Anyone else go crap...... (1 Viewer)

Homercles

New Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
15
Location
On a farm in the middle of nowhere
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Walzer: "An American war, fought for American purposes, in someone else's country."

I love that quote for Indochina, it can be used in just about any question, I used it in my conclusion and I think it made the essay end on a really strong note. Whether the marker agrees is the question I suppose.
 
C

Crazy Pomo

Guest
Homercles said:
Walzer: "An American war, fought for American purposes, in someone else's country."

I love that quote for Indochina, it can be used in just about any question, I used it in my conclusion and I think it made the essay end on a really strong note. Whether the marker agrees is the question I suppose.
You could have used that for any essay yeah. Cold War/conflict in the pacific/indo china etc arab israeli even... genius.
 
C

Crazy Pomo

Guest
kols_kebabs said:
Err... I think he meant you could use that quote for any question on Indochina.

"An American war, fought for American purposes, in someone else's country."

That doesn't apply to Conflict in the pacific at all. It was a Japanese war, fought for their territorial gains. The Americans tried to avoid it and didn't gain anything significant from it.

I don't know whats in Arab/Israeli, but it seems hardly appropriate for that either.
Oh I see. But that quote, on it's own (allthough it was probably written with Indochina in mind) could be applied to many of America's Imperialist romps. Can you deny that the Vietnam War (which applies to Cold War), or The Korean War (also applicable to Cold War) were 'an american war (apparently), fought for american purposes (apparently), in someone elses country (definately)."

Also within the Cold War (45 - 91), superpower rivalry contributed to some of the tensions in the Arab Israeli conflict (fourty something to ninety six I think) such as the Suez crisis, The 6 Day war and the Yom Kippur War, which were all American (and soviet) interests in someone elses countries and were examples of proxy conflict.

I dont know much about Indochina, and it probably doesn't apply to Conflict in the Pacific (my bad) but that quote resonated with me for some of the shit that went down within the context of the Cold War and Arab/Israeli, that's all.
 

fleepbasding

HSC TUTOR
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
1,134
Location
Sydney- Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
yes, it is a darn good quote relating to Vietnam which falls into both Indochina and cold war. Beyond these two topics it wouldn't be terribly accurate. Although it would look quite clever to acknowlege you're taking it out of it's original context and then use it to shed light on a point your making for almost any essay about any topic. Hell, that quote is so generic I probably could've used it in every one of my english paper 2 essays... hey, that would actually be really fun challenge!
 

Nadia-Jane

New Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
27
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
i used a number of quotes and 'beleifs' of historians and certain people.. however a few were made up. bah who could tell if they were made up or not, all u need is a name and a thesis that apparently comes from them and thats all the markers need to see. For all they know you got your source from a book or any article. etc. Plus i was told that they like to see (assuming of coarse its factual) that your able to present an argument and back up your statements..
 

Mirm

New Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2005
Messages
1
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
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.
 

wanderlust

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
81
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2005
RAAAAHHH! i so agree with people who hated indo china. I babbled for 8 pages on the anti - war movements even though i didn't know any specific anti - war movements. eventually i just ended up fucking on about blah blah you see president whats his name didn't want americans to get annoyed. and then i talked about the other factors and completely got off the track of media. on the up side i actually did like germany because i had my heart set on totalitarian. anyway, i'm sure you guys will pass because i bet you there are a lot of other people out there who have done worse than you.
 
C

Crazy Pomo

Guest
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?
 

lincolnbaker

New Member
Joined
May 25, 2004
Messages
6
quotes

it is rediculous that you all think you can not get a band 6 without quotes. i asked HSC markers at my school and they said they would be a handy inclusion to impress but in no way would it be a nessesary inclusion. you are not given specific marks for quotes.

STOP STRESSING EVERYONE OUT WITH YOUR BS
 

fleepbasding

HSC TUTOR
Joined
Feb 6, 2005
Messages
1,134
Location
Sydney- Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
lincolnbaker said:
it is rediculous that you all think you can not get a band 6 without quotes. i asked HSC markers at my school and they said they would be a handy inclusion to impress but in no way would it be a nessesary inclusion. you are not given specific marks for quotes.

STOP STRESSING EVERYONE OUT WITH YOUR BS
shut up. you are an idiot. What makes you think your teachers are the grand authority? They are right- it impresses... impression= marks. You're just pissed off because you didn't use any.

Historiography and/or quotes from historians is encouraged and will get you better marks.
 
C

Crazy Pomo

Guest
fleepbasding said:
shut up. you are an idiot. What makes you think your teachers are the grand authority? They are right- it impresses... impression= marks. You're just pissed off because you didn't use any.

Historiography and/or quotes from historians is encouraged and will get you better marks.
Exactly. Why can't everyone just accept that including historiography is advantageous? If you can accept that it impresses, or helps get better marks, then why argue against it? People arguing against it at this stage are clearly in denial because they themselves didn't use it. The facts are: you don't need it to get a band six, but so so many of the band six answers use it. So, I don't know about other people, but personally I don't want to make things hard for myself by not using it and thus having to pull out a whopper answer to get into the A range. (Of course with my infinite genius I could do that, but what's the point? This is HSC Modern History, and I am here for the marks at the end of the day, ASWELL as the knowledge. I'm not here to prove to the world that I can get a band six without historiography, thus making me a better student and a better essay writer. GET A LIFE FUCKTARDS: USE HISTORIOGRAPHY.)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top