Thesis and arguments (1 Viewer)

[TheGlenn]

Should we have a thesis for essay one ? Or will that restrict us because of the source ? Also, it would be helpful i think if people could please mention some possible arguments that may be integrated into the source e.g. history being constructed.

With regards to those arguments, because some of them will be present in the source, is that how we should structure our essay: intro, arg1, arg2, arg3, conclusion ?

 

[caitycat]

Should we have a thesis for essay one ? Or will that restrict us because of the source ? Also, it would be helpful i think if people could please mention some possible arguments that may be integrated into the source e.g. history being constructed.

With regards to those arguments, because some of them will be present in the source, is that how we should structure our essay: intro, arg1, arg2, arg3, conclusion ?

We should always have a clear thesis and sadly, this is the part I have most difficulty with!

I often find this hard to get clear in my head!! Matching different historians to sections of the source is easy, but I have a deinite weakness in constructing my essay! *oh dear!!* oh I did sooo badly in my trial!

 

[TheGlenn]

Changing the topic a bit, how hard is it to get say....above a 38 in this subject ? Because I got 36 for trials but i don't think ill get that in the HSC because of all the high range competition

In terms of essay construction and a thesis, should we be looking for what OUR interpretation is ? I know that was a question in a past year, but, when we talk about the source and historians we're essentially doing that anyway I guess. But my point is, the sources will surely focus on similar things as to previous years such as construction, objectivity etc. so...
​

 

[MMalone]

The best way to structure the essay is to try and identify the syllabus dot points within the source e.g. What is history?
By doing that, write about the source's argument, how different interpretations of those points are evident in other historians (e.g. Matching Von Ranke with Gibbon-'wie est eigentlicht gewesen' (telling it how it was) and 'history has no meaning until the historian gives it meaning'). Structure the essay around opinions of historians on the issues on the syllabus and exemplify it with debates from the source book. Try not to be too chronological.

 

[el gwapo]

^ My trial essay was rather chronological spanning from Macaulay and Ranke to the modern Annales and social science history. Got me 20. So I guess you're right.

I think last year Clendinnen was talking about history as a science. Richard Evans discusses a lot about that in his book "What is history". That's something worth discussing.

 

[Louis XIV]

Do you mean E.H. Carr? I thought Evans just wrote the introduction for the new print.

 

[hrdgrk1]

When structuring your essay, pick out the major points out of the source and construct paragraphs out of them. Explaining the point and the historiographical methodology behind it, linking it to other historians and then critiquing it from a post modernist viewpoint, highlighting Jenkins and Foucault and then offering ure own opinion etc.

 

[zaqwerty]

Writing chronologically is not recommended because of its tendency to look like a prepared answer. You should link similar points between historians/articles/sources, and then apply their ideas to the source, rather than having a prepared structure to which you apply the source. Your argument must stem from the source and make clear connections with it. Hence, I find it difficult to create a thesis that would apply to any question they may give, and I think it could be a waste of time to prepare one.