So ... who else hates college?

Aqualis · October 03, 2007, 03:56:58 PM

That may also be part of my problem. I don't plan to get a "job" after college. Right now I plan to play poker professionally and travel the world.

Gen. Volkov · October 04, 2007, 12:38:56 AM

QuoteEh, sounds like you got a good teacher then Volkov. If he admitted making a mistake that's good, and giving the points back was better
There are some professors who will not admit their mistake, nor will they give any points back. That's their perogative I guess

I didn't say I didn't like the teacher, he's a cool enough guy, I just don't like that I have to take the class when I have already taken 200 and 300 level history courses.

kell · October 04, 2007, 05:29:06 AM

well it wasnt my first choice course but itll allow me to teach (not my intended subject of history) but teaching is a handy number all civil jobs here are so easy and overpaid

Peace Alliance · October 04, 2007, 01:32:50 PM

this is odd, i recently posted a long and dramatic rant about how much i'm hating school on deviantart, heh

windhound · October 04, 2007, 02:05:47 PM

There are plenty of teachers who are cool guys, probably great to hang out with, but cant teach worth rat dung.
There are actually quite a few of these at Colleges because of research opportunities. Some professors love their research and teach on the side, others visa versa. Its generally the teachers that love to teach and treat research as secondary to their students that you want to find.

The majority of High Schools I've seen offer AP classes, ie, AP US History, that would have satisfied that req. Not all beginner histories are US history and unless you're at a tiny college there's a variety of choices; say, an African or Austrelian History.
I'm taking my history class (only need one) this semester, British history till.. I think 1688 or so. Guy is enthusasic, the reading assignments are a little long, but its a good course. About everything he's covering is new to me, so its interesting. I could see how rehashing history could be dull, but you chose the course...

Gen. Volkov · October 04, 2007, 06:54:30 PM

Windy, the prereq is course specific. I had to take American History 102 at my college in order to take the higher level course that I really wanted to take. It's one of the professors requirements, not a school requirement, wasn't even my choice. I had already taken a 100 level class. I took plenty of history in High School, though they didn't offer AP history classes.

My professor is a decent sort. He doesn't run the class very well, in my opinion though. Me and this other fellow could probably do a better job of teaching it. He is at least engaging though, the classes pass quite quickly.

kell · October 05, 2007, 07:16:13 AM

British history 1688 boring well I'm biased, we get invaded and defeated so many times around that period that I stay well away lol eurpoe 1870-1914 is great

windhound · October 05, 2007, 08:23:21 AM

Wait, you get invaded so much its boring? :-P
In most of this Brittian doesnt seem to keep the same king for more than 7 years or so.. and they're all named Edward, Henry, or Richard
But you've got the tale of the Holy Grail! And Beowulf. Magna Carta. Bede and so on
Naw. not boring. Boring is when one king rules for years peacefully, who then passes it on to his son, who rules peacefully in the land of butterflies and doves.

Shadow · October 05, 2007, 09:30:00 AM

have any of you ever read the boomer bible?

kell · October 05, 2007, 06:22:09 PM

well it's tough to keep reading about how your ancestors keep getting whooped by the english time and time again.but i so agree war is the most interesting part of history

Gen. Volkov · October 05, 2007, 07:20:19 PM

Not the English windy, the Irish. In the 1600's, the British were kicking rear and taking names left and right. They rolled over the Irish several times during this period. Especially Cromwell.

kell · October 06, 2007, 08:05:17 AM

Volky knows his stuff,cromwell butchered thousand apon thousands even the towns that surrendered were put to the sword in what became the fouth plantation of ireland, the plantation of connacht

Gen. Volkov · October 07, 2007, 12:53:01 AM

*Hesitates to discuss Cromwell with an Irishman* LOL.

I've got mixed feelings on the fellow myself. His campaign in Ireland was certainly violent, often brutal, and racked up a large death toll. But Cromwell wasn't any more violent or brutal that he absolutely had to be, and the death toll certainly wasn't as large as it could have been. At least some, if not most, of the towns put to the sword were massacred because they continued to fight even after formally surrendering. Under the rules of the day, Cromwell was perfectly within his rights to slaughter the whole town in response. Did he have too? Certainly not, but it made the basic point of his entire trip to Ireland. Which was, simply, "Do NOT mess with me". He rampaged across Ireland for a period of months, made his point, and then left, never to return again. He was a ruthless, cold-hearted calculating doot, but he wasn't a deliberately cruel or sadistic person. What Cromwell did to Ireland actually parallels what Washington did to the Iroquois during the Revolutionary war. I think it's safe to say that the Iroquois did not hold Washington in the same high regard that most Americans did and do.

Please don't get to upset now kell, these are the facts as I know them.

kell · October 07, 2007, 05:32:42 AM

Im not upset in the lest I love a good historical debate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Ireland

it's a good read and has some surprising facts the words war crimes and even genocide are mentioned.

Quote from: Gen. Volkov on October 07, 2007, 12:53:01 AM

His campaign in Ireland was certainly violent, often brutal, and racked up a large death toll. But Cromwell wasn't any more violent or brutal that he absolutely had to be, and the death toll certainly wasn't as large as it could have been.

The Parliamentarian campaign, which Cromwell largely headed, is estimated to have resulted in the death or exile of about 15-20% of the Irish population.So you think he was teking it easy with 15-20% one in every five isn't as high as it could have been?come on volky give me a break

Gen. Volkov · October 07, 2007, 11:27:46 PM

QuoteThe Parliamentarian campaign, which Cromwell largely headed, is estimated to have resulted in the death or exile of about 15-20% of the Irish population.So you think he was teking it easy with 15-20% one in every five isn't as high as it could have been?come on volky give me a break

Well, actually, in point of fact, it could have been much worse. Cromwell's forces enjoyed such a huge superiority that he could have easily eliminated a much larger percentage of the island's population.

Quote
it's a good read and has some surprising facts the words war crimes and even genocide are mentioned.

Indeed, if they occurred to day, they would be considered such, but seeing as they occurred in the 17th century,they were just the facts of war. Especially when one takes into account what the Irish did before Cromwell got there. They aren't exactly innocent of atrocities themselves. Personally I think there are points on both sides of the debate about Cromwell. As with many big figures in history, especially figures as clouded with emotion and as far back as Cromwell, it's quite hard to be sure. There are shades of gray, he wasn't all bad, but he certainly wasn't all good either.