What is the history course in TCD like?

GOCathail

I'm starting sixth year in September and want to study history in university. I am totally torn between NUIM and TCD, any help from history grads or students to kind of sell the course to me?
Any advantages,disadvantages to going to TCD for history?

Many thanks!

Sanguine Fan

GOCathail wrote: »

I'm starting sixth year in September and want to study history in university. I am totally torn between NUIM and TCD, any help from history grads or students to kind of sell the course to me?
Any advantages,disadvantages to going to TCD for history?

Many thanks!

Having just graduated from TCD in Single Honours History, I have no regrets about my choice of course or university.

For me, the big advantages of TCD were the four-year duration of the course and the opportunity to write a 10,000-word dissertation as part of the final evaluation. From memory, when I applied in 2008 NUIM and UCD were offering a three-year course and, in the case of UCD, another subject had to be studied in first year.

I can't compare the quality of lecturers between the various colleges, but those in TCD are very highly regarded, e.g. Prof. Robinson, Prof. Duffy, etc., and the range of specialist subjects in the final two years is quite wide.

The only disadvantage I can think of is the semesterisation of courses in third and fourth year. In other words, some courses instead of lasting a full academic year have been truncated to fit into a single semester. The upside is that you get to cover an extra topic in years 3 and 4, even if it is not quite as in-depth as a full-year course.

Overall, if you are interested in history, I would recommend TCD without reservation.

gutenberg

I finished my BA in history last year (2011), so my experience of the course was pre-semesterisation: as the poster above me said, there have been quite a few changes.

I believe now in 1st and 2nd years you are obliged to take a wide variety of courses: as in you have to do a certain amount of medieval, Irish, European etc., to ensure you are exposed to as many areas as possible. I think this is great, medieval was always compulsory in first year anyway and when I started I was a little apprehensive about that, but I absolutely LOVED the medieval stuff, and actually did quite a bit of it in my third and fourth years.

For me the best things about the course were the lecturers, the options in third and fourth year (including the dissertation), and the library.

All the lecturers I had were fantastic, and they're all engaged in research in their fields, so they're very up-to-date on current debates, literature etc. You'll get a chance to work closely with them from third year onwards, and it can be a real eye-opener as to how they carry out their research, the depth of topics etc.

The third and fourth year courses I took were brilliant. Check out how they have split up these courses though. The year-long List 1 courses were amazing, they seem really narrow when you look at them on the list (my fourth year one covered only twenty years!), but you get to go into so much depth and really engage with topics, versus the broad sweep of the freshman survey courses. You're also introduced to the key documents for that period, and are expected to analyse them, incorporating the secondary literature etc. If this all sounds a bit terrifying/boring, it really isn't. The dissertation is a similar story, you'll get to choose to research and write 10,000 words on anything that interests you. The great thing is, that a lot of people in first year thought they already knew their area of interest when they started, but for a lot of people it had completely changed by fourth year, which is the beauty of a course as broad as TCD's.

The library then is a copyright library, so it's unbelievably well-stocked for the course: I can think of only a handful of things I couldn't get hold of over my four years. It's also handy for dissertations, as for a lot of people their sources, such as newspapers (but also more obscure, older documents) are held in the library, so they didn't have to go off to research part or all of their thesis, because the material was there.

I hope that answers some of your questions, feel free to ask away though!

GOCathail

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

Having just graduated from TCD in Single Honours History, I have no regrets about my choice of course or university.

For me, the big advantages of TCD were the four-year duration of the course and the opportunity to write a 10,000-word dissertation as part of the final evaluation. From memory, when I applied in 2008 NUIM and UCD were offering a three-year course and, in the case of UCD, another subject had to be studied in first year.

In regard to time, do you not feel that a 3 year course would have "saved" you a year, gaining you a degree earlier? That would be something that would draw me to NUIM... In regard to course structure, could you elaborate on what the structure of the history course in TCD involves?

Thanks for all of your help!

GOCathail

gutenberg wrote: »

I believe now in 1st and 2nd years you are obliged to take a wide variety of courses: as in you have to do a certain amount of medieval, Irish, European etc., to ensure you are exposed to as many areas as possible. I think this is great, medieval was always compulsory in first year anyway and when I started I was a little apprehensive about that, but I absolutely LOVED the medieval stuff, and actually did quite a bit of it in my third and fourth years.

