So what did everyone think of it?? (1 Viewer)

[Zoe 2508]

Section 1: Pretty generic. Same as my trial, but also worked against me cos i didnt spend too mcu time looking at it cos i assumed it wouldnt be in there. Felt pretty confident with my responces though, all except the usefullness and reliability - thazt gets me every time.

Section 2: (germany) Chose th Weimar question as it was so easy to relate the failure of democracy to nationalisim and all the rest. Pretty confident actually with this one. I wrote 5 booklets worth - but my writings heaps big hehe

Section 3: Albert Speer - Nailed the biography. But doing history extension caused me to be too analytical and i discussed subjectivity and the motive of the historian is portraying Speer, but also interpreted the question as discussing the possitive and negative portrayals.

Section 4: Conflict in Europe
HATED BOTH THE QUESTIONS. I knew only just enough on the totalitarianism stuff to scrape up a a few points. Good points, but not a great deal of them. Probably round 16/17 or so out of 25.

Ah well.

English Extension, History Extension and Studies of RE to go - then its over FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MajestyofRock]

what did people who did the racial policy question foir germany do, seemed to me it was pretty open kinda question and u could really related almost anything haha

 

[01priganr]

Overall awesome! so happy lol.
now just eco and hist ext.

had a chat wit my teacher after about the indochina section and she reckons that the question could easily be adapted to talk about the US home front during the vvnm war (tet question.) just needed to talk about that and how the north was able to use discontent in the us to demorilise us troops and galvanise the North

 

[fernanda]

oh dear.

everyone seemed to love the exam!
i thought the questions were really specific, and that i could answer them in a few paragraphs... everything else i knew seemed irrelvant to the question.

like.. the cold war korea thing. it was the first proxy war and first time 'rollback' thingo was used yeah?
what else is there to say?
i rambled on about the other crises/events in the time period just to show that i had studied and i knew the syllabys.

and the personality question... maybe it just didnt fit my guy well. i wasnt sure if they wanted us to talk about historiography or ... whatever. i raved on about stalin erradicating trotsky from history and the whole 'trotskiet' thing he had going on.... but then later we realise he was instrimental in the bolshevick revolution + civil war.

just..... blah. plus i did my shoulder in yesterday so i couldnt write as well. i had heat patches on my already burnt skin and... just no.

so conclusion? yuk. modern was meant to be my best subject but it just.... didnt work for me.

 

[sarah89]

the exam was great!!! so much easier than the trials
world war one was awesome, easy, as always
usa i did (b) about whether it was accurate to say foreign policy was isolationist 1919-1941. pretty much the same as the catholic trial, which i got 23 for, so happy
personality, part b was a bit challenging, but i just kinda analysed it froma history extension perspective, different purposes, space and time provide different interpretations, so its not balanced.
and indochina....nationalism and communism- SO GOOD!!!!! felt so happy after.

4 more to go... extension english, history extension, legal, religion. eek.

 

[hopeles5ly]

Every single practice essay i wrote for turned out to be the same Q pretty much! <3. Although, i am concerned about my linking and if i included enough stuff in the Weimar and WW1 section

 

[hopeles5ly]

these are what i did...ther was a little freedom there. I hated the question though, its pretty much the same as the sample paper so I didn't expect it at all

the failure of weimar to build up support was a variety of reasons, hyperinflation, falws in constitution and the nationalist opposition of the anti-repiblicans, military, kapp putsch nazis

I focused on the nationalistic aspects of hitler's accession as chancellor and the assess worked in that there are other factors, especially circumstances that contributed to this

and i picked up on going to 1934 so I did the legality of the enabling act and the influence of nationalism using the day of potsdam as evidence.,.. flimsy weak argument i kno, i'd give me 16/25 for it...i'm so bummed out


I really like farked it.....ppl have bitched abt germany question here and someones unleashed on the arba isaeli question..yay for me i do both and sadly I think I did better on that than part b on the personality....I think its a disadvantage to be a history extesnion student because I approached it that way and looked at why my historians have different views on Arafat...hoping for markers to pick up on that and kno im not too bad at it, but i think thats just to much hoping...upside though i dont think i screwed up WWI

I wrote about how the democracy underminded the nationalism embodied in Germany and linked it to how this was brought about by the social,economic and political factors.

 

[izzy88]

it was good...by the way from looking at all of the comments does anyone do USA 1919-1941??? J.Edgar Hoover???? everyone seems to have germany and stuff...oh well it was good...although cramming the entire life of Hoover (72 years) into a 20 minute 10 mark question was a bit annoying and hard for timing....but overall it was good...loved the USA isolationist question (i'd had it in my trial)

 

[sarah89]

it was good...by the way from looking at all of the comments does anyone do USA 1919-1941??? J.Edgar Hoover???? everyone seems to have germany and stuff...oh well it was good...although cramming the entire life of Hoover (72 years) into a 20 minute 10 mark question was a bit annoying and hard for timing....but overall it was good...loved the USA isolationist question (i'd had it in my trial)

i did USA, but not hoover for the personality, trotsky instead
isolationist question was awesome, dont know about my structure though, went through in periods, like i focused on 1920s, evalutaed, made point, then did 1930-1941.
same as trial. was awesome.

 

[cenicole]

well i think i failed pretty hardcore. am i the only one that was a bit put of by the question stating that the us entry WAS the most significant turning point...cause i thought that was a bit one sided and hard to answer since many things contributed! the only part i think i did okay was was Leni. thats depressing....i so failed.

 

[Trampoline Man]

well i think i failed pretty hardcore. am i the only one that was a bit put of by the question stating that the us entry WAS the most significant turning point...

I was aswell. It simply didn't give much to talk about, the Sources and all I have learnt in class told me that the main significance of the US entry was the morale effect on both sides.

 

[cenicole]

oh dear.

everyone seemed to love the exam!
i thought the questions were really specific, and that i could answer them in a few paragraphs... everything else i knew seemed irrelvant to the question.


so conclusion? yuk. modern was meant to be my best subject but it just.... didnt work for me.

exactly what i thought about everything. it sucks when u come out and everyone is like ' it was so good' it made me feel stupi! and like you modern was m,eant to be the exam i would ace....but heck no the universe hates me. however im sure it could be much worse....i could have been a victom of the holocaust i guess! little percpective.
however sometimes its nice just to complain! and that test was fraked in my opinion!

 

[fernanda]

i know!
im jsut getting worried about my other subjects now. like.... i did better in modern than in my other exams. and by the sounds of it modern wasnt all that good.

oh dear.