As I am sitting semi-despairingly in Aarushi's room trying to prepare our history assignment, I can only ascribe the optimistic side of me to Professor Acuff.
Professor Acuff, for his exams, would give us 6-10 essay questions that corresponded to specific readings. One or two would appear as the long essay on the exam, some would be transformed into short answer questions, and one would be eliminated in class. This meant, that to prepare for these tests, we needed to go through and outline every essay, finding the arguments and the evidence.
This history assignment is rather the same. We are given two questions, are are permitted to come into class September 9th and write a 6-7 page essay on either. Aarushi and I have decided to go with:
Recent writings on the 18th century have considerably altered our understanding of the period. Elaborate.
My feelings are only half consoled by my practice with Professor Acuff. This exam requires not the reading through specifically written articles, but through books that I for one haven't read because I don't want to read four books per week for one subject. These books are dense, and even when you manage to find a good one, that goes through the twenty historians' arguments you need to discuss, there is still the unavoidable fact that the subject is inexplicably dull. I wondered if it was simply the reaction of an International Relations major, but even when dealing with two states somehow the interesting points are overwhelmed by way too much detail and I start to understand that true passionate historians must be rather crazy.
I like simple, neat arguments. I understand the necessity for depth and complexity certainly, but I like for it to be approached in an organized way. History to me seems like a mix of random facts all loosely held together and seemingly of equal importance and then somehow you end up with soup. How are you supposed to find out what causes the soup to be spicy? The peppers? the spices? and you only have your taste buds to determine. Thats how I feel about history. Basically, I'm nostalgic for actual outlines.
Professor Acuff, for his exams, would give us 6-10 essay questions that corresponded to specific readings. One or two would appear as the long essay on the exam, some would be transformed into short answer questions, and one would be eliminated in class. This meant, that to prepare for these tests, we needed to go through and outline every essay, finding the arguments and the evidence.
This history assignment is rather the same. We are given two questions, are are permitted to come into class September 9th and write a 6-7 page essay on either. Aarushi and I have decided to go with:
Recent writings on the 18th century have considerably altered our understanding of the period. Elaborate.
My feelings are only half consoled by my practice with Professor Acuff. This exam requires not the reading through specifically written articles, but through books that I for one haven't read because I don't want to read four books per week for one subject. These books are dense, and even when you manage to find a good one, that goes through the twenty historians' arguments you need to discuss, there is still the unavoidable fact that the subject is inexplicably dull. I wondered if it was simply the reaction of an International Relations major, but even when dealing with two states somehow the interesting points are overwhelmed by way too much detail and I start to understand that true passionate historians must be rather crazy.
I like simple, neat arguments. I understand the necessity for depth and complexity certainly, but I like for it to be approached in an organized way. History to me seems like a mix of random facts all loosely held together and seemingly of equal importance and then somehow you end up with soup. How are you supposed to find out what causes the soup to be spicy? The peppers? the spices? and you only have your taste buds to determine. Thats how I feel about history. Basically, I'm nostalgic for actual outlines.
No comments:
Post a Comment