For me the best things about the course were the lecturers, the options in third and fourth year (including the dissertation), and the library.

All the lecturers I had were fantastic.

That really sold TCD to me! It sounds great, but would there be anything major that you would look back on as the bane of your college experience? Anything that you really hated about the course?
I'm just looking for an objective opinion!

Thank you so much!

Sanguine Fan

GOCathail wrote: »

In regard to time, do you not feel that a 3 year course would have "saved" you a year, gaining you a degree earlier? That would be something that would draw me to NUIM... In regard to course structure, could you elaborate on what the structure of the history course in TCD involves?

What I learnt from the course is that the study of history is not about reading history books, but about finding, analysing, and interpreting original sources. This is particularly true in years three and four. Yes, a three-year course would have 'saved' me a year, but I would not have gained the same experience of studying primary documents as I did. This is particularly important if you wanted to study history as a postgrad. In that situation, year four is like a 'transition year', especially in relation to the work involved in writing the dissertation.

I am not sure what you mean by structure, but the hours per week involved in lectures and tutorials are quite low, less than 10 in total for Single Honours. However, it is vital that you spend much more time than that in private study. Most of this is not discretionary as there are always essays and assignments to be written with fixed deadlines involved, and lots of reading required.

Lectures tend to be passive, in that you are absorbing information from the lecturer. Tutorials or seminars are much more interactive and give you a chance to rehearse arguments that may be relevant to an upcoming essay you are working on. Each lecture or seminar lasts about 50 minutes, although they can be longer in the final years.

I found History at UCD to be quite demanding of my time and standards are high. Achieving a result in an exam or essay in the low to mid-70s is probably the equivalent of close to 100% at second level. Grades in the fifties and sixties are more common, especially in the first two years.

The key thing they are looking for is an ability to think and argue a point in relation to what you have read, not simply regurgitate facts and dates.

Hope this helps.

gutenberg

GOCathail wrote: »

That really sold TCD to me! It sounds great, but would there be anything major that you would look back on as the bane of your college experience? Anything that you really hated about the course?
I'm just looking for an objective opinion!

Thank you so much!

Erm, I don't think there was anything I hated, in general I had a very good experience.

There were a couple of tutors (not lecturers, but those who lead the tutorials in 1st/2nd year) who I didn't think were up to much, but they change every year due to the nature of the postgrad community, and you'll get dud tutors everywhere you go.

Apart from that, the one course people had a problem with was Historiography in third year. It wasn't a very well-run course, and did suffer from having too few books etc: it's the one course that all single honors, TSM and histpol take, so there's an unusual pressure on books. The material on the course itself is great - the course examines how people have written and interpreted history over the 20th century - but that was the one course people complained about.

Beyond that, the library could sometimes be annoying as lots of books were in closed-access Stacks and you had to call them up, which could take a while, but at least the library actually has them! The history section of the library hasn't a huge of number of books you can borrow (naturally there are LOADS of books, just not that many you are allowed to borrow) which means you have to either work in the library, or photocopy sections of books to work at home. I didn't have a problem with that as I like to work in the library, but for some people I can imagine it would be a bit annoying.

Sanguine Fan

gutenberg wrote: »

Apart from that, the one course people had a problem with was Historiography in third year. It wasn't a very well-run course, and did suffer from having too few books etc: it's the one course that all single honors, TSM and histpol take, so there's an unusual pressure on books. The material on the course itself is great - the course examines how people have written and interpreted history over the 20th century - but that was the one course people complained about.

I would agree with this. It was a fascinating course. One week you are focusing on the Nazi era, the next on slavery in the USA. That perhaps was the problem: there was an awful lot of material to get through in one semester. And the exam followed almost immediately at the end of term, i.e. just before Christmas, which left little time for revision.

I think it would better to narrow the focus to a few specific 'schools' of historiography and ideally spread it over a full year. But I suppose staffing it is the issue, especially in the current climate.

