Anyone Else Abhore Personality Question? (1 Viewer)

[mrated96]

What the hell, the second personality question was great for speer! You just turn it into good or bad

good: Events shaped him (ie he was amoral technocrat)
bad: He shaped events (He knew what he was doing)

and then conclude statement is wrong, refer to post release and shaping his own character. GREAT for speer !

if i reguratated rise to prominence, will i be fucked on

 

[MartaJ]

Yeh i had a convoluted argument about it, 'Events shape people more than people shape events.' I argued against it, claiming that Gorbachev was an opportunist, but he shaped the events, such as his own reforms of 'Glasnost' and 'Perestoika' which spelled the demise of the Soviet Union and i said it was rather in the case of Gorbachev, that 'People shape events more than events shape people'.

I did the same... except it was for Ho Chi Minh. I didn't get t finish part a)!!!!!

Well... at least I finished the other questions. *Sigh*

 

[ballyy]

i did trotsky too.. talked about how obviously earlier in life he was shaped by events but later he did the shaping, everyone pretty much had a structure for trotsky.. childhood, congress, mrc, foreign affairs, war, power struggle.

 

[Finicoll]

Hmm, i thought it kinda sucked a fat one. I was expecting a 'rise to prominence' and and evaluate.
With Gorbachev though i was suprised when that expectation appeared in the Cold War conflict section as an optional essay question.
However, the vagueness of the quote was able to be manipulated into a good vs. bad answer, through arguing that the personality had such and such an effect on the people, and its outcome!

 

[makedamnsure101]

this question sucked, i couldnt work around it to give a detailed, sustained essay on J Edgar Hoover, i needed rise to prominence, or ego centric or patriotic styled question... crap question used as a discriminater... studpid board of studies

 

[bethdocker85]

I didn't think it was too bad. I did Yasser Arafat, and I pretty much argued for and against the question, providing examples of how certain events shaped him, but also mentioning how, in certain circumstancs, he shaped the events he was involved with. So yeah, got about 6 pages down.

I gotta say, the first part of the personality question was retarded as well. For the last 6 or 7 years its been the "rise to prominence" question. So I'd prepared it and had to change it, I was like argh. Wasn't too bad though, I pretty much changed "rise to prominence" to "role" and I was all good. Haha our trial question prepared me for it, it was on historical context and crap.. SO bad. lol.

 

[sophietheeskimo]

Arg! this question was all wrong for Albert Speer. I dont think the board who set the question truly evaluated the shitness of this question. The key to it is writing a fair question that does not favour one personality over another. It most certainly didnt.

I was so angry and confused i just babled on about Wolters and Posen anyways; and then just jotted in a topic sentence here and there about how the event shaped his justification. ARgh i dont care... i have glandular fever...bite me hsc markers. fiken bite me

 

[Marat]

Yeah as I wrote Speer I constantly had to present both sides of the man as either he did control different events (ie knowledge of the holocaust) or he was shaped by them (ie. penintent nazi). I found myself writing 16 pages for him.

 

[trentles]

i didnt mind it for speer

i said the nuremburg trials shaped him...his plea there has allowed for a division in historical opinion and thus seen the tarnishing of his reputation and overlooking of his achievements as an architect and armamanets minister..

probably wrong lol

 

[nichhhole]

I adored it!
i did leni riefenstahl and said she both was influenced by events [ie rally and seeing hitler, and overall her opporunistic nature etc..]
and that she shaped events [as a film director...as a photojournalist etc... and then i went into some of her techniques and how that changes perception]

so yes over all it was a good question
compensate hopefully for my other shoddy 3 parts

 

[ini]

Yeah the question really threw me off at first but then i basically argued against it (my personality was Ho Chi Minh)

I compleltely threw my prepared answer out the window, and just used the quotes and facts I knew to support my argument. I think I did an ok job *fingers crossed* because I had a strong argument and tried to support it a lot with heaps of historiography etc but it was a very different esssay to the ones id been writing in the trial and assesments, so i can't really be sure.

AND stupid part a...I was so prepared for a "rise to prominence" q...argh! spent so much time preparing for that, and for Ho the rise to prominence is incredibly different to describe their significance...HOPING it went ok, but i think my answer was incredibly vague with very little detail. oh well, I hope the rest of the paper, plus a good school assesment mark will get me the good history mark I'm counting on