History Extension Predictions/Thoughts (5 Viewers)

[JacquesPieface]

the section 1 was a bit cooked and i didn't love section 2 either but it wasn't TOO bad

Yeah the question was a bit weird for section one but I actually really liked the source so fingers crossed. Section 2 could've been better but I made a decent argument I think

 

[killer queen]

It's about historiography so the study of history as opposed to specific events. Think like what does history achieve and why, what can history be used for, what is the purpose of history and what should the purpose be. We do a unit on constructing history which looks at history over time, it's purpose, and different philosophies, things like that, and then we also do a case study on historiographical issues surrounding an event or policy or whatever else (we did appeasement) and study the debates surrounding it. The exam is 2 essays, one on the first part and one on the second

ooh that's pretty cool! it sounds fun and scarily broad though, if y'all are all doing different like historians and stuff, idk I'd get so scared my examples wouldn't fit the q - sounds like y'all handled it supremely though!

 

[JacquesPieface]

ooh that's pretty cool! it sounds fun and scarily broad though, if y'all are all doing different like historians and stuff, idk I'd get so scared my examples wouldn't fit the q - sounds like y'all handled it supremely though!

Yeah it is pretty fun!
I get were you're coming from lol that would be terrible
Luckily they try and make the questions broad so you can talk about what you want
Thank you!

 

[scarlett_tran]

Yeah the question was a bit weird for section one but I actually really liked the source so fingers crossed. Section 2 could've been better but I made a decent argument I think

what did you argue for source A?

 

[JacquesPieface]

what did you argue for source A?

I eventually got to that he condemned the misuse of history for purely nationalistic purposes and also expressed that history should seek to tell the 'truth' whatever that may be. But I also said he was nuanced in his ideas so that made his interpretation more valuable. Thinking back on it my argument kind of declined as I kept writing but that's okay
How about you?

 

[scarlett_tran]

I eventually got to that he condemned the misuse of history for purely nationalistic purposes and also expressed that history should seek to tell the 'truth' whatever that may be. But I also said he was nuanced in his ideas so that made his interpretation more valuable. Thinking back on it my argument kind of declined as I kept writing but that's okay
How about you?

yeah i talked about similar things! don't really remember everything, but i agreed that yes there are 'dangers' with the misuse of history, though attempting to find truth and avoid manipulated purpose etc is impossible because everythings inherently subjective. i hope that was what i was meant to say cos i lowkey got confused first few mins in reading time but wasn't too bad overall

 

[JacquesPieface]

yeah i talked about similar things! don't really remember everything, but i agreed that yes there are 'dangers' with the misuse of history, though attempting to find truth is impossible because everythings inherently subjective. the arguments went well in my head but don't know if i put them down on paper the best lol! but wasn't too bad overall

Hell yeah! Glad I didn't completely miss the mark lol but wish I'd talked about the subjectivity of truth a bit more - and same for section 2 honestly
No same I feel I definitely could've expressed myself better but it's exam conditions so most people will feel the same

 

[scarlett_tran]

Hell yeah! Glad I didn't completely miss the mark lol but wish I'd talked about the subjectivity of truth a bit more - and same for section 2 honestly
No same I feel I definitely could've expressed myself better but it's exam conditions so most people will feel the same

yeahh im glad we talked about similar things because i was honestly unsure if it was the right direction!!

 

[soph235897]

I feel like my section 1 response was so messy!

 

[samdaman33]

Yeah the question was a bit weird for section one but I actually really liked the source so fingers crossed. Section 2 could've been better but I made a decent argument I think

oh yeah real that source was fire, but it's interesting they only did one

 

[JacquesPieface]

I feel like my section 1 response was so messy!

I'm sure it was all good!!
As long as you're relevant I'm sure you'll be completely fine

 

[JacquesPieface]

oh yeah real that source was fire, but it's interesting they only did one

Yeah definitely I was expecting 2 for sure

 

[99.95dreams]

yeaa source 1 was weird but i LOVED source 2 it was easyy

 

[finncarlygarbett]

i dont know if i did it right but i basically said that the author advocated/reflected modern historiographical methods as a defence against the post truth era, and i related it to carr (briefly) and then postmodern history, marxist and feminist history but i dont know

 

[JacquesPieface]

i dont know if i did it right but i basically said that the author advocated/reflected modern historiographical methods as a defence against the post truth era, and i related it to carr (briefly) and then postmodern history, marxist and feminist history but i dont know

Don't worry that sounds like a good argument I'm sure you did well!