I can give some insight as a History graduate. (I have a 2:1 Bachelor's degree in History from a mid-table UK university, but honestly studying was a big mistake because I never went into that...
I can give some insight as a History graduate.
(I have a 2:1 Bachelor's degree in History from a mid-table UK university, but honestly studying was a big mistake because I never went into that field and my degree closed far more doors than it opened. Only study History as a degree-level subject if you want to go into academia, or really want to be a secondary school History teacher.)
If you're expecting to do serious groundbreaking research, write peer reviewed journal articles, etc, then you not only need a Bachelor's Degree but you also need a Masters, MPhil and most likely a PhD in History. Nobody is going to accept research from somebody not affiliated with an academic institution. Even in a country like the UK where our student loan terms are incredibly generous, good luck getting the same level of funding for postgrad...
But history in general is incredibly accessible. Avoid historical novels because they take a metric tonne of liberties with their source material, but definitely read non-fictional secondary sources, as much as these can introduce biases.
An example of history and historical novels clashing... Ian Fleming makes the life of a MI:6 spy sound far more glamorous and action-packed than it actually was. If you look into what the SIS/MI:6 actually do, it ain't a double-life of slamming shaken-not-stirred martinis, gambling life savings and shagging random women at a bar one second, and infiltrating an evil mastermind's secret base the next. And don't get me started on the films...
As for biases... Niall Ferguson's books on the British Empire definitely makes him sound like an apologist for imperialism, while more modern works (i.e. anything by John Newsinger) have been heavily critical of British activity in colonies.
First of all, I want to stress that it's absolutely normal and natural to begin the study of history by looking on it as a "story". That's how everyone gets started. Even the most elite academic historians, if they're honest, begin as people who fall in love with the stories that history tells– and, perhaps, are especially intrigued by the realisation that the story being told is in some sense "true". So I will make some recommendations for works that tells those stories, but I'd add that it's important to remember that, at a second and deeper level, history is also (and, those of us offering help in a place like this would tend to agree, mostly) about offering interpretations of those stories. Once you actually get involved in the subject, it's not too long before you start realising that there are many different ways of telling the same tales – most of which involve placing different stresses on what matters most, but some of which certainly encompass casting doubt on the actual truthfulness of stories commonly told.
I can give some insight as a History graduate.
(I have a 2:1 Bachelor's degree in History from a mid-table UK university, but honestly studying was a big mistake because I never went into that field and my degree closed far more doors than it opened. Only study History as a degree-level subject if you want to go into academia, or really want to be a secondary school History teacher.)
If you're expecting to do serious groundbreaking research, write peer reviewed journal articles, etc, then you not only need a Bachelor's Degree but you also need a Masters, MPhil and most likely a PhD in History. Nobody is going to accept research from somebody not affiliated with an academic institution. Even in a country like the UK where our student loan terms are incredibly generous, good luck getting the same level of funding for postgrad...
But history in general is incredibly accessible. Avoid historical novels because they take a metric tonne of liberties with their source material, but definitely read non-fictional secondary sources, as much as these can introduce biases.
An example of history and historical novels clashing... Ian Fleming makes the life of a MI:6 spy sound far more glamorous and action-packed than it actually was. If you look into what the SIS/MI:6 actually do, it ain't a double-life of slamming shaken-not-stirred martinis, gambling life savings and shagging random women at a bar one second, and infiltrating an evil mastermind's secret base the next. And don't get me started on the films...
As for biases... Niall Ferguson's books on the British Empire definitely makes him sound like an apologist for imperialism, while more modern works (i.e. anything by John Newsinger) have been heavily critical of British activity in colonies.
From the r/AskHistorians post: