How picky are the markers? (1 Viewer)

[da_butterfree]

How strict are the markers regarding quoting and/or paraphrasing historans?
I mean if u write an essay and mention a historian say Balsdon for Rome, but then if u make up uer own quote or state something that they never said (as far as uer knowledge goes ), will the markers know? coz sometimes when i try to write under timed conditions i tend to "make up" quotes and i aint sure how much of this is alllowed.. coz i am sure most or uz wud be 'making up' quotes sometime or the other.. (well i hope u do..)

also, how many quotes do they roughly expect in an essay? like for say "julius caesar's reforms" i would barely have a quote... so how would that work??

thanks.

 

[gemita]

Hmmm...I guess the safest thing to do is not directly quote if you can't remember. Say if you know vaguely what an historian thinks about a certain topic, eg Tyldesley believes Hatshepsut's rule was conventional and as successful as the majority of other New Kingdom kings, and just paraphrase. If worst comes to worst, and all you know is that your historian said SOMETHING about the topic you're writing about, just drop their name in. I'd say making up quotes is pretty dangerous, the markers do know what they're talking about and will have come across most of the historians you know. If you remember most of the quote but can't quite remember the wording, write it down anyway, even if it's not exactly right. I always do.

 

[sashysashy!]

Markers

The markers are familiar with all current commonly used source material, both primary (archaeological, written) and a range of historians. Remember that all scripts are marked twice. Remember, most importantly, you are being marked on your ability to write exam essays. The markers are not "picky", rather, they take into account the difficulties students may have remembering and quoting verbatim vast amounts of material. It does not matter if you cannot quote directly, but you should be able to name the historian or source, paraphrase what the source says, but most importantly comment on the reliability and usefulness of that source, and concerns we should have when using it. If you use source material that is too obscure you run the risk of being questioned on your sources, and possibly penalised because your sources are dodgy. The markers are not picky, but they will not be duped by dubious references, so you should not waste your energy trying to come up with dodgy stuff. Just use what you do have, well. As said above they are all marked twice. If one marker thinks there is a problem with your sources the other will confirm or correct that problem- the senior marker is there to allocate a final mark is there is such a disagreement.

 

[silvermoon]

im gunna take a stab in the dark based on quoting in english: in english, if you quote from a set text incorrectly you are marked down, however, if you quote from an extra text incorrectly, even if the marker knows it is incorrect you are not allowed to be marked down. i'm going to assume its the same basic principle: from common texts such as herodotus, caesar etc. i would quote verbatim (same as inscriptions, stelae etc.), but if you write "Marietta Marchez, writer for GYC history periodical states that...", even if you've completely made it up, you aren't gunna be marked down for it. one, you've worked it in as if its a proper source and secondly, they aren't allowed to check whether GYC exists. and they cant mark you down if they arent sure it doesnt exist.

 

[Paroissien]

How can you define set texts though?

 

[super katie]

I always second guess myself with the wording of quotes so I just paraphrase and put the name of the historian in brackets afterwards, I dont think they really mind if you dont use a heap of direct quotes

 

[glitterfairy]

im gunna take a stab in the dark based on quoting in english: in english, if you quote from a set text incorrectly you are marked down, however, if you quote from an extra text incorrectly, even if the marker knows it is incorrect you are not allowed to be marked down. i'm going to assume its the same basic principle: from common texts such as herodotus, caesar etc. i would quote verbatim (same as inscriptions, stelae etc.), but if you write "Marietta Marchez, writer for GYC history periodical states that...", even if you've completely made it up, you aren't gunna be marked down for it. one, you've worked it in as if its a proper source and secondly, they aren't allowed to check whether GYC exists. and they cant mark you down if they arent sure it doesnt exist.

I don't think they'll mark you down for "false quotes", but you also won't GET any marks for them, which means that whatever you proved with that "quote" is rendered pretty much useless. You need to have REAL quotes in there, or at least paraphrase. There aren't that many ancient sources and Ancient teachers - unlike english teachers - aren't going to be fooled very easily.