Ultimately Historiography does not contribute hugely to the final grade and half the evaluation is based on the essay, which is higher than for other subjects. (I prefer essays to exams.)

gutenberg

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

I would agree with this. It was a fascinating course. One week you are focusing on the Nazi era, the next on slavery in the USA. That perhaps was the problem: there was an awful lot of material to get through in one semester. And the exam followed almost immediately at the end of term, i.e. just before Christmas, which left little time for revision.

I think it would better to narrow the focus to a few specific 'schools' of historiography and ideally spread it over a full year. But I suppose staffing it is the issue, especially in the current climate.

Ultimately Historiography does not contribute hugely to the final grade and half the evaluation is based on the essay, which is higher than for other subjects. (I prefer essays to exams.)

Completely agree. I think it would be better spread out over a year, perhaps with a lecture/tutorial every two weeks rather than the weekly format they have now. It would give you time to really absorb what you've been reading, as it's all fascinating stuff.

I can't remember how much it contributed to your final grade (you were single honors right?) but for me as a HistPol doing just history in fourth year, it actually contributed a good bit to my overall degree as our third and fourth years are weighted differently to yours (or at least they were, could have changed in the past year or two), and historiography was a not-insignificant part of third year :eek: That was not a fun term...

GOCathail

Most importantly, in regards to employability after college... Do you feel that having an undergrad degree from TCD (rather than NUIM or UCD) made you a more obvious choice for employers?

gutenberg

GOCathail wrote: »

Most importantly, in regards to employability after college... Do you feel that having an undergrad degree from TCD (rather than NUIM or UCD) made you a more obvious choice for employers?

Personally I don't think it makes much difference where you did the degree, the most important part is that you come out with a good classification; although I haven't applied for any graduate-type jobs, because I'm doing postgrad study.

The one thing I would say is that I think because TCD history is a smaller course (even when combining single honors, TSM & histpol) than UCD or NUIM Arts, I think it's easier to get to know both other students and the staff, which in my opinion can only be a good thing.

Sanguine Fan

gutenberg wrote: »

The one thing I would say is that I think because TCD history is a smaller course (even when combining single honors, TSM & histpol) than UCD or NUIM Arts, I think it's easier to get to know both other students and the staff, which in my opinion can only be a good thing.

I would only add that doing as well as possible in whatever course is the important thing as far as employment is concerned. The fact that you like history can only be a positive motivator to achieving that, not just in the final year but throughout your course. If you can apply yourself consistently, that is a big plus for employers.

gutenberg

Sanguine Fan wrote: »

I would only add that doing as well as possible in whatever course is the important thing as far as employment is concerned. The fact that you like history can only be a positive motivator to achieving that, not just in the final year but throughout your course. If you can apply yourself consistently, that is a big plus for employers.

+1

OP, do as much research as possible into the various courses that you're interested in, and try and visit the universities as well to see how you like them.

After that, just focus on doing as well as possible, and enjoying university life With good results and some varied experiences (part-time/summer jobs and internships, getting involved with student clubs/societies/newspapers etc.) then you'll be in a good position for employment.

Sanguine Fan

gutenberg wrote: »

I can't remember how much it contributed to your final grade (you were single honors right?) but for me as a HistPol doing just history in fourth year, it actually contributed a good bit to my overall degree as our third and fourth years are weighted differently to yours (or at least they were, could have changed in the past year or two), and historiography was a not-insignificant part of third year :eek: That was not a fun term...

For me in Single Honours Historiography contributed about 6% of my final grade in terms of its weighting. That for me is another good thing about History in TCD. Your final grade is made up of many different elements, i.e. essays and exams, and it's spread over the last two years.

I've just counted them and there were 16 separate elements to my final result, each with its own weighting. For instance an essay counts as a quarter of an exam, whereas the dissertation equals one exam. Then each subject has its own weighting depending on whether it is full year or single semester. So if you are generally consistent in your performance but go down in one or two areas, such as a particularly tough exam paper, it won't necessarily have a huge impact on your final grade.

GOCathail

Final question people (sorry about the constant flow of replies), but this is fairly important. In honesty, if you had to choose your undergrad course all over again, would you choose to go to TCD? If not, why so? And where would you prefer to go?

Thank you all so much.

