Talk:Dan Snow

Double first

"Double first class degree"? I've come across various references to "Oxford Double Firsts" but most of these are spurious since (I think) the only subject where you can get one of these is Classics ("Mods and Greats"). Is that what Dan Snow read?

Most undergraduates sit two sets of exams at Oxford: the first ones are usually at or towards the end of the first year and are called Prelims (short for Preliminaries) or Mods (short for Honour Moderations), depending on the subject. The main difference is that Prelims are unclassified (i.e. they're pass or fail) whereas Mods are classified (first, II:i, II:ii, third, pass, fail). The other exams are called Schools (short for Final Honour Schools, but usually known as Finals); these are taken at the end of one's final year and it is on the basis of these (classified) exams that the final degree (first, II:i, etc.) is awarded.

Double firsts (at Oxford, at least) refer to one of two things: either taking a first in Mods and then a first in Finals; or taking a first class degree in finals in each of two subjects in a combined honours course (e.g. reading Maths and Philosophy and then taking a first in Maths finals and a first in Philosophy finals). The latter seems to be more prevalent at Oxford, not least because many undergraduates sit Prelims, not Mods, and therefore aren't eligible to take a double first.

Dan Snow read History at Balliol; he took a first in Mods and a first in Schools. He can therefore legitimately be said to have taken a double first in History.

Hope this helps. ^talkGiler 09:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in History you do prelims, not mods. As you say, prelims are not classified. So you can't get a first in prelims. and therefore you can't get a double first in History. Millbanks 08:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked, and you're correct that in History you now take Prelims, not Mods. However, this appears to have been the case only since 2003 or thereabouts. The subject of the article therefore sat Honour Mods, not Prelims and the double first comment stands. But you're quite right that appears to be no longer possible to take a double first in History. ^talkGiler 09:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly in the 60s you did Prelims, not Mods in History. Are you telling me that they changed to Honour Mods and then back to Prelims in 2003? Millbanks 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I am. The change to Honour Mods happened "in the 1980s" (see http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/alumni/oxhistorian/issue_1/03_studying_modhist.htm). I'm not sure when the change back happened—it was still Mods when I left in 2000 but it's now Prelims (see http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/currentunder/index.htm). Hope that helps. ^talkGiler 08:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Dan Snow "not a historian"/new book

Regarding Dan's lack of postgrad degree and similar lack of published academic work - does his recently published book on the Battle of Quebec count towards being publish academic work? Luctifer (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is denying Mr Snow's legal right to award himself the title of 'historian', but the book is not from an academic publisher & isn't peer-reviewed like a piece in a proper academic journal would have to be, so its publication is irrelevant to the comment regarding Snow's academic record.80.229.9.98 (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Snow has no graduate training in history, nor has he ever published an article in an academic peer reviewed journal. Nonetheless, he refers to himself as a 'historian'."

Are you implying that if you have written a work of history and it has not been reviewed in a proper academic journal then it is in some way incorrect to call yourself an historian?

• • If yes, please clarify the status of people such as Andrew Roberts (Salisbury: Victorian Titan; winner of Wolfson History Prize); Roy Jenkins (Gladstone; 1995 Whitbread Award for Biography); Anthony Beevor (visiting professor of history; Birkbeck College); Andrew Marr (History of Modern Britain). None of these have "graduate training in history, nor has he ever published an article in an academic peer reviewed journal".
  • If no, please accept that your edit is logically incorrect.
  • If this is not what you mean please elaborate what you mean by your comment, particularly the use of "nonetheless" imply a perjorative connection between the two statements).

It isn't actually my comment, just a valid observation by another editor. This observation doesn't state that Snow or anyone else is or isn't an historian, it just helps to make clear that, while Snow may claim to be an historian, he lacks the degree(s) & academic work record that would normally lead those engaged in historical research in academic institutions to consider him one of their own. If we had different, single words for 'non-academic purveyor of stories about the past' & 'academic historian' then there'd be no doubt as to which applied to Snow. My own opinion is that Beevor, for example, could fairly be described as an historian because of the quality of his work. In his case, writing about modern warfare & the British Army, his professional experience has proved a reasonably effective substitute for an academic record. Those of Dan Snow's programmes I've seen (the Battlefield Britain series), however, have proved to be amongst the most appalling load of rubbish I've ever encountered - prose versions of Snow's accounts submitted as undergraduate essays would be lucky to scrape 50%.80.229.9.98 (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 'non-academic purveyor of stories about the past' May I suggest 'TV Historian'?

Although it would probably be better to rephrase the two sentences regarding his lack of academic historian status. Perhaps "Although widely referred to as a historian, Snow has no graduate training in history, nor has he ever published an article in an academic peer reviewed journal." Takes into account that many consider him a historian, while (hopefully) neutrally clarifying his lack of post-graduate study etc. Luctifer (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd avoid 'TV Historian' because that would only convey the same sense of reservation about Snow's claim if we assumed that the medium of TV made for inherently non-academic accounts, which I don't believe is true. I'd also avoid 'widely referred to as an historian' because I've never heard an academic say anything good about him or his output - the only instances I've ever known of his being referred to as an historian by anyone other than his Dad have been in his own publicity blurb (or material deriving from it).80.229.9.98 (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)