That was crap everyone!!!! (1 Viewer)

[kelboo]

Anybody else find that exam shitty?

I am SOOOOO glad it's the LAST HISTORY EXAM EVER!!!!

Congrats guys

xxx
Kel

 

[Acid]

Yeah I thought it was hard. I did decently in the case study question, but I'm pretty sure I fucked up question 1. I said history has changed over time due to the changing needs of society, and criticised the source for assuming that society still demands the 'meta-narrative' of classical history. I also criticised the source for saying that classical history is more aligned with finding the truth, showing that contemporary historians such as Ranke and Marx are able to come much closer to the truth due to their better methodologies.

That said, I'm not sure If i interpreted the source properly.. which may fuck me up.

Oh well, HSC is now over! w00t!

 

[kelboo]

Congrats for criticising the source!! I wholeheartedly agreed with everything it said, and backed it up with a whole lot of Jenkins, Windshuttle, Becker and Ranke quotes.

MEH.

And also congrats for no more HSC! I have another 2 to go. This was merely a shitty bump in the road.

 

[Craig]

It was certainly an interesting paper. The first question suited postmodernism pretty well, something that I was very happy with. The main information I took from the source was that history could be abused due to the personal goals of a group or individual and then I wrapped that around to how postmodernism can identify this and show the wider community the ways in which history can be abused.
It also suited my historians pretty well; as I was able to talk about Ranke's methodology and the impact it had on the changing approaches of history.

 

[waterfowl]

I didn't think the paper was crap! I thought it was quite good, I just think my answers were crap

Q 1 was pretty good, although I had to keep checking I was talking about the approach to history and not just the meaning and purpose.
I used historians: Herodotus, Venerable Bede, Henry Reynolds ("Why weren't we told?") and Andrew Wheatcroft ("Habsburgs - Embodying Empire")

Q 2 was a bit strange, but still doable, although I don't think I did well.
I used Tacitus ("the Histories" and "the Annals") and Christian Theodor Matthias Mommsen ("Römische Geschichte")

 

[Acid]

Fuck i'm an idiot.. I didn't pick up the post-modernist criticisms in the source so didn't even talk about it explicitly. Does that mean i'm headed for a band 4?

 

[max]

I'm sure most people would have found the questions quite predictable (I sure did). Also, interesting that the extract didn't mention any historians' names like in previous years. This leaves for much open discussion.

For Q1 I included:

-Carr+Elton
-Herodotus+Thucydides
-Bede+Von Ranke
-Reynolds+Windschuttle
-Foucault+Vincent
-Evans

 

[Craig]

Fuck i'm an idiot.. I didn't pick up the post-modernist criticisms in the source so didn't even talk about it explicitly. Does that mean i'm headed for a band 4?

It doesn’t entirely mean your heading for a band 4. That source was quite open and even though postmodernist criticisms was the logical answer, which allowed you to write a solid response, there were also other pieces of information you could take. For example a student in my class wrote about the narrative qualities of history, and angled her response using that idea.
I'd just wait for the result, and celebrate that we have no more history exams ever again :uhhuh:

 

[LadyBec]

I thought question one sucked to start of with, but when i got into it it was alright.
Hated question 2...pretty much bullshitted my way through it. Maybe the marker will have pity on me...

 

[senso]

I thought it was the best paper we could ask for.
They didn't specify how many historians or areas of debate to do in section two which was great.
For section one, the text might have been a little small, but it was pretty much what i thought it would be.

 

[chocc0]

i think i totally screwed up question one but meh the case study was ok it wasn't that bad it could have been worse

 

[kelboo]

I must confess i thought It'd be a lot worse, but I was in no way happy with it. I knew I'd be posting a thread like this for history extension this time last week

 

[Sasky]

Yes I agree it was a relatively easy exam, in my sense it was only 'crap' because I would have written so much more.

I included historians quoted by max and section one - strangely enough - was my best section - it was better than I expected! The source was an odd one, but one that you could definetly discuss into all aspects of history - definetly including PM.
Section two question was also highly predictable, but for me I should have written more for...

But in conclusion, font give a f--- anymore, cause I am finished!!!!
Good luck with the rest of u who's got a couple more - hang in there!

 

[gemita]

The exam was great, but I totally stuffed it up. It's not like the questions were hard, I just...did a bad job. Plus my time management was really bad and I only left half an hour for the case study, so that essay is absolute shite.

I'm pretty upset about it, my internal mark is around 94 and I'm coming first, do you think my exam will affect my internal marks really badly?

 

[silvermoon]

i loved the second question - i was dreading a really hard question that id find difficult (believe me, appeasement is hard enough as it is without a hard question!), but it was really excellent. i was surprised at how short the source was, but i managed to find a heap of things to talk about. my conclusion was really bad though - id talked about so many different concepts and where i agreed or criticised the source that i didn't know how to link it all together again. but meh. hsc is over. god damn its a relief.

 

[silvermoon]

I'm pretty upset about it, my internal mark is around 94 and I'm coming first, do you think my exam will affect my internal marks really badly?

dont worry - the period straight after an exam is never the best time to judge how you went. you cant change it now - so just relax and wait for your results, im sure they'll be better than you think.
...um, im confuzzled. how can your internal mark be 94 in a 1U course?

 

[gemita]

Oops I mean 94%. I got 100% for my project and something terrible for my trial, so it worked out to be 47.

 

[JoyDivision]

Hmm I didnt think the source was too bad, I was kinda expecting something like that, about the discourse of history since the emergence of the critical schools of history.

I used Classical, of course, with the 'colourful moral's detailed in the source and Herodotus

Von Ranke

The Enlightenment and Edward Gibbon

Marxist Historical Models and Eric Hobsbawm

Critical schools of History - Postmodern, Post Structural and Derrida's Deconstruction

The Renaissance, or Machiavelli and the Medici's in 'The Prince'

 

[scruffy012]

yeah it wasnt too bad, i only wrote a total of 11 pages in the 2 hours.... i hate thucydides, hes too hard to analyse really decently

well cheers

scruffy

 

[nessie_lee]

Fuck i'm an idiot.. I didn't pick up the post-modernist criticisms in the source so didn't even talk about it explicitly. Does that mean i'm headed for a band 4?

Don't worry .. neither did i until i came out and my teacher said "did you use post modernism for question 1?"... Doh!!
Ahhh well! .. it'll be interesting to see how i go!