lollypoplady
Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 36
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
Thoughts?
I thought it could've been much worse!
I thought it could've been much worse!
General Exam Thoughts: History Extension (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter lollypoplady
- Start date
Miffstaa
Member
Re: Exam 08
sammeee!
i thought th first part was awesome, and for the second part i had too much information, so it ws just about cutting down on issues in the debate for Elizabeth etc.
but other than that i thought it was pretty good!
hsc is overrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
sammeee!
i thought th first part was awesome, and for the second part i had too much information, so it ws just about cutting down on issues in the debate for Elizabeth etc.
but other than that i thought it was pretty good!
hsc is overrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
r0kstar
Member
Re: Exam 08
yeh could've been much worse!!
lol i called one of my jfk historians peter sorensen insted of theodore bahaha
did evry1 agree or disagree with the source? coz i trashed him all the way through and my conclusion went something along the lines of "Gammage would be much more suited to writing historical fiction, as impartiality is not a pre-requesite" hahaha
yay no more ext his EVER!!
yeh could've been much worse!!
lol i called one of my jfk historians peter sorensen insted of theodore bahaha
did evry1 agree or disagree with the source? coz i trashed him all the way through and my conclusion went something along the lines of "Gammage would be much more suited to writing historical fiction, as impartiality is not a pre-requesite" hahaha
yay no more ext his EVER!!
dance2urownbeat
Ridiculously Good Looking
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2007
- Messages
- 443
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
Re: Exam 08
yeh much easier than i was anticipating!
i'm thinking maybe high 30s combined?
either way, it was a hell of a lot better than my trials!!!!
i agreed and disagreed with gammage.
yeh much easier than i was anticipating!
i'm thinking maybe high 30s combined?
either way, it was a hell of a lot better than my trials!!!!
i agreed and disagreed with gammage.
Kujah
Moderator
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,736
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Re: Exam 08
Section II was great, but Iunno, my time management was all over the place. Left Section I with 50 minutes, and used Jenkins, Elton/Carr and Thucydides. I feel slightly disappointed. Great source, but time constraints made me rush
Section II was great, but Iunno, my time management was all over the place. Left Section I with 50 minutes, and used Jenkins, Elton/Carr and Thucydides. I feel slightly disappointed. Great source, but time constraints made me rush
Telekinetik
ça m'a fait du bien
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2006
- Messages
- 161
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Re: Exam 08
For Section I I used Herodotus, Ranke, Hobsbawm, Clark and Carr. It was really good! A little like the CSSA trial.
Section II was expected, the questions are basically the same anyway, and I didn't have enough on one case study so I used two.
All in all it was a good exam!
For Section I I used Herodotus, Ranke, Hobsbawm, Clark and Carr. It was really good! A little like the CSSA trial.
Section II was expected, the questions are basically the same anyway, and I didn't have enough on one case study so I used two.
All in all it was a good exam!
Re: Exam 08
The issues raised in the WIH source were handed to you on a platter, really.
- Can an historian tell a story? Can it be used to entertain?
I talked here about how Gammage seemed to contradict himself. Can history be used to entertain, while remaining truthful to the past? I used Herodotus here and stated that you would probably think no, you cannot entertain people while remaining truthful to the past, because he obviously used oral history to entertain, but he distorted his history because of this. But then I also talked about Polybius and how he didn't distort his history but was still able to appeal to a Greek audience by inserting Greek philosophers.
- Can an historian use history and comment on it?
Here I talked about von Ranke and how he believed that no, you can't comment on history. I contrasted this view with Elton, because Elton reckons that you can use history to learn from the past. I talked about how the histories of some events lend themselves so well to commenting e.g. when you talk about the Holocaust, it's hard not to feel some sort of sympathy and sadness, and such histories allow historians to instigate societal progress becuase humans are pretty stupid.
- Can an historian disregard theory?
The obvious implication of being able to use evidence to reach "truth" is the disregard of Postmodernist theory, and because I thought the source was leaning that way, I began bashing Postmodernism and how historians should disregard theory, because it gets in the way of what history should be about (to me). Enter Jenkins and Carr here. I wrote that because I believed that historians could comment on history for the progress of society, postmodernists believe that there is no universal essence to humanity and would therefore reject the notion of an historian commenting about events (since if there's no universal essence, there's no common morality, which is what I did for my extension two English project -_____________- ugh).
It was okay. Would have loved more time on the Postmodernist part.
P.S. I did Elizabeth and it was a lovely question for her.
The issues raised in the WIH source were handed to you on a platter, really.
- Can an historian tell a story? Can it be used to entertain?
I talked here about how Gammage seemed to contradict himself. Can history be used to entertain, while remaining truthful to the past? I used Herodotus here and stated that you would probably think no, you cannot entertain people while remaining truthful to the past, because he obviously used oral history to entertain, but he distorted his history because of this. But then I also talked about Polybius and how he didn't distort his history but was still able to appeal to a Greek audience by inserting Greek philosophers.
- Can an historian use history and comment on it?
Here I talked about von Ranke and how he believed that no, you can't comment on history. I contrasted this view with Elton, because Elton reckons that you can use history to learn from the past. I talked about how the histories of some events lend themselves so well to commenting e.g. when you talk about the Holocaust, it's hard not to feel some sort of sympathy and sadness, and such histories allow historians to instigate societal progress becuase humans are pretty stupid.
- Can an historian disregard theory?
