<p>I switched my major from Philosophy to History, and I must say it’s a bit overwhelming. I wouldn’t say Philosophy was easier, but the workload is completely different. For example, in Philosophy you’ll read 10 pages - but you’ll have to read it 5-6 times to really get it. In History, you’ll read 100+ pages per week.</p>
<p>When it comes to writing, the History major is also a lot more technical than Philosophy. Footnotes, endnotes, bibliographies, making sure you follow the Chicago Style, etc. In Philosophy, I could just write.</p>
<p>Overall all, it seems like History is more manual labor where as Philosophy is more mental labor. At this point, I’m not sure which major I like better. I love the flexibility in History, but I hate the workload. I also liked studying Philosophy, but Philosophy varies greatly from one class to another - and the way the major is set up at UCLA you have to take courses in specific areas. So even if you hate studying ethics, you still have to take classes in it. There’s also the stress of not knowing where you stand until after the midterm/final. You think you get the philosopher’s argument, but do you really?</p>
<p>My question is, does the process of studying History become easier? Do you get used to the volume of reading you have to do? The rules you have to follow when writing a paper? I’m not sure if I should go back to Philosophy or stick it out with History (I’ve only taken one History class, it’s a 97 series).</p>
<p>100 pages per week is nothing compared to the amount of reading that you could be doing in other majors. You do get used to it. Just like you get used to writing a paper in a specific manner(it’s the same thing with philosophy-yes, there might not be all those footnotes or specific formats, but there’s a specific way of writing a philosophy paper than a typical standard paper).
I think the most important question you need to ask yourself is if you enjoy what you are reading/studying. If you do, reading certain amount of pages, or writing papers in certain formats, won’t be as much as a chore.</p>
<p>I switched from Philosophy to Literature for many reasons(Philosophy’s major requirements, professor dryness, a lack of interesting classes/electives. My advise to you is to not get caught up with the major name, i.e. Philosophy, Anthropology, Scandinavian Studies, Art History, English, and just browse through all the department course offerings, book/reading list, and enroll in classes that seem interesting. If you see that you end up finding a lot of classes interesting, and they do end up being interesting, then choose a major like that. </p>
<p>Have you looked at majors like Political Science or Sociology? In Political Science, you get both history and philosophy. I’d also advise you to take some sort of literature class with a really good professor(check their ratings online). A good professor can change everything for you.</p>
<p>I have looked into Political Science, but I wouldn’t be able to finish the pre-reqs and still graduate on time. I’m not really interested in Sociology. Thanks for the other advice though. Now that I think about it, I do remember having to slightly adjust my writing for Philosophy papers - but it felt a little more natural.</p>
<p>Any philosophy major should have somewhat of a foundational basis in all major areas of philosophy even if that’s not what they specialize in. It would be absurd for someone to say they knew nothing about kant, simply because they were an logician or something similarly abusrd. + they only make you take two of each of those classes, the major itself is pretty flexible. I would only imagine it being immensely annoying if you find many areas boring in philosophy (if you’re only interested in logic and want to ignore ethics, metaphysics and epistemology for example.) and there are certain philosophy majors like that (especially, ime, the ‘pre-law’ majors) now that i’m done with my rant, i’ll answer your question:</p>
<p>there are boring classes in any field. My psychology professor thought psych 2 was insanely boring. i’m taking a history of philosophy course right now that i think is like 90% boring. it’s just a means to an end. you have to ask yourself why you’re complaining about your history class: is it because the materials boring, or because the workload is higher than you’d like to do? if you don’t think you’ll mind reading a lot and you find this stuff interesting then maybe you’re just in a boring class. If reading 100+ pages per week isn’t for you, history probably isn’t for you.</p>
<p>tbh it doesn’t sound like your happy with either major. Both majors are pretty useless unless you go to some form of graduate school, so pick whichever one you think you’ll enjoy more imo.</p>
<p>I am a History major and I would argue it is by far one of the easiest majors at UCLA. The reading is a lot, but you will eventually get used to it. The 97 class is particularly heavy on reading because it is a seminar that meets only once a week. Most classes would probably have a bit less reading. You should try to take history classes that you have interest in. For instance, you may find reading 100 pages about World War II is more interesting and fun than 100 pages about ancient Mediterranean civilizations.</p>
<p>Furthermore, History exams are very straightforward. Unlike philosophy classes, you don’t have to think. All you need to do in History is regurgitate the information you learned in class and in readings onto a piece of paper. Most final and midterm exams essentially ask, “In what ways did EVENT transform and shape SO AND SO COUNTRY?” In other words, just summarize everything you read in the book on that blue book. Research papers are more or less the same.</p>
<p>There’s a reason many athletes are History majors you know…;)</p>
<p>As for the rules of writing a paper, that really should be the least of your concerns. I mean honestly, is it that hard to use footnotes? Come on. Please don’t tell me one of the main reasons you don’t like being a History major is because you don’t like formatting. Get used to it pal.</p>