Inspired by LHS's attempt (i.e. fails) to create a thread on this topic, I have gone ahead and done it myself. How are you feeling about the personality questions? What are your main concerns with them?
Are you confident with the personality questions? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter enoilgam
- Start date
LoveHateSchool
Retired Sept '14
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2009
- Messages
- 5,136
- Location
- The Fires of Mordor
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2012
- Uni Grad
- 2016
Haha oh god, I was trying to make a poll on how everyone was feeling about the upcoming exam, but I kept n00b failing on the poll. I've done polls before, but it would just not come up. 1 to Leon Trostky level of screwedness.
On the personality Q, HCM I hated him for myh assessment. DIdn't do that well. But studied him stacks for trials, did that section first and it was my best section. SO I dunno, now WW1 and it are my fav sections. Russia's okay(some aspects I love, but others not so much), Indochina is my least fav.
On the personality Q, HCM I hated him for myh assessment. DIdn't do that well. But studied him stacks for trials, did that section first and it was my best section. SO I dunno, now WW1 and it are my fav sections. Russia's okay(some aspects I love, but others not so much), Indochina is my least fav.
So wait, are you doing HCM or Trotsky (I thought each school picks one)?
I guess it depends on the personality with that question - for Speer it made for excellent discussion.
LoveHateSchool
Retired Sept '14
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2009
- Messages
- 5,136
- Location
- The Fires of Mordor
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2012
- Uni Grad
- 2016
I'm doing HCM, just like Trotsky alot haha
And yes, there is good discussion on conflicting views for alot of personailites, Speer, HCM nationalist/communist etc. oh and Leni too.
And yes, there is good discussion on conflicting views for alot of personailites, Speer, HCM nationalist/communist etc. oh and Leni too.
You have read widely (I only looked at Speer and no one else). The key to the personality section is practice - it was my weakest section initially but I did quite a few practice essays for it and eventually it became my best.
Eduard_Khil
CASIO fx-82ES PLUS
My teacher says that the personality section is the part where most people can pick up easy marks, through that theory that the board of studies doesn't want people to fail, so it's kind of like a section where people can gain easy marks as compared to the other sections national studies and the last section.
But yeah, the Speer questions are usually a good one as shown by the last couple of years, usually allowing students to make their own justifications or perspectives on certain quotees or ideas, such as his character and whether he was portrayed as a good/bad Nazi etc.
But yeah, the Speer questions are usually a good one as shown by the last couple of years, usually allowing students to make their own justifications or perspectives on certain quotees or ideas, such as his character and whether he was portrayed as a good/bad Nazi etc.
I think the easy marks are from part a, part b is considered the hardest part of the exam.
Eduard_Khil
CASIO fx-82ES PLUS
Ah okay,
Secondly, are we allowed to use previous content from part a) in part b) or is that frowned upon? D:
Say for example the part a) section being generic, I'll use Speer, Describe his rise to prominence, and the section b) of his question being "key figures in history have ultimately taken of advantage of situations and events" to what extent do you agree with this statement (can't remember the exact question, but it was something along these lines)
I would mention probably in both sections that he demonstrated how to eliminate any political opposition in the Nazi party such as him asserting his authority as minister of armaments such as freeing himself from Bormanns watchful eye, hence ultimately allowing him to eliminate political threats of Nazis trying to gain as much power from one another, ultimately leading to his rise of prominence, this could also relate to section b),
Another example would probably be the fact that he joined the Nazi party which I would mention in section a) seeing as it is his initiation into the Nazi party, however this again can also be used in b) because he, like many Germans at the time preferred Nazism over communism,
His early architectural work, thanks to Karl Hanke also contributed to his prominence, but was also a situation/event that he basically took a hold of.
So Tl;Dr if you get my confusing post, can I mention certain parts of section a) into section b) if it relates to the question? Or will the marker who is the same one marking both parts frown upon that and be like NOOOOOOOO DEDUCT MARKS
You most certainly can use the same information in both sections and frequently you have to do so.
The mistake many students make is assuming that if they mentioned in in part a) it would carry across to part b). That isnt' the case. Each part is marked as a stand alone sections with their own separate marking criteria.
Markers don't 'deduct marks'. We allocate marks for correct, relevant infomation and if it isn't correct and relevant it is ignored. It isn't like we say - this is a 10/15 but they did xxxx and yyyyy so I am going to take 2 marks off. It we think it is worth 10/15 we give it 10/15.
The mistake many students make is assuming that if they mentioned in in part a) it would carry across to part b). That isnt' the case. Each part is marked as a stand alone sections with their own separate marking criteria.
Markers don't 'deduct marks'. We allocate marks for correct, relevant infomation and if it isn't correct and relevant it is ignored. It isn't like we say - this is a 10/15 but they did xxxx and yyyyy so I am going to take 2 marks off. It we think it is worth 10/15 we give it 10/15.
C
Chayum
Guest
Pretty confident with Speer as a personality. The content seems to be very straightforward so I understand it 
TheOptimist
Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2012
- Messages
- 475
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2012
- Uni Grad
- 2018
I am very confident regarding the content on my personality (HCM), however due to the miscellaneous nature of part b), forming an argument can be arduous at times
Probably my weakest part in the personality section is knowing what important events to write about in part b.. like i know the content of speer well (once i start reading my notes again) but i always waste time figuring out what event to write about and how much to write about that event... :/
any tips on improving that? or which events are usually written by students? (on the assumption that the question is on significance)
any tips on improving that? or which events are usually written by students? (on the assumption that the question is on significance)
LoveHateSchool
Retired Sept '14
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2009
- Messages
- 5,136
- Location
- The Fires of Mordor
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2012
- Uni Grad
- 2016
Yes, this. Sometimes the Q is quite hard to apply to HCM.I am very confident regarding the content on my personality (HCM), however due to the miscellaneous nature of part b), forming an argument can be arduous at times
I've been studying my weaker trial sections more but should probably brush up on Ho tonight. If it was my strongest trial section (23/25) I'd want to make sure I can hoepfully pick marks up there on Monday!
LoveHateSchool
Retired Sept '14
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2009
- Messages
- 5,136
- Location
- The Fires of Mordor
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2012
- Uni Grad
- 2016
Depends what that argument you're trying to form for the personality. No use mentioning events that go against/don't add to your argument construction.