Exam Q1 - modernism vs post modernism (1 Viewer)

[tessery]

hey guys, hope all your study for history ext is going well. anyway, for question in one in the exam ("what is history") i was wondering how much all you guys are focussing on the modernism vs post modernism debate. because, i kind of thoughht that was all thee was to talk about considering that is all we really talked about in class lol, i amgoing in with 1 post modernist historiuans and 2 modernist.

but, i called the hsc advice line, and this teacher said he like didn;t even talk about modernism vs post modernism. so now i am a little worried lol. like i have done well throughout the year, and i do trust my teacher, he got kids who got like 49/50 last year, but i am just worried i am missing something

any thoughts? any help would be appreciated

good luck!

xox

 

[MMalone]

In our class, there has been an emphasis that Post-Modernism and Modernism are a must mention-although not a saturative feature of a question one response. What was advised was a comparison of Jenkin's view of 'It is not 'What is history?' we should be asking, but 'Who is history for?' with Richard Evans' 'In Defence of History'. This was viewed by my teacher as covering the first syllabus point. 'What is history?' fairly easily.

 

[Dave2007]

The modernism VS post modernism arguement can be really interesting, and get you a lot of marks if handled well and relates to the question/source. In some ways the limits of empiricism and the historical schools that challenge it is what the topic is all about.

But then again...odds are on that for this year, the source won't really address it (in which case you would get nothing out of addressing it yourself). Its been 5 years, for example, since a methodology question...or it could be something out there like your own views, or the ideologies/identity of historians.

So yeah, it can be interesting to discuss....but don't rely on it if the source doesn't discuss it, and if it does make sure you use your knowledge to pay out or support the guy in the source and not just give your own view.

 

[xinxin89]

hey tess, i'm wondering the exact same thing. I called up the hotline too, the stimulus in the hsc wont always require us to talk about PM vs M.

Say that's the case this year, what other stuff is there to say since PM vs M is all we learned.....

Are we meant to just somehow find a way to mould the ideas n perspectives from the article around the PM vs M debate?

the guy on the hotline said ur just meant to answer the question by presenting ur perspectives, where u stand in regard to the views of the article, and the body should be the historians u use to backup ur views and challenge/agree withe the ideas in the article, conclusion u just reiterate ur view in response to the question, he also said markers aren't looking for a huge number of historians in our responses, and he said using Evans, Windshuttle, Jenkins is a good way to go about it.

wat do u think? what i'm puzzled about now is whether we need to bring in the PM vs M debate in all responses, it seems that we did in all the school assessments

 

[el gwapo]

our teacher never talked of modernism vs. post-modernism. Even the study guides I talk about are very vague about the way they cover post-modernism. I guess you can't talk concretely about something that is similarly ambiguous; there can't be a definitive explanation of post-modernism, when it emphasizes relativism and weird explanations.

So good luck to anyone who tries to write for a full hour about this issue.