I liked several of what might be considered the justifications for history that the authors raised. One that I found particularly appealing was Stearn’s argument that history is valuable because of the skills it teaches. Personally I am studying history because I want to be a teacher, so for me, the study of history has an immediate practical value. I need to learn history in order to become a teacher. So for me, there is a nice, easily defined, practical reason for pursuing the subject, much like a nursing student is studying nursing to become a nurse or an engineering student is studying engineering to become an engineer. I’ll admit that I am a flip flopper about the position I am about to present (I contradict myself about this same issue often), so don’t believe everything I say!
However, I am sympathetic of people who are studying History who don’t have the intention of going into teaching or graduate work. Stearns also addresses the fact that art is good for art’s sake, but he also lays out what skills a student historian will learn in his quest to master this subject. The study of history teaches critical thinking skills and analytical skills so that even though a History degree may not be correlated to a job the way a Nursing or Engineering degree is, someone who studies History still posses valuable skills for a career.
The reason I put the disclaimer above that paragraph was because as a generally very practical person I sometimes fret about the usefulness of a history degree in such a tight job market.
I do not know what one would do with a History degree if they were not going into teaching, but for teachers, they certainly have value.
ReplyDelete