History of England starts at 1700, says university

[Larry]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...niversity.html



just find this absoloutly staggering - events such as the Reformation and Civil War are such important events that they had a massive impact on the this country and now Sussex University want to ignor that they ever happened ..
but then considering New Labour's attitude to British History should we really be suprised at this attitude

[Captain Tancredi]

If you look a bit closer at the article, it's actually research pre-1700 that they're scrapping- in other words, they won't be offering postgraduate courses into earlier history, and the specialisms in the department are going to be focused on supporting the undergraduate course. When I was doing my undergraduate choices, Sussex wasn't considered a serious university (not for a private school in the North, anyway) so I think part of the problem is that about 15 years ago every polytechnic and further education college was allowed to call itself a university and offer a full choice of degrees. Throw in tuition fees and there just aren't enough students to go round.

[Stuart Wallis]

Deleted.

[Lissa]

It's a publicity stunt - do something that will appal the broadsheets, protest against government cutbacks and hope to catch the eye of a probably future Conservative government keen to reverse New Labour barbarism.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Outrageous!

The Civil War is without doubt one of Englands most pivotal moments, establishing the authority of Parliament, and attempts to moderate the powers of the monarch. It would also establish some of the key ideas which make up modern Britain - about whether religion should be moderated by the state, or individual freedom to pursue an individual faith were the order of the day. This was an important step on the road to the multicultural Britain we take for granted these days.

That is unless you're of Irish descent, where you're indoctrinated to believe Oliver Cromwell was the big bad guy, boo hiss.

[Stuart Wallis]

Boo, and indeed hiss.

Though I would agree that the setting up of a constitutional monarch who can still declare a state of emergency and dissolve Parliament, if only to allow a General Election, places a very useful safety valve over the heads of potentially "difficult" crowned heads and PMs. Which wouldn't have been there without Cromwell. Anyone willing to learn about or enter politics should at least know this much history.

I'd also originally read this as an end to teaching pre-1700 history. Even so, history isn't just a list of dates, maps, chaps and conquered natives, as anyone who's seen Time Team will tell you - when they do find something other than rain. Sometimes it's the silly little things that are far more interesting than who killed how many at the Battle of Wossname. For example, maybe both are apocryphal - George V's last words are said to be either "How is the Empire?" or "Bugger Bognor." If this were actually an important matter that the Royal Family wished to be discussed, the researchers would be in there like a shot. They've certainly discovered that there's a distinct possiblility that he may have been euthenased, but that's another story. And there's the small matter of history being written by the winners; it's research that can turn up what happened to the other side, and how the average Mr. and Mrs. J. Public lived at the time. Archaeology, as Tony Robinson wrote, is rubbish - not literally; what's dug up is the leftovers of other societies. Lissa tends to be on the right lines as usual; you'd need things like deciding about alternative energy and resources needed to take us where we're going to force us to make a decision to ignore finding out the mistakes made along the path where we've been.

[Jason Thompson]

Amazing how headline writers manage to come up with something that in no way actually represents what the article says, isn't it?

I don't see a difficulty, personally. Funding has been cut so they have to scrap certain areas. A degree is supposed to be a specialised education, not a general one. 'History' is a broad subject, just as 'biochemistry' is. I very much doubt that my biochemistry degree covered everything in the whole field. Does that make my degree useless? I have a GCSE in history, but that only covered post-world war 1 history. Is that worthless too? If the University decides to specialise in certain areas of history then that's their prerogative, and it's not like people going in won't know what the course entails to some degree beforehand.

Of course there were some important historical events before 1700, but there were just as many after. Why is cherry-picking a few from the whole of history better than selcting a period and focusing on that?

When I was doing my undergraduate choices, Sussex wasn't considered a serious university (not for a private school in the North, anyway)

When was this, out of interest?

so I think part of the problem is that about 15 years ago every polytechnic and further education college was allowed to call itself a university and offer a full choice of degrees.

True, but not applicable to Sussex, which has been a University since its inception and which is one of the top in the country.

