Personality section (1 Viewer)

[youix]

Just wondering.. What is the difference between the two questions? My teacher told me you can possibly write the same answer for both but just adapting it to the quote. Is this true?

 

[crowley926]

This is for history right?

And yeah I guess so ... I mean it is essentially the same information you are using but there are obviously some differences.

Part A is just a straight descriptive narrative (Trotsky was born... Trotsky did that... Trotsky joined this etc) whereas in Part B you must go through the key events in their life and tailor your answer to the question/quote (e.g. By doing that, Trotsky shows that he is motivated by ideals rather than ambition etc)

you are also recommended to use historiography in Part B but not in Part A

 

[buriza]

As far as I know, the two questions generally place more emphasis on different parts of the syllabus. So the first question will be more concerned with historical context, background and maybe some of rise to prominence, while the second question will be more heavily weighted towards significance and evaluation.

It's important that you don't just use a descriptive narrative for the first question though, since that will make you fall short. You should be still talking about how the events had an impact on the personality, just to a lesser extent than the second question. But it is correct that you use quotes in question two and not for question one.

 

[cem]

Having marked the personality question for about 10 years - a description can get you full marks for Part A but please READ the question and answer what it asks e.g. if it says THREE SIGNIFICANT EVENTS then describe three events and don't go giving their life story.

The biggest mistake people make with Part A is simply just telling their story and not looking at the question. It is one of those parts of the syllabus where knowing the actual dot points is a very good idea so knowing what comes under 'context' or 'rise to prominence' would be a good idea and if asked for one of those areas of the syllabus stick to those areas.

Part B is more analytical while Part A is more narrative.

Another point - if you need to say something in both parts then say it - the marker doesn't take into account what you said in Part A when marking Part B so if you don't make the point again you won't get the credit for it.

 

[RecklessRick]

My teacher told me you can possibly write the same answer for both but just adapting it to the quote. Is this true?

Use some of the narrative from part a as evidence in part b? Yes. Write the same answer? No.

As others have correctly pointed out, part a is straight narrative (a hangover from the old personalities modern history course prior to 2001) whereas part b is largely evaluative. As such, unless you're writing something insane for part a, it won't work for part b.

 

[youix]

Use some of the narrative from part a as evidence in part b? Yes. Write the same answer? No.

As others have correctly pointed out, part a is straight narrative (a hangover from the old personalities modern history course prior to 2001) whereas part b is largely evaluative. As such, unless you're writing something insane for part a, it won't work for part b.

Not exactly the same but like you add more to address the question properly. He told me that it should be like this: Part A focuses on the first half of Trotsky's career where he was high successful (rise to prominence)

In Part B, you can add a bit from Part A but my teacher told me that you have to focus on the second part of his career. e.g his failures such as the power struggle with Stalin.

Is this true?

 

[youix]

Having marked the personality question for about 10 years - a description can get you full marks for Part A but please READ the question and answer what it asks e.g. if it says THREE SIGNIFICANT EVENTS then describe three events and don't go giving their life story.

The biggest mistake people make with Part A is simply just telling their story and not looking at the question. It is one of those parts of the syllabus where knowing the actual dot points is a very good idea so knowing what comes under 'context' or 'rise to prominence' would be a good idea and if asked for one of those areas of the syllabus stick to those areas.

Part B is more analytical while Part A is more narrative.

Another point - if you need to say something in both parts then say it - the marker doesn't take into account what you said in Part A when marking Part B so if you don't make the point again you won't get the credit for it.

Oh so Part A can ask for three significant events not Part B? In my prepared essay, I have all the events Trotsky did but just an outline of them e.g "Trotsky's skills as a leader were first demonstrated during the 1905 revolution when he became chairman of the St Petersburg Soviet and helped organise the working class". Would this length be enough as I understand Part A is only 10 marks. How hard is it getting full marks? Also what do we talk about for Part B? My teacher personally told me to write about Trotsky first half of his career in Part A (successes) and about the second half of his life (failure) and power struggle with Stalin in Part B. Is this true?

 

[evasharman]

Some of the information does overlap - but they will be 2 distinct questions and should be treated as such. Part B is generally more evaluative of legacy/life/an important aspect and based on historical perspectives, part A generally more descriptive and focusing on early life/rise to prominence.

 

[cem]

Part A can be anything from a basic question on 'rise to prominence' as an example to an outline of their complete life.

You would be expected to write 2 - 3 pages for full marks (of the exam booklets).

Part B will be evaluative and may include a quote that you have to use as well as an evaluation you have to make e.g. 'History is about winners' How accurate is this quote in relation to the personality you have studied.

You would have to talk about events and significance to the person's life that shows that they were a 'winner' and/or a 'loser' That reference to the quote would have to be regular throughout the response as would the evaluation.

I have seen 100s of responses that are 'top and tails' - where the student addresses the question in the opening statement and again in the closing paragraph - but the middle is a pre-prepared answer which doesn't address the question consistently. They do get penalised as they simply don't address the question.

I have seen answers that are simply a survey of historiography and again frequently they don't score well because they don't address the question.

If asked for THREE EVENTS then give three. If asked for four then talk about four. Which four would be up to you and there would be no 'correct' ones from which to choose.