Sanguine Fan

GOCathail wrote: »

if you had to choose your undergrad course all over again, would you choose to go to TCD?

Definitely. It might be slipping down the rankings but it still has one of the best History Departments in Europe, and is ranked 39th in the world.

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011/subject-rankings/arts-humanities/history?page=1

gutenberg

GOCathail wrote: »

Final question people (sorry about the constant flow of replies), but this is fairly important. In honesty, if you had to choose your undergrad course all over again, would you choose to go to TCD? If not, why so? And where would you prefer to go?

Thank you all so much.

Yep, I would. I had a brilliant time

SdoowSirhc

I really like history and I want to do it for my leaving cert but I'm only going into transition year this coming year. I was just wondering what post grad course would you do after history in TCD and what career could you pursue from it?

gutenberg

SdoowSirhc wrote: »

I really like history and I want to do it for my leaving cert but I'm only going into transition year this coming year. I was just wondering what post grad course would you do after history in TCD and what career could you pursue from it?

Well you can do a lot of postgrad courses afterwards- or you needn't do any. Are you talking about specifically history postgraduate courses, like a Master's in history? Those you would typically start thinking about in your final year (or even the year before) but you would need to be exposed to different areas of history before choosing one: what you think you're interested in now may not be what you're interested in at the end of a history degree.

As regards non-history postgraduate courses, and careers more generally, you can do any number of things. A history degree qualifies you for nothing, but excludes you from (practically) nothing. People in my year have gone on to teaching, careers in the civil service/EU, journalism, PR, charity/NGO work, consulting, law, banking/finance. A lot of them didn't even have to do additional postgraduate courses to secure those jobs. So a broad degree like history will set you up well, provided you do well on it of course.

whendovescry

gutenberg wrote: »

Well you can do a lot of postgrad courses afterwards- or you needn't do any. Are you talking about specifically history postgraduate courses, like a Master's in history? Those you would typically start thinking about in your final year (or even the year before) but you would need to be exposed to different areas of history before choosing one: what you think you're interested in now may not be what you're interested in at the end of a history degree.

As regards non-history postgraduate courses, and careers more generally, you can do any number of things. A history degree qualifies you for nothing, but excludes you from (practically) nothing. People in my year have gone on to teaching, careers in the civil service/EU, journalism, PR, charity/NGO work, consulting, law, banking/finance. A lot of them didn't even have to do additional postgraduate courses to secure those jobs. So a broad degree like history will set you up well, provided you do well on it of course.

David Mitchell should be the poster-boy for all history grads as he is just a supreme human being:D

Sanguine Fan

whendovescry wrote: »

David Mitchell should be the poster-boy for all history grads as he is just a supreme human being:D

And he got a 2.2...

Denerick

TCD history is a really great course. The lecturers are for the most part, very engaging individuals. The course structure works well also, the first two years are survey courses which gives you a grand introduction to most general topics in western history, whilst the final two years allows a great deal of specialisation. To be honest, if someone could pay me a wage to be a permanant TCD history undergraduate I'd be more than happy to. Work, and consequently the real world, will never be as engaging as the four years spent in dusty archives and grappling with key historical issues.

You can of course achieve the same education by spending a great deal of personal time reading, but its the influence of the faculty that makes all the difference.

I can't speak with any authority about any other university but I would be of the opinion that Trinity's history course is superior to any other in the country. The extra year helps, but the quality of the teaching staff is second to none. I specialised in Irish history primarily and if you take a look at any standard bibliography of Irish history post 1750 the amount of Trinity or ex Trinity academics is staggering.

Denerick

gutenberg wrote: »

As regards non-history postgraduate courses, and careers more generally, you can do any number of things. A history degree qualifies you for nothing, but excludes you from (practically) nothing. People in my year have gone on to teaching, careers in the civil service/EU, journalism, PR, charity/NGO work, consulting, law, banking/finance. A lot of them didn't even have to do additional postgraduate courses to secure those jobs. So a broad degree like history will set you up well, provided you do well on it of course.

