Anonymous wrote:Nobody is picking or not picking a major based on ideology. They pick majors based on headlines of who is getting a job.

Once more…the subtext to this entire thread is studying history is fine if you go to a top 20 school. Even then, many people mention law school…again, a luxury most kids don’t have (or want).

Even the people with history kids at top schools would likely discourage their kid from studying history at say Auburn. You would recognize that’s not the same as history at Princeton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is picking or not picking a major based on ideology. They pick majors based on headlines of who is getting a job.

Once more…the subtext to this entire thread is studying history is fine if you go to a top 20 school. Even then, many people mention law school…again, a luxury most kids don’t have (or want).

Even the people with history kids at top schools would likely discourage their kid from studying history at say Auburn. You would recognize that’s not the same as history at Princeton.

I’m not sure that’s true. We just heard at orientation from the career counseling office that they’re having trouble placing CS majors.

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is picking or not picking a major based on ideology. They pick majors based on headlines of who is getting a job.

Once more…the subtext to this entire thread is studying history is fine if you go to a top 20 school. Even then, many people mention law school…again, a luxury most kids don’t have (or want).

Even the people with history kids at top schools would likely discourage their kid from studying history at say Auburn. You would recognize that’s not the same as history at Princeton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way to increase the number of history majors is to stop teaching race/class/gender/labor-based America-hating Left-wing drivel, but the history departments refuse to do that, so let them all sink into oblivion as they deserve.

Hey, you seem really passionate in this. Can you show one history department that exclusive teaches race/class/gender/labor-based American...drivel? That's also a lot of groups to say "those histories don't matter to" and I'm not sure if your interpretation of history is just Constitutional law and White American studies?

Also students are the ones most interested in class/gender/race, etc. English faculty would jump to the sky if kids had any interest in old dead white rich dudes.

History is less popular now that people know more about what actually happened. It's not fun anymore.

Kids today learn a much more diverse and accurate history lesson. No reason to extend it to a degree, really.

I don’t know where to begin with you except by your comment you clearly weren’t a history major.

Nope history minor-couldn't commit to a thesis. But, if you at all have a decent high school, the kids are learning a much more diverse history than anyone a generation back. I didn't learn much "new" in my minor courses, just different fun facts that aren't grand picture knowledge points you need to know. Obviously different story for non-American studies and Native Studies.

DP. Your position doesn't make much sense. Like any subject, you could stop at HS level or pursue a higher level of specificity, research methods and analysis.

I had to do research methods in high school history, but that’s just a high school dependent practice. I even had a senior thesis for my high school.

It's not the same academic tier. You could say that for any subject.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way to increase the number of history majors is to stop teaching race/class/gender/labor-based America-hating Left-wing drivel, but the history departments refuse to do that, so let them all sink into oblivion as they deserve.

Hey, you seem really passionate in this. Can you show one history department that exclusive teaches race/class/gender/labor-based American...drivel? That's also a lot of groups to say "those histories don't matter to" and I'm not sure if your interpretation of history is just Constitutional law and White American studies?

Also students are the ones most interested in class/gender/race, etc. English faculty would jump to the sky if kids had any interest in old dead white rich dudes.

History is less popular now that people know more about what actually happened. It's not fun anymore.

Kids today learn a much more diverse and accurate history lesson. No reason to extend it to a degree, really.

I don’t know where to begin with you except by your comment you clearly weren’t a history major.

Nope history minor-couldn't commit to a thesis. But, if you at all have a decent high school, the kids are learning a much more diverse history than anyone a generation back. I didn't learn much "new" in my minor courses, just different fun facts that aren't grand picture knowledge points you need to know. Obviously different story for non-American studies and Native Studies.

DP. Your position doesn't make much sense. Like any subject, you could stop at HS level or pursue a higher level of specificity, research methods and analysis.

I had to do research methods in high school history, but that’s just a high school dependent practice. I even had a senior thesis for my high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way to increase the number of history majors is to stop teaching race/class/gender/labor-based America-hating Left-wing drivel, but the history departments refuse to do that, so let them all sink into oblivion as they deserve.

