General Thoughts: History Ext (2 Viewers)

[Rafy]

How'd you find the exam? Share your thoughts here.

 

[Morgan1234pooki]

second question was great...first one caught me a little off guard :/

 

[occer]

Second question sucked for appeasement IMO. First was fun for postmodernism though.

 

[zxreth]

Both were decent.

 

[Morgan1234pooki]

yer, it was definitely good for postmodernism

 

[D94]

They were fairly good questions, both quite answerable.

 

[ArtemisOrthia]

I thought both questions were pretty good. Heaps to talk about for both. n_n
Glad to be done, no more JFK stressing me out.

 

[fakermaker]

Fuck postmodernism, I engaged with post-Postmodernism (the construction of a meaning/purpose in postmodern era).

1st was the best question I've ever seen. History wars, big history, public history, postmodernism and post-postmodernism were so easy to apply.

2nd was obviously general, but easy for appeasement. The non-attainability of truth = the differing perspective and portrayals of appeasement.

I ended up doing 14 pages for 1 and 12 pages for 2. Pretty happy

 

[MichelleV]

Lovvvvvvedddd both;

I did my project on controversy to do with ownership of history/the past, so that was a massive help for question 1

And the 2nd source/question was awesome for Spain and the Aztecs

Hopefully, I've done enough to get a good mark

*happy dance that hsc is over*

 

[ArtemisOrthia]

*happy dance that hsc is over*

Oh yeahhhhh!

 

[zxreth]

woah! you guys wrote so much. i only managed to write 5 and 7 ><

 

[MichelleV]

woah! you guys wrote so much. i only managed to write 5 and 7 ><

I wrote 6 and 6.
It's hard to tell though with peoples handwriting being so varied.

 

[acemusic415]

I'm sorry and I don't know if I'm on a different planet, but how did the first question have any link to the syllabus regarding truth, bias, methodology, aim, purpose etc. The source seemed pretty much irrelevant regarding ownership - Foner, the historian ends up saying "everybody and nobody" own it. So... how are you suppose to answer it? I used empiricism and postmodernism, but have no clue how you were suppose to respond to the question.

 

[Fake-Name]

I only briefly mentioned postmodernism for Question 1. My response focused on the rise in popularity of history in public: museology & history in film, as well as new interpretations as Big history and world history which reject the 'Big man' interpretation. I also mentioned how political reactions (Aussie History wars) validate the claim history is owned by the historian's readership, not the history. I then threw in how such subjective interpretations as Marxism reflect the fulfilment of the people's needs, not the historian's objectivity and empiricism.

Appeasement was pretty generic.

13 pages for A, 12 for B.

 

[D94]

I'm sorry and I don't know if I'm on a different planet, but how did the first question have any link to the syllabus regarding truth, bias, methodology, aim, purpose etc. The source seemed pretty much irrelevant regarding ownership - Foner, the historian ends up saying "everybody and nobody" own it. So... how are you suppose to answer it? I used empiricism and postmodernism, but have no clue how you were suppose to respond to the question.

The question was "to what extent", so you are open to any interpretation and any answer. You could say to no extent, or some extent, or total extent. I reckon the source hinted on relevant issues and so it had to be open to interpretation.

 

[apollo1]

Omg hardest exam ever.

 

[acemusic415]

The question was "to what extent", so you are open to any interpretation and any answer. You could say to no extent, or some extent, or total extent. I reckon the source hinted on relevant issues and so it had to be open to interpretation.

I talked about empiricism and postmodernism etc. I kept referring to the source and saying how it was necessary for future generations in maintaining historiography. The ownership thing threw me off.

 

[Chazure]

rofl am l the only one who did the enlightenment historians (gibbon/von ranke) because their the only ones l studied D:

l felt like l sat a different exam from you guys lol

 

[JustJackie]

First question was good, hated the second question.
I misquoted a historian in the second question too, that's one less paragraph. Oh wells, it shouldn't be detrimental.

I'm wondering what everyone learnt, I did about 20 historians all up and only got to use about 10 but I'm sure someone actually did a lot.

 

[anexasaved]

rofl am l the only one who did the enlightenment historians (gibbon/von ranke) because their the only ones l studied D:

l felt like l sat a different exam from you guys lol

Hey i did both Gibbon and Ranke for the first part!! I started off my argument with some nonsense interpretation of what Foner was saying, but developed a thesis as i went on, so i guess it was ok - wrote 9 pages

The second question sucked according to me, didnt lend itself to an analysis of methodology or context of historians in the Tacitus case study. Not a horrendous source, just not the best they could've given us. Its funny because i looked at the past HSC papers and all Section 2 quotes were pretty decent, except 2008! And this years quote was very similar to the 08 one so yea..=/ Wrote 8 pages

ITS OVERRRRRR THOUGH =D