Mirm said:
my MH class had five people in it, the top mark any of us got was 51% in the trials, and that was me.
Our teacher is the biggest asshole of all time.
He actually told us that, for conflict in the pacific, we wouldn't need to look into what the allies were doing at all.
And then we get the question on the allies techniques, all I could do was write a few pages about the nuclear bombs.
Im so pissed off.
So you guys might *think* you went badly, but you'll all score big compared to me.
We'd only been studying Conflict in the pacific for about two weeks before our trials started, I don't even kno how a class of five students can possibly get so behind.
I had no quotes, or even references to, any historians in any of my responses.
Our teacher never even provided us with any material except for one book on each topic, and he never had enough books for the whole class. He usually had three copies of each text book.
he's such a fuck ass.
I really liked the subject, but ive fucked the exam, just like i fucked up a number of other exams as well. I just dont do well under the pressure that comes with the exams, im more into assessments etc.
But fuck.
I hate you HSC.
Your Modern History class has 5 people in it. They are all idiots. And that as a highest mark is embarressing. Your teacher is a champion.
I think I know who you are, not by name only by association, because your Modern History teacher is my English Tutor (I went to him post trials cause my mother made me, even though I got 85%!) He is an excellent historian and a fantastic teacher. You probably think he is an incompetent fuckwit but it is you and your class who is incompetent and that is that. He told me how shit you guys are and how no matter hard he tried you guys still managed to amaze him with your incompetence. A highest mark of 51% is not a (complete) reflection of the standards of you teacher or even your class, it's a reflection of you and your effort.
In the trials, in your class, he said that a couple of students answered national study questions that you hadn't even studied for! This is called a "problem paper" by the Board of Studies. Also, he said a few students answered only one of the personality questions. On top of that, he told me, mainly due to the slowness of his class, he hadn't got far enough into International Study in Peace and Conflict to fairly pose a trial question on them, so, in his niceness, get this people:
HE GAVE THEM THEIR TRIAL QUESTION LIKE 2 WEEKS BEFORE THE TRIAL!
The most anyone could get was apparently about 2 pages. Pathetic. Modern History is a tough course. You need to study lots and lots if you want to go well. There is lots to cover and many different ways of looking at things. So he told you not to look at the Allies (mainly cause he was in damage control and thought it pointless), that is why there is another optional question in each part of the Modern History Paper, which surprisingly, you attempted.
Also, I happened to know for a fact that you didn't do as much study as you should have. My mother was in your place of work (COLES I think?) before the HSC and you were complaining to her (you may not remember) about the HSC and your teacher and how you were coming first but with a really shit mark. Mum came home and was all like "oh some person said their teacher is shit and that they went really badly in trials and was scared about modern history" apparently you mentioned your school and I was like, "oi their teacher is ***** and they are a shit class anyway." What the hell are you doing complaining about not getting enough study done but out there working a week before the exam. I know thousands of kids work and have to work and it impedes on their HSC but FUCK.
Just so I haven't got this completely confused with another person, teacher, school: You go to Richmond River High Lismore and your teacher is David Hanley?
