General Thoughts: Modern History 2008 HSC Exam (2 Viewers)

[hopeles5ly]

Re: Howd you find it?

sorry just to clarify this was in regards to the weimar question (successes and failures) if you added the little extra and said, the failures greatly outweighed the successes instead of just evaluating them would that lose you marks? .(

Evaluate, then provide alternatives/opinions to help justify why your argument is correct, then should be fine. IMO, shows greater knowledge.

 

[mick135]

i had ext 2 maths the day before,
considering they made it hardest bloody exam in the last decade
modern history was easy (by comparison anyways) - just repitive.
i didnt finish my one of my essays though

 

[princessneek]

that was seriously the BEST exam ever!
in the germany section, we had done a whole assignment on whether or not germany was totalitarian!!!! so that was the best question
leni was sweet cos i know soo much about that woman. i said she wasn't a winner because history wouldnt let her be
and the only bit of indochina i knew really well was about the US involvement.
i was cheering in that exam!!!!

 

[bob007]

epic fail =[

WWI: good
Nationals: im happy
Personality: a) was fine b) wasnt too nice
Conflict: out of 7 things of occupation i only got down 4 =[ didnt even get to reverse course

 

[gmacattack]

I hated the personality question. The way i say it, part a was basicly asking me to write the whole guys life (i did Albert Speer) and part b was say how he relates to a completely irrelevant quote, AND it was worth more marks than part a. What a terrible question. The rest of it was pretty good tho.

 

[Zephyrio]

epic fail =[

WWI: good
Nationals: im happy
Personality: a) was fine b) wasnt too nice
Conflict: out of 7 things of occupation i only got down 4 =[ didnt even get to reverse course

The question referred to the importance of the Emperor in the Allied success. You didn't have to recount what had happened during the Occupation. Yes, you needed to shove those in but you needed to write about it in relation to the Emperor.

You needed to talk about several issues here: The emperor had a huge role in pacifying Japan and stifling resistance/dissension against the Americans. However, it wasn't so important in the end when you think about the social reforms - Japanese people actually loved, by and large, the reforms that the Allies implemented. In addition, you had to account for the fact that by 1945, Japan was absolutely crushed; even if the Emperor had gone and been tried at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal (1946), what resistance would the Japanese have posed anyway? They'd been totally destroyed. In that sense, the view that the maintaining the emperor's status was responsible for the Allied success during the Occupation isn't quite right.

So yeah dw if you didn't account for all the changes! Writing about the reverse course would have been relevant in this question!

 

[christinamak]

i thought that core was pretty easy
section 3 personalities was easy i did william randolph hearst
section 4 was as always easy and predictable
but section 2 was the crapiest question i have ever seen in my life
i was fuming USA is what i chose and it was a horrible question

 

[inter108]

26 pages.

let's see want marks i get.

 

[settle*precious]

My dad is friends with the guy who wrote the paper.. he lives in like the suburb up from mine.

drive by, anyone?