Four things. These aren't all of the reasons but they are some of them.

1. We are passionate about the topic. Can you remember all the stats for your favorite sports team? Same deal. We care and are interested.

2. We are using the information. There is an axiom in academia known as "Publish or Perish". Essentially it means your profs are being pushed to write articles or books on their areas of specialty. This puts them in frequent contact with the material. Not only are they looking at it frequently, for their own writing they are breaking it down and arranging the details into arguments. This kind of intensive thought tends to make you remember things.

3. Related to the above, there is an old study technique where you write the information down again. It is similar to the above because your brain has to use the information at least enough to get it down on paper. This makes it stick a bit better since its not going in one ear and out the other. Try copying down your notes again with a different phrasing; keep the details and meaning, but change the words. It's a similar exercise to figuring out the best sentence to use in an essay, which is what your prof is doing.

4. You should also take notes when you read for your homework. Its slow, and its a pain, but there is no substitute. But if you are working your brain to pull out the important part of the paragraph you get the same benefit as actively trying to work a piece of data into an argument. Make sure you grab the page number so you can check back quickly.

Start with the course syllabus. That should tell you everything you need to know about the main themes of the course. Each lecture should have had a couple of stopping points/main events/ideas/policies what have you. Your syllabus should provide the top-level headings you need to start building your own course outline and the stopping points should be the first subheading. You should be able to describe each stopping point with specificity as a first task. And then work on getting connectors going from one to the next so that you start to develop a story arc with subplots here and there. Don't just think of the course as a few flash cards to memorize but take the opportunity to flesh out your own narrative and boil it down to simple themes - boy meets girl, green-eyed monster, struggle between good and evil, rom-com. Pick your favorite movie or show to fit the theme and replace the characters with the people from history class and try to imagine who the main characters are, who the sub characters are, and what the folks in the background are up to. Who are the special guests? Is there potential for a wacky spin-off, is it a holiday special, did an actor suddenly die in real life and now the rest of the crew has to figure out how to replace the actor mid-taping? If you can follow TMZ you should be able to follow a history course. Good luck!

I don't have too many regrets, however one thing I wish I had done was be more organized about all the things I've read, particularly the "Aha!" and "Woah!" moments that I've had while researching. I was interested in history from a very young age, but until I studied it in a formal college setting I didn't understand the necessity of citing sources (in fact I was quite rebellious against the concept, until I realized how important it is).

There are several anecdotes, concepts, and arguments that I find fascinating and recall reading... somewhere. Unfortunately without a source one has to discard them or at least not draw upon them. Really wish I had had the foresight to record them in some manner.

I used to hate history, for this exact reason. How is one supposed to remember exactly everything that happened?? The thing that finally clicked with me is: they don't. A professor once drew a straight line on the board and said, "this is not history. History is not a timeline. History is more like this," and he drew several more lines, intersecting, in different colors, not even really straight. Basically, what he meant was that there are so many factors to consider, that remembering every single specific date is more or less pointless. Obviously there are important events, but remembering every event? Nah.

It's better to try and remember the sequence of how things happened. For example, some king was in charge, let's call him "William". That would be "William's time period". Well then sometime during William's time period, people started to dislike him. They didn't all of a sudden dislike him, but by a certain decade, it was pretty much a general disapproval of him. So they decided to overthrow him. Then they elected their own leader, and then X, Y, Z consequences happened and a few decades later, that guy was kicked out too.

I don't know if that makes sense, but an easier way to explain it is: history is literally a story. Stop trying to remember dates unless your teacher(s) say "this date is important because..." They will be much happier if you have grasped the general concepts and why everything was important than if you regurgitate some facts. Also, it's easier to remember dates when you know why they're important first. "OH, they signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1777. That's probably why we celebrate it..."

Also, disclaimer: not a historian, still a student. But I've taken enough tests to know how to remember stuff.

This question brings to mind my favorite quote in the entire world:

"In order to build a ship you must first have a longing for the sea."

The key to any career is to be passionate about what you are doing. For instance, the non-American side of the Vietnam War interested me so much in my undergrad that I simply picked up and read every single reputable piece on the Viet Minh/Viet Cong I could find. It's intriguing to me, and I enjoy discussing, reading, and writing about it. It's about finding the positives and neat events that grab your attention and make the more "boring" details easier to digest.