Ouch. A bit over optimistic. I got a good job eventually (Graduated in 2010) but I spent around two years on the minimum wage. The civil service used to be a handy career route for history graduates but that has died a particularly gruesome death. Print journalism is in a death spiral, and most freelancers live on slave wages. 'Charity/NGO' work is a fancy way of saying 'somebody who stands on the street begging for money under a concern banner', the consultancy/law route requires at least a new postgraduate qualification. People do get jobs in banking/finance alright. And there is teaching also, of course.

Ultimately you don't study the arts & humanities if your expectation is to earn 100k a year after college.

gutenberg

Denerick wrote: »

Ouch. A bit over optimistic. I got a good job eventually (Graduated in 2010) but I spent around two years on the minimum wage. The civil service used to be a handy career route for history graduates but that has died a particularly gruesome death. Print journalism is in a death spiral, and most freelancers live on slave wages. 'Charity/NGO' work is a fancy way of saying 'somebody who stands on the street begging for money under a concern banner', the consultancy/law route requires at least a new postgraduate qualification. People do get jobs in banking/finance alright. And there is teaching also, of course.

Ultimately you don't study the arts & humanities if your expectation is to earn 100k a year after college.

I agree with your point about not necessarily expecting to earn massive amounts of money, at least initially.

But in relation to your other points: several of my History colleagues have got positions in the civil service (Dept of Foreign Affairs, EU commission, the upcoming EU presidency); one has a job with the Irish Times, and another is working with thejournal.ie, so a mixture of print media and online journalism; as for charity/NGOs, none of them are working as 'chuggers', one has a post with UNICEF, and another is getting involved with an educational charity that is just being launched (and yes, she is getting paid). As for law, one got a post as a paralegal in the States, without any further qualifications, and the firm is now going to put her through law school; another got a training contract with a Magic Circle firm in London, so it's a combination of working and further study. These are the people without any postgraduate qualifications.

The ones who have done a Master's degree have only recently got jobs with, among others, a PR firm in DC, and with Accenture. A few got a TEFL qualification while they were studying for their BA, and they are now travelling and teaching English as they go.

So there are jobs out there, and we were the class of 2011 (I did HistPol, and the people I listed are all from my class, rather than counting Single Honors and TSM as well). I should point out that of our class, only two people got 2.2s, and interestingly they are the only ones struggling, the rest have done well for themselves.

Denerick

Clearly you're part of an exceptional circle. But the unemployment figures do not lie. Life with a history degree in the modern job hunt isn't exactly giving yourself a comparative advantage. I got a 2:1 also but I spent a lot of time on menial wages.

gutenberg

Denerick wrote: »

Clearly you're part of an exceptional circle. But the unemployment figures do not lie. Life with a history degree in the modern job hunt isn't exactly giving yourself a comparative advantage. I got a 2:1 also but I spent a lot of time on menial wages.

I do agree, times are tough out there, and not just in terms of jobs: the IRCHSS results just came out and many people I know were disappointed to not secure postgraduate funding, because the budget for it has been slashed.

But I think that the reason I am part of an 'exceptional circle' is that all of these people were very driven and ambitious, and made sure that they got experience outside their degree, and this is what has made the big difference for them post-graduation. Whether it was through jobs/internships, or getting involved in student societies, journalism and publications etc., they have supplemented their history degree. I think that is what we should be emphasizing to new students starting their BAs. Get experience in anything that interests you, and it'll help further down the road. A history degree, because of the light contact hours and flexible nature of the schedule (reading can easily be slotted around other commitments), is ideal for getting involved in university life, or availing of the opportunities that being in a capital city has to offer. A degree nowadays will only get you so far, and you should also be trying to get experience in the things that interest you as well.

This isn't, by the way, to say that you should be cynical and only choose history (or any other humanities subject) because you will then have the time to dabble in other things: these degrees are hard work, but also incredibly rewarding for their own sake. But realistically, a lot of people know even at the beginning of their degree that they don't want to be a historian, so they should be expanding their horizons while also studying.

And it also isn't to say that you didn't do any of those things while at college, and I will freely admit that some are in a better position to do (especially unpaid) internships or other work experiences, but looking at my friends and what they have accomplished, both during, and now after college, it really is very humbling

gutenberg

Denerick wrote: »

I specialised in Irish history primarily and if you take a look at any standard bibliography of Irish history post 1750 the amount of Trinity or ex Trinity academics is staggering.

