need to learn for your degree, which means you could end up taking more courses for a degree in one academic field than you would another. So you'd be right back where you started with uneven academic requirements.

You have just argued yourself in a circle.

Quote:

Because, by my definition, those historians would not be amenable to instruction and would be idiots. For those kinds of people, I doubt any class would be of much help.

I ask for facts and you give opinion.

In my experience, there are always some majors that had more requirements than other majors, meaning that the students in that department had to take more required courses than students in other departments. My reaction to that: so what? I'm not sure why you are so anal about all majors having the same number of required courses, but that's your problem, not mine.

Quote:

Because, by my definition, those historians would not be amenable to instruction and would be idiots. For those kinds of people, I doubt any class would be of much help.

I ask for facts and you give opinion.

You don't see a problem in granting equal credit for unequal work?

Quote:

flaja wrote:

Quote:

Because, by my definition, those historians would not be amenable to instruction and would be idiots. For those kinds of people, I doubt any class would be of much help.

I ask for facts and you give opinion.

Actually, that's not an opinion, that's a logical deduction.

How so? What documented facts are you basing your deduction on?

If a historian cannot understand and use the mechanics of logical reasoning because he's never been formally trained in critical thinking, how well could he analyze the reasoning of someone like Hitler? Could a historian who idolizes Franklin Roosevelt and a historian who despises Franklin Roosevelt (or substitute Ronald Reagan) have any chance of understanding each other, let alone address the issue in an unbiased manner, if they haven't been formally taught any critical thinking skills?

A logical deduction need not be based on any facts. It only needs to be based on propositions. You really don't understand logic, do you?

joefromchicago wrote:

A logical deduction need not be based on any facts. It only needs to be based on propositions. You really don't understand logic, do you?

Again, you are here simply to argue. Running your mouth on the basis of propositions instead of factual reality is simply running your mouth. Logic that is not based on reality serves no purpose.

flaja wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

A logical deduction need not be based on any facts. It only needs to be based on propositions. You really don't understand logic, do you?

Again, you are here simply to argue. Running your mouth on the basis of propositions instead of factual reality is simply running your mouth. Logic that is not based on reality serves no purpose.

What else have you offered besides unsupported opinions?

My opininon is based on my personal experience as a history student.

Furthermore I have given concrete examples of how and why historians may need the courses I include in this curriculum, but you seem to have ignored them.

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

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.

Quite the contrary. I'm the king of historians, remember?

I think most people are capable of learning just about anything without a class within a formal education system (I've had few myself and that deficiency was easily overcome by curiosity) but said system can help ensure that they actually do, and that they do so more efficiently.

I'd probably not forward the argument that it's essential to a history curriculum only because I think it's important enough to be covered before anyone even undertakes to obtain a degree. I think it should be taught in high school.

I know many intelligent people who have failed to do so, and who weild the intellectual equivalent of a sock full of lug nuts in their arguments.

The main purpose of the logic course will to emphasize to the students the danger of tunnel vision. It will remind students to examine all sides of an issue before reaching a conclusion.