Once again the government's mouth says on thing while its hand does another. Apparently getting students into higher education was a priority of theirs, so they scrapped the grant, introduced tuition fees, and slash university funding. Anyone else see a problem with that as a way to get more people in?

[Captain Tancredi]

When was this, out of interest?

Late 1980s. If (ike me) you were doing Oxbridge entrance, for your remaining four choices you were encouraged to pick two Robinson group universities (in my case Bristol, where I eventually went, and Edinburgh), one from the middle tier (mostly red-brick universities) and one from the bottom rung (this being before the big early-90s change, to all intents and purposes the post-war campus universities). I have no idea how things have changed in the last twenty years, but most universities (particularly in the south-east) must now struggle to stand out from the herd because there are so many all doing roughly the same thing.

[SiHart]

Oh come on, lets have some perspective here... This is one university among all the universities in the country. They can choose to study what they like- if students want to do research into those periods of history they can always go elsewhere.

It's not as if the research into pre 1700 history is stopping all over the country.

Si xx

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Bet they're offering such courses as "David Beckham studies" though!

[Stuart Wallis]

I wish they'd do a course in Cheryl Cole, I can't understand a bloody word she says!

[Jason Thompson]

I have no idea how things have changed in the last twenty years, but most universities (particularly in the south-east) must now struggle to stand out from the herd because there are so many all doing roughly the same thing.

The University of Sussex is ranked quite highly in the country, being within the top 20 for quite some years now. It has a superb sciences department. I don't see why the timing of its establishment should have any bearing on it. It is certainly now considered to be a 'serious' university, and was so considered in 2001 when I graduated from it. I'm afraid I take it a little personally when someone is dismissive of the establishment I gained my degree from, as it feels like a slight on my academic achievements.

[Anthony Williams]

The University of Sussex is ranked quite highly in the country, being within the top 20 for quite some years now.

Whilst Sussex may rank top 20 for sciences (and, indeed, overall) - it's History department are 35th in the country, which isn't bad, but certainly not in the top third. Admittedly, that's higher than my own alma mater (Reading clocking in at 39th), but I don't think that that actually matters. Indeed, I don't really think that ANY university, regardless of its place in the league tables, has the right to make such grandiose statements. Likewise, to give up on postgraduate research on anything prior to 1700 is ridiculous and even irresponsible. Although I don't agree with periodisation, if other universities were to follow suite... where would future medievalists or early modernists come from? Some of the academics who teach me are still finding virtually untouched documents from the 1100s, 1200s, 1300s in both the national archives, and in local archives. Certainly, some highly interesting documents that have been glossed over in the past, if even looked at all.

Incidentally, since it's been brought up in this discussion, I'd argue that the English Civil War didn't have a huge impact on the way that the country was run. If nothing else, the Civil War simply led to England becoming more anti-Catholic than ever before, with the Puritans in power, whilst Cromwell reigned just like a monarch.

The Glorious Revolution, on the other hand... that's when things happened. The Bill of Rights 1689 ensured toleration of Catholics, rather than persecution. It also ensured freedom from royal interference in the law, freedom from taxation by royal prerogative, freedom to petition the monarch, freedom to elect MPs without interference, and finally, freedom of debate and speeches in Parliament without the interference of the monarch. THAT, is the beginning of modernity for Britain.

Ant x

[Jason Thompson]

Likewise, to give up on postgraduate research on anything prior to 1700 is ridiculous and even irresponsible. Although I don't agree with periodisation, if other universities were to follow suite... where would future medievalists or early modernists come from?

But why would other universities follow suit?

The fact remains that Sussex lost a few million in funding for this academic period. That will have an effect somewhere, unless you propose they find some way to continue doing the same stuff with a shortfall of several million in the bank with which to fund it.

The University has decided to focus their efforts on some particular areas. So what? I'd rather see them restrict their efforts and do a few things well than cut everything down and do the same stuff less well.

