Thoughts on the exam (1 Viewer)

[Mandals]

Munslow's a guy. Yay for google.

But anyway source 1 didn't NEED to have a specific modernist/postmodern persuasion... the question was about the issues he raised not about the actual perspective he put forward. Although I probably would say, if I really really had to, that he was more postmodernist than modernist since he totally questioned empiricism and whether we can have truth and all that jazz... but I didn't say that in my essay. Were we supposed to?

I wrote 10 and 9 pages.

 

[fartx2]

the "what is history" was a bit difficult. i basically used my generic thesis for the role of the historian. I talked about my views, and that of L. v. Ranke, Annales, and Po-mos.Then i critiqued Munslow and said he was a hypocrit because he had conflicting views. However, i was out of content by 5 pages. So i squeezed in some stuff about how historians should use interdisciplinary sources. (annales).

the other section was straightforward

 

[bored6]

Munslow didn't seem to have a particular historical position for mine: he just seemed to be highly critical which doesn't necessitate either being a flexible empiricist, a relativist or a postmodernist.

Although I think he did validate that most historians today are willing to accept multiple histories. Regardless, it was a bit strange because the source itself didn't come to a synthesis like it usually did. Still pretty good but.

 

[navelj]

Munslow's a guy. Yay for google.

But anyway source 1 didn't NEED to have a specific modernist/postmodern persuasion... the question was about the issues he raised not about the actual perspective he put forward. Although I probably would say, if I really really had to, that he was more postmodernist than modernist since he totally questioned empiricism and whether we can have truth and all that jazz... but I didn't say that in my essay. Were we supposed to?

I wrote 10 and 9 pages.

You should be mentioning at least what type of historian Munslow is and comparing his view of the role of the historian with other historians - that's the whole reason why they give us a source, because when you refer to the issues he raises you must refer to WHY he does - which relates to his perspective - post-modernist. At least that's what i was taught.

 

[extraordinary07]

13 pages for what is history and 11 pages for the second topic, i did Jesus. section 2 was easy but section one was really hard. he didnt give an opinon, he just continued on with mindless rhetorics. im hoping for a band 5.

 

[spence]

I didn't think it was a problem that he didn't give an opinion, i just went into detail in some of his rhetorical questions. And when it says sources, you don't need the article, just the historian

 

[navelj]

thanks for clarifying that - i'm glad that someone only put the historians' name.

 

[bored6]

bored6,

Yes you definitely have a point! =) Whilst he did not, however, take a definitive position, nevertheless, the fact that he questions the notion of truth means that people should discuss pomo in their essay.

He asked about empiricism and analytical enquiry and asked how can readers ascertain that there is actually fact... if i recall correctly... hmm so i discussed Von Ranke.

I agree! It was a good source for contrasting modernism with postmodernism.

 

[bored6]

did you have to judge munslow? i thought it only wanted a critique-fingo on the role of the historian, with reference to Munslow's stuff?

??

or did i just fuk up my entire history extension HSC exam of 2007?

POR FAVOR DIOS

 

[fatguy]

did you have to judge munslow? i thought it only wanted a critique-fingo on the role of the historian, with reference to Munslow's stuff?

??

or did i just fuk up my entire history extension HSC exam of 2007?

u fuked up so bad buddy..... bolivian bastard :mad1:

 

[cucum3rs]

8 pages for each, but i managed to fit 10 words per line

confident with my first section, not so with my case study - historicity of jesus christ. didnt even answer the question on second thought

still eco to go!

 

[mallie89]

bored6,

Yes you definitely have a point! =) Whilst he did not, however, take a definitive position, nevertheless, the fact that he questions the notion of truth means that people should discuss pomo in their essay.

He asked about empiricism and analytical enquiry and asked how can readers ascertain that there is actually fact... if i recall correctly... hmm so i discussed Von Ranke.

the fact that he questioned definitely allowed an easy bring in of PostModernism and contrast it to modernism but I really just wish the stupid source had taken a stance. It was really frustrating with all those rhetorical questions. I mean, anyone can question the basis of something, its much more important to try and give a coherent answer...


but yeah that did make it easy to bring in the different views.

 

[tessery]

live.fast, i wouldn;t stress, i didn;t make a judgement about the source - i think it is up to you whether you want to analyse it, or simply use the issues it brings up to evaluate other historians.

yeah, i think the source was slightly post modernist, but i don't think that just becuase he questions truth. even a real modernist like windshuttle could go through questioning like that, munslow was just pointing out the issues available for debate. of course, you could bring in the post modern argument very easily here, but i don;t think munslow was dinstincly modernist.

ok, time to forget about this exam lol. good luck everyone!

 

[chocolatecookie]

It wasn't me who did tacitus, it was the guy i quoted hehe

haha, woops, my bad... well to whoever that was, i did tactius too

 

[yellow_sub]

did you have to judge munslow? i thought it only wanted a critique-fingo on the role of the historian, with reference to Munslow's stuff?

??

or did i just fuk up my entire history extension HSC exam of 2007?

i did the same as you. there was no judging of munslow, i just pulled out ideas and agreed/disagreed with them basing it on polybius, ranke, hobsbawm and hadyn white. i am certain that is not fucking up your hsc, im pretty sure thats doing what you were spose to.

 

[Paris Astill]

aaarrrrr i hated question 2... i mean it was a good question but i hate my case study Thucydides... it was such a terrible essay. I basically argued that the opinion in the little extract was wrong because there was never any agreed upon interpratation of Thucydides... ha ha what a shit thesis. oh well question 1 was pretty good. WOOHOO only one exam to go!

 

[Ademir]

I mentioned postmodernism and the debate but I didn't use the word PM once I think.. haha crap. oh well its over now hopefully it wont make a massive difference

I did talk about the context in Elizabeth though... the context of the historians has alot to do about how they approach the traditional views

I wrote 11 pages for the first question and 9 for the 2nd

 

[123erykb]

Solid exam, question 2 was a bit weird for Tacitus, just because I am used to looking at the direct impact of context. But still a very adaptable question. Anyone else do Tacitus? How did you do it?

Also, for q1 I don't think it was necessary to categorise Munslow, in fact, unless they are blatantly, positivist, annales or po-mo, it is probably never necessary to categorise them. Most scholars argue that to cateogrise scholars into certain schools is misleading, as there are aspects which conform and don't conform to certain schools of thought. I thought that Munslow was just looking at the entire historiographical debate in hindsight, and showed both positivist and po-mo tendencies.

Overall good exam.

 

[Ademir]

Solid exam, question 2 was a bit weird for Tacitus, just because I am used to looking at the direct impact of context. But still a very adaptable question. Anyone else do Tacitus? How did you do it?

Also, for q1 I don't think it was necessary to categorise Munslow, in fact, unless they are blatantly, positivist, annales or po-mo, it is probably never necessary to categorise them. Most scholars argue that to cateogrise scholars into certain schools is misleading, as there are aspects which conform and don't conform to certain schools of thought. I thought that Munslow was just looking at the entire historiographical debate in hindsight, and showed both positivist and po-mo tendencies.

Overall good exam.

I agree. Especially in the case of Munslow and this extract he's not easily identifiable. If I HAD to categorise, I'd say he's a pomo who probably can't hack he is like reynolds

i reckon its more important to pick out which elements of the extract portray ideas from certain schools of thought... there are aspects of the source which are both rankean and pomo and then theres just rhetoric thrown in

 

[simonelye]

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

lol I think the times are all screwed up on here. lol.
yeah when i posted it it was 2 and a half hours away.
So incredibly happy thats over.
No more hsccccc
=]