In which I finally address academic differences

(I have had the intention of writing a post about the academic differences between Oxford and WashU since getting here. This has been saved in one draft form or another since October. Please forgive my history nerd-ness.)

I've thought a lot and also been asked many questions about the academic differences between here and WashU. Both systems have their pros and cons, and I'm not sure which one I like more. My stock answer to the questions is that the two systems are apples and oranges. Here, you choose one or two complementary subjects (like History and a language) and you study only that for 3 or 4 years. I have missed the variety of classes available to me at WashU, especially art history. However, with American variety comes distribution requirements, meant to shape the ideal liberal arts students. Here, you may be locked in to one or two subjects but at least you don't have to take physics to fulfill some curricular requirements.

I told people before coming here that I expected a smooth academic transition because in classes at WashU, I have been happiest independently researching and writing. I essentially traded my daily academic life in one place for a (slightly different) daily academic life in the other. One of the best things about this year has been the opportunity to try out a different system, and I don't know that I can express how valuable it has been to have the chance to try learning in a different way. The way I read, write and process information has changed, definitely for the better.

Here, more often than not, I start with a completely blank slate on the week's topic. I basically teach myself about the time period and events which go into my essay. What I have learned about the tutorial system is that I live for being told I’m right because it is a vindication of all the torturous reading I’ve done. It’s not even being told that your facts are right because the truth is that here your facts can be slightly off and you’re fine. If you are using an example in the correct way and your analysis is headed in a good direction, that’s more important than facts. In the States, you are given fewer chances to show your individual analysis as there are fewer essays assigned than here. Essays are always regurgitation to some degree - new reading matters, but you also have to show tie-ins to the class material. Here you are always solely accountable to the books. Personally, I have found I respond to material better starting from scratch and personally reading and interpreting it rather than hearing it in a lecture and backing that up with later reading. Simply put, it is the difference between being developed as a historian (slight Oxford snobbery but that's their approach) and being treated as a history major.

The truth is, this program has higher academic expectations than I had been planning on for my study abroad experience. I always intended to go study abroad in a bustling place where I could explore the city and jet off to different countries for the weekend. I also could have gone somewhere and used my French and challenged myself to speak a different language everyday. But instead I think about how I will come back a few years down the road and automatically know my way around the streets. Or how someday I will maybe tell my kids that I went to England for a year and learned a whole lot about myself.