Question 1!! (1 Viewer)

[gloria*]

well? what'd you think of question 1?

i misinterpreted the source a lot i think, and didn't talk about enough areas of historiography, but i blabbed on a lot about heaps of random stuff (3 books) so it should make up for it.

the source was confusing!! some of my class got confused because the source talked of HISTORIANS but then the question asked of history itself. they're probably just weird though.

my prediction: between 22-25. so i'm kind of not going to die over it.

 

[amyb]

Yeah, anyone else notice how the Heading of the source didn't refer to the Source, and that the Source didn't refer to the Question? Bit weird, but it was good otherwise.

 

[gloria*]

yeah it was strannnge

 

[K-Lo]

hmmm yeah i noticed that too, was a bit wierd, i dunno i think i did ok but knowing me i woulda screwed it up somehow, i think i just reinterpreted it to suit myself, oh well, its over now.

 

[MiuMiu]

I thought it was a great question, got to throw in everything I had studied

ITS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[*10#]

That source was crazy - didnt relate to the question

one chic in my class said it was a postmodernist article i said the complete opposite - please tell me it wasnt a postmodern perspective

aims and purposes i predicted so i was right for the actual question - i wrote two full books and even then i went over time how the hell did you write 3 booklets gloria????

id like to think i may have got in the 20s but im not sure

have fun all you ext his ppl going out to celebrate - ill sit at home and start studying for drama tomorrow - dam it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wish i was OVER oh well one more day

 

[tink 18]

I didnt think that the title of the source didnt relate to the question at all. you see in the question they asked about the purpose of history and the title is 'history as art and as science'. Some historians like Edward Gibbon and Herodotos wrote history as a form of literature/art and Ranke etc see history as a science hence 'scientific' history and in the source they mention scientific experiments to prove historical theories.

 

[ladypenelope85]

hehe, yes it's over here tooo... so estatic. and the exam was kinda nice, really, aims and purposes, got to be all philosophical near the end, i love that stuff!! and the article was rather strange, i hope they realise that from marking our responses tho, and mark accordingly! ohhhhhhhhh goodbye my dear mr commager, mr evans, mr elton, ms tuchman, mr bury! never again shall we meet in an exam...

 

[gloria*]

Originally posted by *10#
That source was crazy - didnt relate to the question

one chic in my class said it was a postmodernist article i said the complete opposite - please tell me it wasnt a postmodern perspective

aims and purposes i predicted so i was right for the actual question - i wrote two full books and even then i went over time how the hell did you write 3 booklets gloria????

id like to think i may have got in the 20s but im not sure

have fun all you ext his ppl going out to celebrate - ill sit at home and start studying for drama tomorrow - dam it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

wish i was OVER oh well one more day

i thought it was exciting that they mentioned re-enactment, i got to do Collingwood because of it and that was almost enjoyable.

& i don't think the source was postmodernist? the writer may have been but the text itself could have come from pretty much anywhere, so don't worry. it's aaallll open to interpretation.

&& i was two pages shy of 3 books and i went overtime by like 5 mins. hahaha at the end for some reason no-one was writing and the exam-lady was standing next to me and i was like "whatwhat are we stopping already?" she just looked at me. said nothing. soooo confusing.

 

[Chocoholic_Gal]

Yeh i didnt understand that source much i just kept putting in my essay "as discussed in the source" lol...STUPID darn source. It had like 2 things u could use then the rest was useless!

 

[SmokedSalmon]

I just took quotes from the source and adapted it to the variety of historians who all show a kind of differing view of the aims and purpose of history. I am sure everyone did well... the source was a lil misleading but hell I made it fit my arguement!
*10#: as long as you backed up your notion that it was not a post modernist then you'll be fine. I didn't even state what kind of historian the person was... just how his views of history coincided or juxtaposed with my variety of hitsorians.

WELL DONE EVERYONE ITS OVER... OH AND THE HSC IS OVER TOO! PARTY TIME WOOOOOOOOOOO!

 

[gloria*]

haha history extension has been my least stressful subject i think. i'm kind of sad to see it go.

 

[Bolkonski]

Originally posted by K-Lo
i think i just reinterpreted it to suit myself, oh well, its over now.

heh.. how ironic... considering the question was concerning historiography etc etc

 

[AsyLum]

Originally posted by Ms 12
I thought it was a great question, got to throw in everything I had studied

ITS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!

amen...

 

[psycho_mushy]

I had everything I need to know in the source becuase it was exactly all the historians I did!

I feel so proud!

yet I didn't asnwer the question coz I was fed up and really.... I bullshitted through question #1 100%

 

[amyb]

I just took quotations from the Source that fit with my argument, think i got 3 good quotes out of it and paraphrased a bit. I didn't state what kind of historian the source was written by, just explained his views and how they corresponded or didn't with other historians.

 

[amyb]

I filled 12 pages, but went over time for the question by about 20 minutes....that left me with 6 minutes to write the second half on Q2, which was thrilling. Wrote 4 good pages in the last 6 minutes, which was 11 pages for Q2, and 12 for Q1...not too bad i guess, was expecting it to be around that length, could've written a lot more had it not been for the time (lack thereof really)

 

[malayz_angel]

Mmmmm...well I didnt really write about postmodernism because I really dont understand it that well. But I said that his discussion of how historians had to take other peoples info before they devised their own accounts was reminiscent of postmodern argument, in that they argue that with such inevitable subjectivity, there is NO PURPOSE IN WRITING HISTORY.

Then I used historians different purposes...e.g. Ranke and Tuchman--historical accuracy and objectivity,...Bede...promote Christianity, etc and finished off with my belief of the most important purpose.

I admit the article threw me at first but I think I did alright

 

[MiuMiu]

I interpreted it to be very post-modernist cos it discussed the problems with evidence and how the historian cannot remove themselves from their bias and prejudices to achieve objectivity...

 

[Bon******]

Originally posted by tink 18
I didnt think that the title of the source didnt relate to the question at all. you see in the question they asked about the purpose of history and the title is 'history as art and as science'. Some historians like Edward Gibbon and Herodotos wrote history as a form of literature/art and Ranke etc see history as a science hence 'scientific' history and in the source they mention scientific experiments to prove historical theories.

i spent an hour trying to come to grips with what you just stated in probably 4 and a half seconds. i am humbled.