Search results

I'm in quite a dilemma. UNSW and USYD Law both look tempting, but with a 98.15 ATAR, I have made neither. Another area of interest of mine is International Studies, so I'm thinking of doing Int/Global at USYD then potentially transferring to Law the next year. Apparently I need a High...

Did anyone who was nominated go over the word limit, and if so, do you think they will care?

The way I did it was find three major issues raised by the source and then discuss how the modernist vs postmodernist debate argues about it...

Thanks guys, informative responses. Hmm, at Thecorey0, thats what I thought too...but apparently they also like a range of historians? You can't do that many historians unless you do it chronologically. I got scared by their remark about having a lot of historians so I chucked in White and...

How did you interpret the 'over time' part? I got really thrown off because I thought it meant I might have to have done historical theory and how its developed over time, which I couldn't do. Instead I did mainly how modernists believed people have recorded and constructed history throughout...

I meant the quality of my section 1 was shit? What. The. Fuck.

Section 1 - 14 Section 2- 17 But I did absolutely terrible for Section 1 :(

Inside voice, Christian, inside voice!

That is fucking terrible! Well, the historiography thing isn't...you can do well without analysing the debate between two historians, a lot of exemplar responses show that. But with the case study, yeah, you should learn what areas of debate you are doing. We only learnt two I think. But now I'm...

Yeah I think I'm screwed...I don't know what they want anymore

Its band E4, because its an extension subject. 2pm

Standards Packages :: Sample 3 High band response, only uses Elton and Carr Can't say I do, sorry :( The stuff I learnt about them was from actually reading their books. If you went on JSTOR you can find an article about the Marwick vs. White debate though, its by someone called Beverly...

Actually yeah good point. But I'd be scared to do it anyway.

Our school always discusses 2 or 3 historians in the question and we do really well. Like, I know other historians, but mainly I'm going to use Jenkins and Evans because 1) they directly debate (as in, address one another in books etc.) and 2) they are part of the modernist vs. postmodernist...

Um...most likely doing 2 or 3 historians really indepth. You guys have waaay too much.

Wait, why do people dot point their essays? Like, ever? That is worse than leaving stuff out...

Wow I know one of the girls that sent a letter. Tool.

That was the worst section of the paper...I did (b) and basically did 1.5 pages on home front, then heaps of military tactics, social changes, economic changes, the RVN being shit and the appeal of Communism. Most of it was bullshit, no stats, little quotes

0 real ones.

Ok, maybe you're right. But yeah, a good title can give your story a deeper meaning.