subject choice for arts course!

pacman.podge

how and when do you choose your different subjects for the arts joint honours course?
thanks guys:D:D

Dr. Baltar

The first week that you go up you'll get a list which you'e got to tick off.
The best thing is though, the first week classes aren't official so you can go to the subjects that interest you and basically see what hte story is with each of them.

Words of Wisdom:

History in college and history in LC are completely different. I enjoyed it during the LC but despised here so dropped it going into 2nd year.

English is fantastic.

Sociology is extremely interesting and sort of easy.

Law/Criminal Procedure is fine but there is a certain lecturer who chall remain nameless who makes it awfuly boring.

If you need anymore info on the course don't hesitate to send a PM.

Best of luck!

bluedolphin

Sir Baralot wrote: »

Words of Wisdom:
History in college and history in LC are completely different. I enjoyed it during the LC but despised here so dropped it going into 2nd year.

Just to add on that, the first year modules are miserable; they truly are. Although the curriculum has changed since I did it, the modules were broadly similar that I covered, and trust me first year was the worst. This is because of two things, I think.
Firstly, the massive jump in what is expected of studying history at third level from that at LC level.

Secondly, the subject matter (in first year particularly) is generally previously untouched by LC students (I'm not very familiar with the new LC history course as I was the last year to do the old course in '04, but I think the time frame isn't dealt with in great detail, if at all) so it seems overwhelming.

Add to this the LC approach of 'fact-based' learning and it seems all a bit much having to grasp the vast, vast, vast volumes of information your 'expected' to learn. The truth is you're not expected to rote learn this like LC history; it's analysis and argument that are key. You are also not expected to know every topic that is covered. Have a look through the info on courses sticky at the top of this forum to see more info that I wrote about history.

It is tough during first year because you're adapting, but your grades in first year don't count towards your final degree award so you can afford to learn from your mistakes. It's truly not as bad from second year on and by final year it's terribly interesting. It's an excellent subject to study to hone your skills in self-discipline, research, critical thinking, analysis, processing large volumes of information and presenting this concisely, argument and writing style. That's what you get out of third level history. LC history gives you dates, places and names. Anyone can check up these facts, only a few can interpret them in a meaningful way.

Dr. Baltar

bluedolphin wrote: »

Just to add on that, the first year modules are miserable; they truly are. Although the curriculum has changed since I did it, the modules were broadly similar that I covered, and trust me first year was the worst. This is because of two things, I think.
Firstly, the massive jump in what is expected of studying history at third level from that at LC level.

Secondly, the subject matter (in first year particularly) is generally previously untouched by LC students (I'm not very familiar with the new LC history course as I was the last year to do the old course in '04, but I think the time frame isn't dealt with in great detail, if at all) so it seems overwhelming.

Add to this the LC approach of 'fact-based' learning and it seems all a bit much having to grasp the vast, vast, vast volumes of information your 'expected' to learn. The truth is you're not expected to rote learn this like LC history; it's analysis and argument that are key. You are also not expected to know every topic that is covered. Have a look through the info on courses sticky at the top of this forum to see more info that I wrote about history.

It is tough during first year because you're adapting, but your grades in first year don't count towards your final degree award so you can afford to learn from your mistakes. It's truly not as bad from second year on and by final year it's terribly interesting. It's an excellent subject to study to hone your skills in self-discipline, research, critical thinking, analysis, processing large volumes of information and presenting this concisely, argument and writing style. That's what you get out of third level history. LC history gives you dates, places and names. Anyone can check up these facts, only a few can interpret them in a meaningful way.

I expect that by the end of this year I will probably have regretted not continuing history. It was "Sources of History" that really turned me off. Not sure if you had that module but it was what it said on the tin. The Hows and Wheres of History rather than the Whats and Whys which is what interested me.

bluedolphin

Sir Baralot wrote: »

I expect that by the end of this year I will probably have regretted not continuing history. It was "Sources of History" that really turned me off. Not sure if you had that module but it was what it said on the tin. The Hows and Wheres of History rather than the Whats and Whys which is what interested me.

Yeah, in the 'Info about Sources' sticky I mention its predecessor, Tools & Methods in Historical Research, which is what I did under the old curriculum, and is by far the worst module I did in any subject in my four years. It's tedious, uninteresting, difficult, very airy-fairy and I still question its necessity. Yuck! And I think it's a disgrace teaching it to first years - it's too difficult and off-putting. The Department of History are shooting themselves in the foot by doing that.