I don't see why it should be such a big deal that they have cut a few things from a very broad subject. Most subjects are already too broad to be taught in such a specialised course as a degree. My biochemistry degree didn't cover penicillin, surely a material of major importance. In all the history I ever learned throughout school I never covered World War 1, a major landmark event. How many history courses cover everything anyway? We always hear about things like the English Civil War, Henry VIII, the battle of Hastings, etc. How many courses include things like the building of the London Metropolitan Sewer System, an event that vastly improved sanitation and surely deserves consideration as a significant step in English history? History is too broad to teach fully in three years, so it always, inevitably, gets cut down anyway.

The University has not said 'nothing before 1700 is important' (despite what the sensationalist headline of that article said), they have simply decided to focus their energies elsewhere. One university in the country has done that. That doesn't mean suddenly no-one is going to know anything about history pre-1700. Academics and reserachers all over the country can carry on doing what they like. Applicants at Sussex won't be studying that area. So what? Who decided they absolutely should anyway? University education is a choice, not a compulsory learning period. If you want to study pre-1700 history apply to a different university. Simple.

I could understand the fuss if the national curriculum was being cut such that schools would stop teaching really important things, but the fuss made over one University choosing to alter its research structure baffles me.

[SiHart]

How many courses include things like the building of the London Metropolitan Sewer System, an event that vastly improved sanitation and surely deserves consideration as a significant step in English history?

The A Level history course I did covered that as part of British Social History. I suspect the course has changed since the early 90s though.

Si xx

[Anthony Williams]

The A Level history course I did covered that as part of British Social History. I suspect the course has changed since the early 90s though.

It has, but I covered it at degree level

The point with regards to Sussex is that they are no longer allowing people to focus on pre-1700 history in postgraduate and post-doctoral work. Which means the better academics will go elsewhere. I read from that article that pre-1700 history will continue to be taught at undergraduate level. So, they will get a sub-standard education in that area of history, because the majority of academics will be post-1700 historians.

Frankly, I wouldn't choose to study history at Sussex under those circumstances. But then again, I always had fairly broad historical interests, ranging from Crusading in the High Middle Ages through to the 20th Century British Intelligence Community. At both Reading and UCL, all my fellow students said that they chose those universities precisely because of the breadth of the course. Likewise the friends of mine from school who went off to study history at Durham, Cambridge, Oxford, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh, UEA, Warwick... need I go on? I don't know of anyone who went to a university to study history at undergraduate level because the course was narrow!

[Captain Tancredi]

The University of Sussex is ranked quite highly in the country, being within the top 20 for quite some years now. It has a superb sciences department. I don't see why the timing of its establishment should have any bearing on it. It is certainly now considered to be a 'serious' university, and was so considered in 2001 when I graduated from it. I'm afraid I take it a little personally when someone is dismissive of the establishment I gained my degree from, as it feels like a slight on my academic achievements.

Well, obviously I didn't mean it that way, but I think in the context of being advised in the main by teachers who'd graduated from Oxbridge between the 1950s and the 1970s it's perhaps also more understandable. I specifically being warned that their English teaching was very politicised (I think I'm right in saying that it was a Sussex academic who came out with the theory that Jane Austen's novels are all about slavery because they're about a society built on slavery where nobody actually mentions slaves) and I wouldn't get a good grounding in the actual texts because so much time was spent on the theory. It may also be that it took that extra time for some of the post-war universities to really come into their own, but also bearing in mind where I was educated, if you wanted to study at one of the campus universities then Sussex was a long way to go for a similar standard of teaching to places like Lancaster and Salford which are much nearer.

[WhiteCrowNZ]

Hark at people quoting University league tables!!!

I went to Sheffield which is quite high in popularity tables (at least when I went), but also to Essex, which I've the impression isn't. However I feel academically I got more out of Essex than Sheffield - mainly as the department had a lot more time for it's students. But the University experience and what motivates some and not others is totally individual.

Ironically I think it was my lectures at Freirich-Schiller Universitat which I paid the most attention to. And they were in German!!! Sitting at the front with my English-German dictionary and putting my hand up for help with the hard words. Foreign students huh!