Hey, you seem really passionate in this. Can you show one history department that exclusive teaches race/class/gender/labor-based American...drivel? That's also a lot of groups to say "those histories don't matter to" and I'm not sure if your interpretation of history is just Constitutional law and White American studies?

Also students are the ones most interested in class/gender/race, etc. English faculty would jump to the sky if kids had any interest in old dead white rich dudes.

History is less popular now that people know more about what actually happened. It's not fun anymore.

Kids today learn a much more diverse and accurate history lesson. No reason to extend it to a degree, really.

I don’t know where to begin with you except by your comment you clearly weren’t a history major.

Nope history minor-couldn't commit to a thesis. But, if you at all have a decent high school, the kids are learning a much more diverse history than anyone a generation back. I didn't learn much "new" in my minor courses, just different fun facts that aren't grand picture knowledge points you need to know. Obviously different story for non-American studies and Native Studies.

DP. Your position doesn't make much sense. Like any subject, you could stop at HS level or pursue a higher level of specificity, research methods and analysis.

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is picking or not picking a major based on ideology. They pick majors based on headlines of who is getting a job.

Once more…the subtext to this entire thread is studying history is fine if you go to a top 20 school. Even then, many people mention law school…again, a luxury most kids don’t have (or want).

Even the people with history kids at top schools would likely discourage their kid from studying history at say Auburn. You would recognize that’s not the same as history at Princeton.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A liberal arts education emphasizes critical thinking and is not vocational training. My classmates who went to SLACs have been highly successful in many professional fields (law, med school, business, etc.)

LOL ! They were successful because they went to law school, to medical school, and to business school--NOT because the went to an SLAC liberal arts programs.

Attending an LAC is an extension of high school that usually requires further study at a professional school (law school, MBA program, Medical or dental school, etc.) in order to be employable. LACs--at best--make one trainable.

Anonymous wrote:I have a history degree, loved my classes and still value the research, study and writing skills I learned. But, I had no help from my college translating the degree/skills to the workplace. It was depressing. I discouraged my kids from majoring in history. I'd be all for it as a 2nd BA. Maybe open curriculum and encouraging students to double major across fields is the way forward. Or better career advising and alum networks.

Anonymous wrote:A liberal arts education emphasizes critical thinking and is not vocational training. My classmates who went to SLACs have been highly successful in many professional fields (law, med school, business, etc.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way to increase the number of history majors is to stop teaching race/class/gender/labor-based America-hating Left-wing drivel, but the history departments refuse to do that, so let them all sink into oblivion as they deserve.

Hey, you seem really passionate in this. Can you show one history department that exclusive teaches race/class/gender/labor-based American...drivel? That's also a lot of groups to say "those histories don't matter to" and I'm not sure if your interpretation of history is just Constitutional law and White American studies?

Also students are the ones most interested in class/gender/race, etc. English faculty would jump to the sky if kids had any interest in old dead white rich dudes.

History is less popular now that people know more about what actually happened. It's not fun anymore.

Kids today learn a much more diverse and accurate history lesson. No reason to extend it to a degree, really.

I don’t know where to begin with you except by your comment you clearly weren’t a history major.

Nope history minor-couldn't commit to a thesis. But, if you at all have a decent high school, the kids are learning a much more diverse history than anyone a generation back. I didn't learn much "new" in my minor courses, just different fun facts that aren't grand picture knowledge points you need to know. Obviously different story for non-American studies and Native Studies.

Anonymous wrote:I’m a lawyer and we pretty much only interview students from top law schools. I see lots of kids with undergraduate history degrees, including many from places like Amherst.

Anonymous wrote:I have a history degree, loved my classes and still value the research, study and writing skills I learned. But, I had no help from my college translating the degree/skills to the workplace. It was depressing. I discouraged my kids from majoring in history. I'd be all for it as a 2nd BA. Maybe open curriculum and encouraging students to double major across fields is the way forward. Or better career advising and alum networks.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a professional historian and what bothers me isn't so much the number of majors, it's that the number of faculty and course offerings are so dependent on majors. Wouldn't it be GREAT if students focused on business, economics, engineering, comp sci, etc also had a strong grounding in history? Wouldn't it be awesome if it were part of the tool kit for future leaders?

I would love to see history integrated across the curriculum. But I guess I AM describing liberal arts education.