History Extension HSC Exam 2009 (1 Viewer)

[tetrisam]

I was just wondering for the personality question, since it says "at least one area of historical debate" would we be expected to do 2 areas cos it says AT LEAST. ??

Also, are most ppl planning to do one area or two? bcos i feel one in depth is enough and two wouldnt be as detailed enough. wat do u think?

 

[raineeee]

hey, I'm using two debates but that's cause they interlink and it adds the depth to my essay that i think would lack if i did just one.

 

[morganita]

Use as many as you like.
I know we've done 2 in class - or atleast 2 that I was paying attention to (hahaha).
Just see what the question is when you get in there and if you feel the need to use one or two, so be it.
Just learn both anyway.

 

[cem]

Just note that they have, in some years, said TWO debates need to be discussed. It isn't always one.

 

[tetrisam]

Okay then thanks for that, cos for trials i did one and felt good about it but i see what u mean about interlinking them, eg for Elizabeth doing religion and culture.
Anyone else doing Elizabeth?

 

[tetrisam]

Just note that they have, in some years, said TWO debates need to be discussed. It isn't always one.

I see, lol i lazily only checked past 2 years

 

[missgraceful]

Be safe and do two.. You don't want to be caught out!

 

[sirpoopalot7]

How's everyone feeling? I'm dreading this exam. My teacher was good in the sense he has a great knowledge of our subject, but bad in that he could not teach it to us. He just droned on and on and on and on and on...constantly rocking back and forth on his feet. Doesn't help that the classes were before school and some mornings I just didn't make it LOL.


So after my chem exam on Monday I have 3 and a 1/2 days to completely cover the course. He was good in the first "What is history?" section, as he loves his Marxism but the other stuff....

 

[Thecorey0]

How's everyone feeling? I'm dreading this exam. My teacher was good in the sense he has a great knowledge of our subject, but bad in that he could not teach it to us. He just droned on and on and on and on and on...constantly rocking back and forth on his feet. Doesn't help that the classes were before school and some mornings I just didn't make it LOL.


So after my chem exam on Monday I have 3 and a 1/2 days to completely cover the course. He was good in the first "What is history?" section, as he loves his Marxism but the other stuff....

Personally, I would have loved to have been in your situation. I was forced to study it externally through distance ed. I have 2 days after Physics to prepare. It is quite annoying how it is a Friday Afternoon, and my last exam at that, so I will probably be feeling a bit meh when I get into the exam room. I love the subject, but so far my marks haven't reflected it - 95+ in ancient and <70 in extension. Still, I love history and am sorta looking forward to it.

 

[sirpoopalot7]

Yeah I know how it feels with distance ed, I tried doing German Beginners and found it impossible with only 1 call a week to the teacher. That and I could never hand in my work without visiting the bloody langauge department 3 times a day as they didn't let me in the room just to hand in some work. No, the head of languages had to be there.


I enjoy the subject as well, well the major at least. I got 85% in my major (90% essay and like 70% log, haha as I hated it. I just do everything in my head.) But my trials were like a dismal 55%, but then I hardly studied. The thing I'm most worried about is the fact there's only 13 of us and everyone under me is pretty shit. Rank 1 averaged like 96, then it's down to low 90's, 88, 85 and then me, 5 at 75%.... then like 70, 68, 65, 63, 55, 50, and onwards... :mad1:

 

[chaldoking]

Anyone else doing Elizabeth?

I am.

 

[luridlysteph14]

Ah, I feel the same way. I wish we'd had our classes before school. Even you know, more than once a week.

I just wish I'd done more.

I'm definitely planning on viewing the nature and one debate and causes as the other. I'm doing imperialism and they're the most substantial chunks of the course. Everything is so interrelated. There's a small debate on the side, but I'm too tired to try and figure out how that fits in.

The structure of the essays is what confuses me. Maybe it's just my topic, but I'm always being advised to do it in a chronological progression of events, which differs completely from the first question where they advise against this in the notes. To be honest, the markers notes on the second question suck. I smell cut and paste.

 

[AvalonPrincess7]

I'm doing Elizabeth, I'm using Literature as my main area of debate, and I need to review religion and contrsuction of identity tommorrow as my backups, I really hope they only ask for one. For the first essay I have like 12 historians, me thinks I may have bitten off more then I can chew, ah well, will all be over in two days.

I loved the subject, but we only had it once a week in the afternoon, having a full day of school plus two hours of his ex was painful. Plus there were only three girls in the class total, and sometimes the other two didn't turn up, one on one lessons are incredibly awkard.

ETA- The HSC has only called for two areas of debate two times in the courses existence, 2002 and 2003, never since then. And the question was crazily broad in both those years, one doesn't have a quote at all, and the others quote is five words long.

 

[queline]

The thing I'm most worried about is the fact there's only 13 of us and everyone under me is pretty shit.

Lucky, there started off at about 10 of us, by the beginning of last term... there were 3.
I'm the only girl, which is fun.
I'm 2nd, which is annoying, considering I was 2 marks behind the guy in 1st.

I'm panicking about how many historians to do for each debate.
How many historians/schools are people focusing on for each debate?
- Q.

 

[illa mc]

Lucky, there started off at about 10 of us, by the beginning of last term... there were 3.
I'm the only girl, which is fun.
I'm 2nd, which is annoying, considering I was 2 marks behind the guy in 1st.

I'm panicking about how many historians to do for each debate.
How many historians/schools are people focusing on for each debate?
- Q.

are you being serious? the way you are supposed to structure the case study question is in order of the development of historical schools of thought. for example i do appeasement and you begin with Cato, Churchill and orthodox historians during the time without the availability of sufficient empirical evidence. and then the development of revisionism and the re-emergence of orthodox beliefs through counter-revisionism etc etc. dont structure by areas of debate.. in this question the 'key questions' are still the most important part of the essay and you should incorporate them into your analysis of historians and schools of thought.

 

[jmods]

I've got a question.

For section one, what's the most accepted number of historians to use? Like I posted in a different thread, my teacher is adamant that it's advisable to do, say, four in depth. But is that too little to do? To cover more historians would obviously reduce the depth of the analysis of their influences and historiography, but in your opinions, is it advisable?

I'm torn. I think I'll go with four biggies, then throw in a few quotes from the offsiders. But what do you all think?

 

[jmods]

double, my bad

 

[Thecorey0]

I've got a question.

For section one, what's the most accepted number of historians to use? Like I posted in a different thread, my teacher is adamant that it's advisable to do, say, four in depth. But is that too little to do? To cover more historians would obviously reduce the depth of the analysis of their influences and historiography, but in your opinions, is it advisable?

I'm torn. I think I'll go with four biggies, then throw in a few quotes from the offsiders. But what do you all think?

In my opnion it is ok, it is what I do. Ultimately the question does say "at least two sources" - you fufill that requirement. I use 4-5 depending on the stimulus and/or question and the depth of knowledge I have about that historian on the given topic. I similarily use other historians in extremely small detail to compare/contrast views. Using 10+ like some people on these forums have suggested is ridiculous - the lack of depth will leave basically with a list of historians. Have a look at the exampler/top band responses on arc bos. One of them only uses Carr and Elton signifyng a high mark =/= large amount of historians.

 

[jmods]

^Thanks for that, it's calmed me down somewhat.

Although I think if I got any calmer I'd be catatonic :/ history extension is always the last exam and always the one that i can't be motivated to work for -_-

 

[Thecorey0]

Same. No motivation whatsoever.