page 4

History on the move

by John Ryall

Students may be able to credit courses in Economic History, Asian Studies and Women in Society to their History majors if ideas suggested by the Chairman of the History Department, Dr. Beaglehole, ever see the light of day.

Dr. Beaglehole suggested these ideas to about 60 History students who were meeting to discuss course changes, assesment and workloads, to elect representatives to the Departmental committee, and to form a History Society.

He said that he personally felt the clear departmental distinction between Economic History and History was not warranted and he was surprised that more students did not do a combination of the two department's courses. They both looked at history, but from different perspectives. He agreed with a comment that the course on Women and Society or a particular Asian Studies course could come into the same category as 'long as it was historical in its approach'.

While students were encouraged by these remarks, there was a great deal of apprehension about other changes taking place in the department. The departmental decision to drop stage one Modern History course from the end of 1975 came under attack from several students. The course is to be replaced by one on European History 1600-1850 seemingly because none of the History lecturers are interested in the post-1850 period.

Students pointed out that the Modern History course was one of the most popular in the department (125 students are currently doing it compared with 7 doing the stage one Asian History course), and it was a sad indictment on the department that it was not able to produce one lecturer in Modern History.

Dr. Beaglehole explained that the department could not hire any more staff (because of lack of funds) and it could not sack those presently employed. So, the alternative seemed to be that you run those courses that your staff members are interested in. Unfortunately, the students, as usual, get the tough end of the stick.

Students also look as though they may have a few battles ahead if the History Department changes its Stage 2 and 3 courses to 6 credits. On the surface this seems to be a sensible move because it allows students to pursue a subject in more depth and the inequalities in workloads with 4 credit courses disappear.

However, Dr. Beaglehole's comments seem to suggest the change will be used as an excuse to increase the workload for each course ('we can't go to the faculty and tell them that we have decided to leave it as it is. This would create tricky problems') without looking to see if it isn't high enough already. Secondly the change will probably mean that in future students will have to do 30 credits (5 courses) at Stage 2 and 3 for a History major rather than the 24 credits (6 courses) as in the past.

Students hoping to escape the turmoil by moving into Honours in 1976 may be disappointed. Three lecturers are going on Sabbatical leave next year, and consequently the number of courses offered will hit rock bottom. Dr. Beaglehole could only promise that there would be 'some changes' made in this area before next year and suggested that a research paper done in co-operation with a History staff member might be an idea worth considering.

The meeting did not decide on any concerted action in the department but merely allowed key issues to be raised. Several students expressed concern about heavy workloads in 4 credit courses because of the expected background reading and many others wanted a say in the type of assessment under which they were to be given a course mark.

The appointment of six student representatives from the meeting was a sign of student determination to act on the issues raised, and the support given by Dr' Beaglehole was a promising sign for future staff-student relations. However, there are still many apparent problems in the department. History students who have specific gripes should use their elected representatives of raise the matter at meetings of the newly-founded History Society.