OPINION: My supplementary subject feels more like upper secondary school than university
History student Asger Stavsholm Tonsberg feels his supplementary subject in German leaves too little room for critical engagement with the syllabus. Many of us will go on to become upper secondary school teachers, which is precisely why this is so concerning. A teacher who has never been taught to challenge a narrative critically will struggle to pass that skill on to their pupils, he writes.
This is an opinion piece; the views expressed in the column are the writer’s own.
As a BA student in history, I was looking forward to my supplementary subject in German. According to the course description of the BA supplementary subject in German, the two semesters are intended to cover not only language and grammar, but also German history, society, and culture. This was something that really appealed to me. When I started, I had every expectation that my grammar, vocabulary, and spoken German would improve, and that we would delve into German history with its vast array of topics, themes, and events. My language skills have, indeed, improved. But the historical and social science part has disappointed me.
Over the past two years as a history student, I have learned to ask: Who is writing history, why, and in what context? Source criticism, comparative analysis, and historiography are not optional extras but the very foundations of the discipline. In the German part of my studies, on the other hand, I often encounter a pre-packaged, official narrative that we are expected to reproduce word for word in exams. It feels more like upper secondary school than university.
Curiosity and enthusiasm are seen as obstacles
I want to be fair. Time is in short supply in a supplementary subject. The curriculum is extensive, and German history contains more topics than anyone can cover in two semesters. A supplementary subject does not carry enough ECTS credits to match the depth of a history degree, and I do not expect it to do so either. But there is a difference between studying a subject in depth and being able to ask questions and think critically. A critical question does not have to take up an hour. Sometimes it just takes one or two minutes and a few sentences. The problem arises when time constraints become a constant justification for never moving beyond established knowledge, and when curiosity or enthusiasm is viewed as an obstacle rather than a resource.
As supplementary subject students, we bring with us the tools of our main subjects. I bring source criticism and a comparative perspective with me, and others bring their own strengths. This is a resource the university could exploit almost for free. Take the GDR, for example. A brief comparison with other authoritarian states, or with West Germany during the same period, would provide a much broader understanding of the mechanisms of state socialisation. That would give us something we could bring into the present: an understanding of what has shaped Germans, whether they come from Bavaria or Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and of how the German education system continues to socialise its pupils today, as all education systems inevitably do.
Memorisation is a fleeting form of knowledge
Critical thinking is not a luxury that can be cut when time is short. It is the difference between knowing and understanding. Those who have learned to ask who is speaking, and in whose interests, can apply their knowledge to new subjects and new situations. Those who have merely memorised the answers are left exposed as soon as the question takes a different form. Memorisation is a fragile form of knowledge. It can be tested in an exam, but it is quickly forgotten because it is not anchored in understanding. More troubling still is that it teaches us to see knowledge as a collection of fixed conclusions rather than an ongoing conversation in which those conclusions can be challenged. This is a conception of knowledge more commonly associated with upper secondary school. At a university, where the purpose is to create and challenge knowledge rather than merely pass it on, that becomes a problem.
The system reproduces itself
Many of us will go on to become upper secondary school teachers, which is precisely why this is so concerning. A teacher who has never been taught to challenge a narrative critically will struggle to pass that skill on to their pupils. If universities simply teach students to reproduce the curriculum, schools will produce pupils who learn only to repeat it. Then we are back at square one: a system that reproduces itself.
I am not asking for more teaching hours, or for teaching to be relentlessly critical and confrontational, but for a slightly different mindset. Let us have a few minutes for the "why" and "who said that". Let the varied academic backgrounds that supplementary subject students bring with them become an asset in the classroom, rather than being treated as a distraction.
This text is machine translated and post-edited by Mie Skov Jeppesen.