Next you have to view it not as a group of dates to memorize, but a uniquely complex story. Study the causes and effects. Another tool i've found to be helpful is to read the class's readings once before and once after the class. It's tedious, but it helps the information to stick in my mind. Rewrite your notes as well, and add more information that you weren't able to write down when it is still fresh in your mind. I like to schedule at least 2 hours between each class if it's a history class so I can rewrite my notes and read the readings again.

But really, just enjoy it. History is much more interesting than fiction because it actually happened. The details flesh out the story and bring people to life right before you. It becomes less boring when all of a sudden you aren't studying some boring dude from late antiquity or something, but a complex individual with a unique story.

Learning history is kind of like doing a crossword puzzle or sudoku -- you start out with a lot of blank spots. As you move forward, it gets easier and easier because you've already filled in some of the blanks and everything starts to fit together.

The most effective way to learn history IMO is to keep relating individual facts back to the big picture. This is how history is written, in fact: historians study individual events to see how trends emerge. The dates and names are the building blocks.

I have often pondered the same question. Speaking from my own experience as an undergraduate student I found that my professors, at least the most experienced, seemed to have a masterful grasp of historical information within their own respective fields. Unfortunately I did not pursue a career in history (opted for law instead), so I have no first hand experience as a historian. However, as a student I found that history is best viewed as a series of events that are interrelated and thus maintain some measure of logical progression. I've also found that specialization, or the focus on any one particular historical field, aids in limiting the amount of information that a historian has to deal with. Being a first year undergrad may seem overwhelming as you are expected to enroll in several different types of classes (World history, American history etc.) but this is because you are expected to establish a base line of knowledge that you can use as a point of reference for future courses. I'm not sure what type of tests you've been taking, but I recall only having written responses, whether that be short answer or essay style questions. This is another characteristic of the discipline that leads me to believe that history has an altogether different focus than other disciplines. When dealing with multiple choice you are expected to have a comprehensive understanding of the subject material, able to answer relatively obscure questions from various portions of the course material. History has a different focus, rather than being expected to recall and regurgitate a seemingly limitless myriad of facts, you are expected to present an argument. Much like history itself these facts must be presented in a clear, concise and logical manner so as to form the basis of an argument or conclusion. I don't know of any history professor who would argue that history is nothing but memorization of names and dates and the subsequent recital of those events deemed the most historically "significant." What I found is that the best way to approach history is not to improve your ability to memorize and recall information but rather your ability to make connections, to determine historical continuities and differences and to critically evaluate them within the overarching historical frame work. Additionally, I feel as though most historians can attribute their success in any field to personal interest. History is full of passion, bias and individual curiosity, and those who are able to engage themselves within topics in which they love are much more likely to succeed. I would thus urge you to try your hand at courses that may pique your interest, and only select essay topics that you can form a powerful personal connection with. Recalling names and events that you've critically considered becomes much easier than simply reciting them from a text book.

Use Wikipedia for dates. Get readable but reputable books for reference (usually the main texbook in an intro course will be one of these). Think in terms of broad trends over long stretches of time: start with memorizing it by century (what kinds of processes were going on in the 1700s?), then go down to 50-year periods divided by important events, then as you specialize try to get down to the decade level. Decide what it is about history you find interesting and seek out that information in the stuff you read, or try to make connections with it. For any given fact you think you're expected to know, make sure you can coherently answer the question "why am I learning this?" before you memorize it. (If you can't, go to office hours and ask. I guarantee this will work, and will make the professor like you more.) Try not to bullshit, it's very obvious, even if you do get a pass because the professor/TA can't be bothered to call you out. Find commonalities between the present and the past, but make sure these don't override your ability to understand the past on its own terms.

I think this is a personal question for most. I personally enjoy what I am doing and treat it as a hobby, so the information sticks in my brain more easily. I collect artifacts related to my field of study too, and research them individually, which has me looking into various dates and battles spread throughout many countries involved. I think most historians find an era or subject that they are most passionate about, and it takes off from there. After seeing the same information in different ways, whether it be through documentaries, publishing or reading books, movies etc etc, it becomes common knowledge.
For studying, retaining info can be tricky. I believe spending the Time to learn in YOUR way is the only way things will stick for you. Don't be afraid to stray from text books.....watch a video/doc, or pick up a memoir from the period!