Thoughts on the exam (1 Viewer)

[fatguy]

It was soooo easy... i finished in 40 mins and filled 4 booklets

 

[simonelye]

It was soooo easy... i finished in 40 mins and filled 4 booklets

haha,
I hope your just being sarcastic,
and mimicking a lot of people on this wwebsite.
the exam starts in 2 and a half hours
jeeeeeeeeez =/
Cramming quotes in.
aghh
good luck =]​

 

[Bec-B]

Yes, well done on finishing the exam before the rest of us had even started it. Lol

 

[manutd_rock07]

this will be my last ever hsc exam!!!!

yay...............

oh well gotta get back to studying.....

 

[manutd_rock07]

haha,
I hope your just being sarcastic,
and mimicking a lot of people on this wwebsite.
the exam starts in 2 and a half hours
jeeeeeeeeez =/
Cramming quotes in.
aghh
good luck =]​

2 1/2 hours....no it starts at 2pm doesnt it???? im sure its an afternoon exam.....ur post says u posted it at 7.30????

im confused

 

[lady Arre]

just had a minor heart attack reading this tossers post.

arghh! dont do that!

 

[miss-smexy]

rofl fatguy I think you're deluded =P Don't get excited too early.... hahahhaha.... go do your exam first!!

 

[fatguy]

wow.. all female replies so far, aren't there any guys who do ext history ot there?

(btw i feel slightly aroused)

 

[bassguy]

Time travel will do that to you.

 

[spence]

I reckon it was pretty easy, but I didn't go that well on crusades. Question 1 went well but. I did 9 and a bit pages for q1, 8 and a bit for q2

 

[tox]

Yay! Was quite happy with that exam

The historiography source had lots to pull out, and the case study question was awesome.

No more hsc for me! YEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!

 

[indirabeqaj]

umm i did the 2nd question first, so i did pretty well in that one. but the 1st question i didnt really write with the source so much in my mind, which was a mistake. uhhh sucks

 

[nick1689]

The questions were not overly hard and the articles were easy to understand. I filled 8 pages and 9.5 pages. Hopefully I can scrape in at least 18/25 in both. Does anyone know how well the raw mark gets scaled in ext?

 

[mallie89]

I hated Question 1, that source had no opinion, it just asked questions! how the heck am I supposed to link it to my modernist/PM debate if it doesn't have an opinion (Okay I did, but ugh. It was frustrating. stupid fence-sitting argument)

Question 2 was good though.

 

[tessery]

I thought the Q1 was kind of hard because the source didn't take a specific modernist or post modernist persepctive - and it just asked so many rhetorical questions!! lol but the actual question was fine.

Q2 was fine once i thought about it, but my introduction was pretty bad

I got 15-16 pages for Q1 and around 19 for Q2 - but i have pretty big writing! lol

congrats to all of you who finished, i still have eco and legal

(haha mallory - and so we meet again on the bos forum =P)

 

[rositamadeline]

ah that was so good...
my last two exams have been horrible but that was amazing. the source was so easy and specific ans section 2 was easy and only one debate!!!

 

[navelj]

A good exam - at least i thought so until i came home. I thought historiography was a good source, i'm sure Munslow must be a post-modernist, correct me if i'm wrong - i hope not - i wrote on John Vincent, Windschuttle, Carr and Hayden White. I thought the question was more specific than previous years "the role of the historian" but a good one, except for the fact i think i missed some vital stuff out on Carr, about how he though the role of the historian was to "give the floor to facts". Anyways i wrote 11 pages for the first question.

I thought the case study question was great, because it seems to have not wanted info on the historians' contexts - BUT PLEASE TELL ME I'M RIGHT - because that's what i'm stressing most over. I did Elizabeth 1 - ANYONE ELSE DO ELIZABETH?????? I focused on her image - mainly the cult of Elizabeth (Yates, Strong & Hackett) and her parliamentary policy (Neale and Elton) i thought that i answered the question well and thought the "challenging old accepted interpretations" fit well with Elizabeth. I wrote 15 pages for this section and ended with the quote from Pieter Geyl "history is an argument without end".

I have a question: IN QUESTION 1 - WHEN IT REFERS TO SOURCES - DID THAT MEAN YOU HAVE TO MENTION THE BOOK / ARTICLE THAT A HISTORIAN WROTE IN because all did was say the historian's name i.e. Keith Windschuttle, but i got alot of quotes not from his "The Killing of History" but from one of his "Sydney Line" lectures. PLEASE SOMEONE ANSWER & TELL ME HOW YOU DID THIS + ELIZABETH.

PS: I only wrote that many pages because my handwriting has become increasongly large in the HSC to write faster, but i had about 5-7 words per line - reasonable, but not amazing, so nobody say i'm boasting.

And no one should leave exams early, one guy in my class left 30 minutes early - idiot!!!!!!
Thanks. Over and out. 1 to go - Legal Studies....

 

[Wooz]

I thought the case study question was great, because it seems to have not wanted info on the historians' contexts - BUT PLEASE TELL ME I'M RIGHT - because that's what i'm stressing most over. I did Elizabeth 1 - ANYONE ELSE DO ELIZABETH?????? I focused on her image - mainly the cult of Elizabeth (Yates, Strong & Hackett) and her parliamentary policy (Neale and Elton) i thought that i answered the question well and thought the "challenging old accepted interpretations" fit well with Elizabeth. I wrote 15 pages for this section and ended with the quote from Pieter Geyl "history is an argument without end".

Check out my thread, keep the general thoughts thread general. Did u have any orthadoxy on her images, Yates, Strong and Hackett are all art historians critical of the 'propagandist commissioned images', you should be fine with just the Neale-Elton debate for policy.

 

[el gwapo]

I thought Munslow was a bloke - me mate he said it was a she..

Anyway, it was vague, true, but postmodernist is vague. The article gave me ample reason to drift in and out of postmodernist. Overall I guess it's a good essay I wrote (around 11-12 pages) considering it's a first draft, but then again it is the HSC, so I'm hopeful it's par with my trial essay results

 

[HistoryQueen]

to the guy that wrote about elizabeth i addressed it in similar ways.
i liked section I i could fit in my historians really well esp in relation to role. im glad we didnt have to really analyse the munslow guys stance n stuff which was good-less analysis than past practicce papers my class has been doing.
section II i didnt love the source but i made it work for elizabeth.
im glad i never have to study that woman again and her historians fewww.
i ended up doin 20 pages for each n no my writing isnt huge i just constantly practice writing fast...daily that is.
hoping for top band n same marks that i hav been receiving this yr.
overall glad this subject is over. it has not been one of my favourites