Yesssss!!! (1 Viewer)

[SparklingDimond]

It was really good! I am so relieved, I kept imagining all these horrbile questions i was scared they would ask, but then they all turned out to be the sort of questions we've answered hundreds of times :-( The only one that i didnt really know was the first sparta question on geography, i just described, didnt name. Oh well im really glad its over. What did u all think?

 

[I_see_U_P]

I know the questions were so similar to my Trials and the half yearly i was in the exam about to jump for joy!!
Except one question in the minoan society question was difficult but it was only 5 marks!!!

But you know that sucks...if everyone found it easy...we're going to be scaled down!!!

 

[SparklingDimond]

Yep for the two essays i wrote nearly the same thing as in the trial (one was the same question) and the same for question c in the personalities and their times question. and a actually, now that i think about it!

 

[homeboyjoe]

yea i liked it too, lets just hope that the mark shows it It really helped staying up all nite to study

 

[nomza]

It was pretty good, not as bad as I thought it would be considering I knew hardly anything and I GOT MY PERIOD IN THE MIDDLE OF THE EXAM!!!!

Only problem is for the question on Ramesside period on religion, I only wrote 4 pages cos I ran out of time....who else did that question??? If so what did you write about???

But overall, yeah good paper.

 

[Sarah J]

Well, I thought I did alright (excpet for sparta) until I came out of the exam and found out that part C of the Agrippina essay was NOT "assess the interpretations of the ancient and modern scholars" as I thought it said (I was like "woo!" same as my trial), but it was "assess the interpretations of the ancient or modern scholars".

OR????????????????????????????? I'm sorry, but if they're going to throw a fukking OR into it, they should put it in bold and CAPITALS. Arseholes. Yes, it was probably my fault for not paying very close attention or whatever, but still.

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr :mad1: :mad1:

 

[Jellymonsta]

lol the band 6 people are going to be the ones who highlighted all the 'or's and 'and's in the paper... thats a solid discriminator

 

[Killah33]

I knew people would be picked out by the OR.... i chose Ancient Sources cause i had more to talk about (Coins, Sebasteoin Relief, Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio)...

w00t no more ancient.

im so glad there was a question on Augustus' reforms (EASSSYY)

loved it!

 

[Sarah J]

yeah, well leave me alone- I'm only a child!

plus, I had a whole 3 hours of sleep. Actually, I think I'm exaggerating- it was more like 2 and 1/2. I lay in bed for hours counting sheep, and other shit, the tried that whole warm milk thing. crappoli!

 

[nomza]

...

Well, I talked with my teacher about it afterwards and she said that most students prob can't to both ancient and modern well together....so maybe the marks will be impressed that you can do both????

I did mainly modern but then used ancient sources to show a minor contrast....

 

[evie]

I did Ancient as well. Lucky that. I didn't study any modern int. at all.

 

[ben]

i did this whole argument about how ancient ones were different to modern - woooooppps!

 

[evie]

Originally posted by ben
i did this whole argument about how ancient ones were different to modern - woooooppps!

Classic response. Kudos.

I only knew the ancient ones so I didn't even go into modern ones.

 

[~ForAGoodCause~]

omg i thought it was 'AND", but i didnt know any modern sources, so i made up a modern source!!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Jenjen]

I loved it- absolutely beautiful i thought
questions were sooo general and easy....
CHEERING!!

 

[stressed02]

GRRRRRRRRRRRRR i did 'AND' as well

that is SO annoying, i made up a source as well for modern interpretations because i didn't know any...

will we lose marks?

 

[SparklingDimond]

Hmm i saw the or and considered ignoring it, but then decided to do modern and just added in the occasional ancient but only as evidence, didnt assess it or anything. but i really would have prefered to do both

 

[Nusrat]

AND/OR

well i did only modern cos my ancient sources are just archaeological evidence.......in a sense, u could say it goes together but had no ancient writers, cos there aren't any for.......i did hatshepsut...what did u do?

 

[nomza]

HEY -- I did Hatshepsut too....what I did was this:

I did the modern historians views (concentrated mainly on Gardiner and Tyldesley) and then back whichever historian up with ancient evidence.....I have no I idea whether that is totally wrong or not.....

 

[Nusrat]

Gardiner is a good person to do........he just bagged out hatshepsut, u could've also done E.Naville-the archaeologist who excavated Deir el Bahari.........see these modern pple wrote these things based on the ancient sources.......that's the difficulty in knowing whther u've done the right thing.......see the other good thing about doing hatshepsut is that we really don't have giant manuscripts from ancient writers like herodotus or some scribe........
could've done wilson also......writes good stuff bout Punt expedition and the fact that she was an administrative pharaoh....remember that section was 10marks so u know i'm no marker...ain't got any experience, think it would be hard job to predict what they expect