It's increasingly becoming that way with early modern history too (particularly the seventeenth century), and the medieval Irish contingent was always very strong too At my postgraduate university I was very pleasantly surprised by just how highly regarded TCD's history department is. I agree with you that it is the best in the country, but its international standing is excellent too (as demonstrated in the link that Sanguine Fan posted, although league tables are always problematic...)

Denerick

gutenberg wrote: »

And it also isn't to say that you didn't do any of those things while at college, and I will freely admit that some are in a better position to do (especially unpaid) internships or other work experiences, but looking at my friends and what they have accomplished, both during, and now after college, it really is very humbling

Some of us had jobs during college! As in, 30 hour weeks. But thats another story, and I suppose another glass ceiling.

gutenberg

Denerick wrote: »

Some of us had jobs during college! As in, 30 hour weeks. But thats another story, and I suppose another glass ceiling.

I had a job too, as did some of the others I talked about in earlier posts. I think the key is to try and find work that allows you to try out potential career areas: for instance, I was able to work at summer camps and with VTP to 'try out' teaching, and others I know got jobs in libraries and so on. I know it's not always possible, but there are also summers (and long ones at that!) when it is possible to have a job in retail/waitressing/whatever that is paying the bills, and also be getting work experience/doing an internship. I had a weekend job during college, but also volunteered at a museum, and others I know did likewise (including during term time), so it is possible.

I do agree that there is a glass ceiling there, and I absolutely despise in particular this trend of the unpaid internship, as it discriminates against those who don't have parental/other support to fall back on. But there are ways around it.

GOCathail

Just out of curiosity, are both of you of the opinion that history will never offer you a luxurious/surplus amount of money in way of wages? It seems that you're both saying you've resigned yourselves to earning less than €100k (which Denerick used as a figure). I love the arts, especially History and English, but I would not like to think that a qualification in these fields would see me live a penniless life.

Please be brutally honest with your responses. Thank you all.

Denerick

GOCathail wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, are both of you of the opinion that history will never offer you a luxurious/surplus amount of money in way of wages? It seems that you're both saying you've resigned yourselves to earning less than €100k (which Denerick used as a figure). I love the arts, especially History and English, but I would not like to think that a qualification in these fields would see me live a penniless life.

Please be brutally honest with your responses. Thank you all.

I'll bite.

I'm not motivated by money. I want a comfortable live but great wealth doesn't interest me. I drive a clapped up old banger and don't intend to ever get a mortgage, or generally follow the typical middle class trajectory. If you're interested in becoming wealthy and are bright, study law or medicine.

gutenberg

GOCathail wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, are both of you of the opinion that history will never offer you a luxurious/surplus amount of money in way of wages? It seems that you're both saying you've resigned yourselves to earning less than €100k (which Denerick used as a figure). I love the arts, especially History and English, but I would not like to think that a qualification in these fields would see me live a penniless life.

Please be brutally honest with your responses. Thank you all.

Denerick wrote: »

I'll bite.

I'm not motivated by money. I want a comfortable live but great wealth doesn't interest me. I drive a clapped up old banger and don't intend to ever get a mortgage, or generally follow the typical middle class trajectory. If you're interested in becoming wealthy and are bright, study law or medicine.

I agree with Denerick: I want to be comfortable and not have to worry excessively about money, but I'm not interested in making millions. I don't drive, and like him I have doubts about mortgages and so on (especially as I'm currently on an academic career path, which requires you to move around a good bit).

A qualification in history or English in and of itself won't leave you penniless, it depends on what you're interested in doing afterwards. As I listed, friends from my course got into graduate schemes and other employment, and are probably on course to be earning good money in the future (though unlikely in most cases to be 100K, or at least much over it, depending on the sector).

At the moment I see myself staying in academia (I'm about to begin a funded PhD), but as a long-term career strategy it might not be feasible, at least immediately (academic jobs are hard to come by)/ Academic jobs are ok salary-wise, especially when you reach the higher levels, although when you're starting out, the wages can be absolutely paltry- though again this depends especially on location, as I believe academics in Irish universities are in general paid better than their British counterparts.