Zenithliza
Member
Since there is no exam thoughts forum, why don't we just post what we think here?
-
Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this! Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Exam thoughts.. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Zenithliza
- Start date
The source threw me a bit, but I reckon i got it ok.
The case study was a bitch in my opinion, my particular case study (Tacitus and the Julio-Claudians), was mainly focused on only one area (tyranny and freedom), with minor references to other areas such as women and wars. :mad1:
Ah well, I reckon i did that section pretty good too. All in all, a very good exam.
The case study was a bitch in my opinion, my particular case study (Tacitus and the Julio-Claudians), was mainly focused on only one area (tyranny and freedom), with minor references to other areas such as women and wars. :mad1:
Ah well, I reckon i did that section pretty good too. All in all, a very good exam.
captnpornstar
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2002
- Messages
- 18
like what the...?
ok... this year's exam was just weird...
case study- hmmm a bit too general. what were you meant to write? like EVERYTHING! so it was really hard to formulate an argument based on everything you knew... but i wrote 3 booklets so it should b ok.
the source question... it was definitely a big WHAT THE...
the source was ok and easy, but the question was totally bizarre... what the hell r we meant to write on our interpretations? did you guys use statements like "i believe..." or "i agree.." ??? were we meant to clearly state our opinions directly across? thats like soooo informal and un-essay-like!
what did everyone talk about? i focused on the debate over objectivity coz that was our trial question, and i kept repeating what the source said. AHHHHHH!!!!
ok... this year's exam was just weird...
case study- hmmm a bit too general. what were you meant to write? like EVERYTHING! so it was really hard to formulate an argument based on everything you knew... but i wrote 3 booklets so it should b ok.
the source question... it was definitely a big WHAT THE...
the source was ok and easy, but the question was totally bizarre... what the hell r we meant to write on our interpretations? did you guys use statements like "i believe..." or "i agree.." ??? were we meant to clearly state our opinions directly across? thats like soooo informal and un-essay-like!
what did everyone talk about? i focused on the debate over objectivity coz that was our trial question, and i kept repeating what the source said. AHHHHHH!!!!
sif not 99
Member
source question was pretty easy or so I thought
i thought the second page of the article was rather irrelevant the bit which started herodotus this that gibbon this that bla bla, the last paragraph was probably the best out of the whole piece
i just formulated my answer around carr's statement that "to understand the history study the historian" and went on about different caveats that need to be taken into account when analysing sources. worked pretty well
just picked issues outa the first page of the article, about analysing context, purpose and then some rant about postmodernism i dont know how i got onto that but it worked
case study pretty predictable
i thought the second page of the article was rather irrelevant the bit which started herodotus this that gibbon this that bla bla, the last paragraph was probably the best out of the whole piece
i just formulated my answer around carr's statement that "to understand the history study the historian" and went on about different caveats that need to be taken into account when analysing sources. worked pretty well
just picked issues outa the first page of the article, about analysing context, purpose and then some rant about postmodernism i dont know how i got onto that but it worked
case study pretty predictable
princess b*
New Member
yeh, went wat the??? to source at first then peaced out and wrote same old shit, addressed objectivity at end etc.
i actually like the case study. i did tacitus too. mostly wrote on tyranny/freedom. a bit on women. so much for balance. yeah, arch man....i wish id known u guys were doin tacitus. u would go to forster high then hey? im not far away actually. too late now.
but overall, im happy cos i had just finished a 3 hour exam only an hour before-hand and this was all done on ONE HOURS SLEEP!
YOOOOOOOOOOOP!!!
well peace out guys, its nearly over!!!
princess b*
New Member
nah, i do aboriginal studies as well. seeing as BOS decided to put them both on at EXACTLY the same time i had to do abst first and then get supervised in between so i couldnt tell anyone wat
was in the exam (ie. 7 HOURS STRAIT SOLITARY CONFINEMENT!)
I actually liked the first question, had heaps of good quotes I could use, plus showed how the questioned etc etc statement a the end could be applied to my 5 historians,
The case stusy was okay, I did the Crusades so that was pretty easy to do.
The case stusy was okay, I did the Crusades so that was pretty easy to do.
Zenithliza
Member
I was happy with the case study. I do Elizabeth so I talked about gender and her handling of religion as the two issues.
But I didn't do too great in the first part. It was my last essay and I was just so buggered that I felt myself crapping on... oh well. It's over now!
But I didn't do too great in the first part. It was my last essay and I was just so buggered that I felt myself crapping on... oh well. It's over now!
The 'you' in question 1 was crazy......and the source....gee, it felt like someone wrote it for no real reason other than putting their name in the exam.....the Fells dude.....i thought it was going to be some article from a newspaper or journal from those elite magazines........i wrote bout 5 historians of my choice:
Herodotus(easy to relate to the source)
Leopold von Ranke
Marx
Marc Bloch
E.H.Carr
Yeh, the case study.....it was hard, i reckon i had too much to talk bout and felt I didn't finish eventhough i wrote some conclusion
I did Origins of Rome, and the debate in that is fairly heavy
Herodotus(easy to relate to the source)
Leopold von Ranke
Marx
Marc Bloch
E.H.Carr
Yeh, the case study.....it was hard, i reckon i had too much to talk bout and felt I didn't finish eventhough i wrote some conclusion
I did Origins of Rome, and the debate in that is fairly heavy
the first question kindve shocked me wen i first sore it and the source was weird.
i ended up discussing how when interpretating history (and historians) you had to consider the context it was in. i used the source by saying how it didnt consider the context and so was unfair to Herodotus and Tacitus. I think it worked. I don't no. It was a weird question.
The 2nd question was predictable coz its really the only question that can be asked coz its a generic question for so many different case studies.
i ended up discussing how when interpretating history (and historians) you had to consider the context it was in. i used the source by saying how it didnt consider the context and so was unfair to Herodotus and Tacitus. I think it worked. I don't no. It was a weird question.
The 2nd question was predictable coz its really the only question that can be asked coz its a generic question for so many different case studies.
Arch man-
i think what they mean by 'areas of debate'------is each dot point is an option.
For example each topic I assume woudl have about 5 dot points. say in the example for Elizabeth 1 there are 5 areas of debate and within these are are issues. etc.
later...
i think what they mean by 'areas of debate'------is each dot point is an option.
For example each topic I assume woudl have about 5 dot points. say in the example for Elizabeth 1 there are 5 areas of debate and within these are are issues. etc.
later...
princess b*
New Member
st clares, but only for 5 more days!! YOOOOOOOOOOOOOPP!!
!meeee!
Member
i found the source a little annoying cause it was excessively broad. personally i didn't think the Fell dude had an interpretation of history. he talked more about how history had been interpreted. so i was arguing about how there is no definitive interpretation of history
also the "what do you think" approach annoyed me cause i wanted to answer the question without getting personal
the case study q was ok but with asking specifically about historiographical issues, well that made me question my structure a bit
also the "what do you think" approach annoyed me cause i wanted to answer the question without getting personal
the case study q was ok but with asking specifically about historiographical issues, well that made me question my structure a bit