History = Just the past and nothing more?

Pardon my obession with this topic, not just because bright traces of this question have already been embossed onto this year's Prelims. It has got a lot to do with SG 50 and a recent Cambridge passage you encountered just before the exam.

This discipline remains a taken-for-granted issue often undermined by modernity's obsession with STEM-based economies and their accrued value. You cannot move deeper into its waters unless you first excavate the underlying assumptions as to why its value has grown increasing more important ( or less so?)

To those stubborn souls who still insist on taking on 'black hole'  / low SI essay questions on your final lap, know that there is much ground to cover before you execute the decision. This is one experimental question you could work on. Stretch yourself and see how far you can go in light of Question 4 in your prelim paper. Insights from the following source may look rather dated. However, several arguments do stand the test of time. Provide your own examples  in light of your own knowledge, society and experiences (Gee, sounds like an AQ question). Here are 3 powerful and accessible article for your immediate consumption...





http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/resources/articles/why_history_matters.html



https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/archives/why-study-history-(1998)





http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/28/tristram-hunt-history-teaching-schools




To the risk-adverse (I say wise) pilgrims in this cohort, as always, no harm injecting more depth to what you already know, simply because it's your intellectual responsibility and reward to do so. You know you will still go far even if this area of interest crops up for your final Paper 2 on Nov 2nd.