The obvious implication of being able to use evidence to reach "truth" is the disregard of Postmodernist theory, and because I thought the source was leaning that way, I began bashing Postmodernism and how historians should disregard theory, because it gets in the way of what history should be about (to me). Enter Jenkins and Carr here. I wrote that because I believed that historians could comment on history for the progress of society, postmodernists believe that there is no universal essence to humanity and would therefore reject the notion of an historian commenting about events (since if there's no universal essence, there's no common morality, which is what I did for my extension two English project -_____________- ugh).
It was okay. Would have loved more time on the Postmodernist part.
P.S. I did Elizabeth and it was a lovely question for her.
Last edited:
Re: Exam 08
my friend did section one using herodutus gibbon macauly von ranke carr and johnson, found it enjoyable.
section two with the debates on the crusades, used two debates.. couldnt think of enough shit for just one.
he says
"extension history is the shizzle!.."
one to go.
party time. yew.
my friend did section one using herodutus gibbon macauly von ranke carr and johnson, found it enjoyable.
section two with the debates on the crusades, used two debates.. couldnt think of enough shit for just one.
he says
"extension history is the shizzle!.."
one to go.
party time. yew.
tpeet
New Member
Re: Exam 08
It was a fairly straight forward exam. But I thought the questions were a little broad. u really had to be selective and critical in ur arguement...
But it is over!!!!!
It was a fairly straight forward exam. But I thought the questions were a little broad. u really had to be selective and critical in ur arguement...
But it is over!!!!!
M
moye1025
Guest
General thoughts of test
what did everyone think about the history extension exam 08?
what did everyone think about the history extension exam 08?
morning storm
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 147
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Re: Exam 08
Finished
Fuck Yes
Hoping To Scrape An E4
Finished
Fuck Yes
Hoping To Scrape An E4
sonyaleeisapixi
inkfacewhorebitchpixie.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,327
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
Re: Exam 08
i adorrrred section 1
and section 2 was basically my trial reworded
in short?
fucking aced it. <3
i adorrrred section 1
and section 2 was basically my trial reworded
in short?
fucking aced it. <3
Re: General thoughts of test
Quite good, though, I was hoping that the source would be directed moreso towards bias/objectivity/'it there a truth' sort of thing. Nonetheless, I brought all of that stuff in too.
I was really happy with ym quotes, could remember at least 12 for Q1 and about 10 for Q2.
I do the Historicity of Jesus Christ, so Q2 wourked well with relating the 'dimly-lit light' to personal contextual and conceptual bias.
All up, it was fair and reasonable. Though, that mightn;'t be enough to get the 46+ I was hoping for.
Okay, so say I got 23/25 for Q1 and 21/25 for Q2, how does a 44/50 raw moderate?
What did you think of the test?
Quite good, though, I was hoping that the source would be directed moreso towards bias/objectivity/'it there a truth' sort of thing. Nonetheless, I brought all of that stuff in too.
I was really happy with ym quotes, could remember at least 12 for Q1 and about 10 for Q2.
I do the Historicity of Jesus Christ, so Q2 wourked well with relating the 'dimly-lit light' to personal contextual and conceptual bias.
All up, it was fair and reasonable. Though, that mightn;'t be enough to get the 46+ I was hoping for.
Okay, so say I got 23/25 for Q1 and 21/25 for Q2, how does a 44/50 raw moderate?
What did you think of the test?
sonyaleeisapixi
inkfacewhorebitchpixie.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2008
- Messages
- 1,327
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
Re: Exam 08
that was the brilliance of it, it was super easy to engage with the source because he made so many contradictory statements.jussy30! said:
morning storm
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 147
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2008
Re: Exam 08
hated the exam
hate the subject
itll got me my course.
hated the exam
hate the subject
itll got me my course.
Re: Exam 08
Q2 was perrrfect for the Historicity of Jesus Christ. IU mentioned alot about hoe people's bias and perspective inevitably shrouds their objectivism - which cannot exist anyway.
Q1 was good, too. There were so many issues raised and I focuse on the whole 'can history reach a universal truth' using EH Carr, Ann Curthoys, Inga Clendinnen, Lv Ranke, Herodotus, Commager, Marx, RB Nye and John Vincent. Yes, I am the POMO!
Generally, it was a fair and balanced paper... nothing out of the ordinary.
I'm hopoing for an E4, though, perhaps not raw? What sort of raw would you need for a 47/50 aligned? Eeep. The teachers had such high expectations for me, sigh...
FINISHED FOREVER!!!
Q2 was perrrfect for the Historicity of Jesus Christ. IU mentioned alot about hoe people's bias and perspective inevitably shrouds their objectivism - which cannot exist anyway.
Q1 was good, too. There were so many issues raised and I focuse on the whole 'can history reach a universal truth' using EH Carr, Ann Curthoys, Inga Clendinnen, Lv Ranke, Herodotus, Commager, Marx, RB Nye and John Vincent. Yes, I am the POMO!
Generally, it was a fair and balanced paper... nothing out of the ordinary.
I'm hopoing for an E4, though, perhaps not raw? What sort of raw would you need for a 47/50 aligned? Eeep. The teachers had such high expectations for me, sigh...
FINISHED FOREVER!!!
ilovezacattard2
Member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2007
- Messages
- 87
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2008
Re: Exam 08
I loved jfk (part 2) question.
i hated the guy in the source. what an annoying guy. he should not be called a historian but it did make it good to attack him lol.
i disagreed with his view obviously.
yay no more ext. his.
two to go..
I loved jfk (part 2) question.
i hated the guy in the source. what an annoying guy. he should not be called a historian but it did make it good to attack him lol.
i disagreed with his view obviously.
yay no more ext. his.
two to go..