As an undergraduate History major at The College of New Jersey, I can attest to the fact that much of what Ayers observed in his seminar is similar to what I have observed in some of my introductory history classes. To share a brief anecdote, I can remember heated discussions in my "Craft of History Class", an introductory methods class that is first in the sequence, over how history should be taught and what it means (we were reading
History on Trial). Many of the students who were not entirely committed to becoming history majors shared a view which more or less defined history as being a series of facts and jingoism. These students were no doubt influenced by the increasingly fact-based history curriculum of many high schools. Other, who seemed to be more committed to the discipline, noted that history is focused on rigorous and seemingly never ending analysis, as well as sheer curiosity. I tend to share this latter view.
In general, I've noticed that many of my friends who are not history majors don't really understand what it is that historians do. They are constantly confused by the books that I always seem to be reading and wonder why we don't have exams in our classes. I suppose this confusion may be partially the result of a divide between the humanities and the sciences. Nonetheless, many of my undergraduate friends still view history as a class that they were required to take in high school. For this reason, I make every effort to show them otherwise.
-------------------------------------------
Steven Rodriguez
Coll. of New Jersey
Oakland NJ
rodris10@tcnj.edu -------------------------------------------