Modern History Exam Thoughts (merged) (1 Viewer)

[mikeee]

Actually, now that i think about it, it was a lot of fun. Hard, but fun. I really like modern history- it's more challenging than ancient, but I enjoyed it. (yes... an exam was fun...)

I do both too, and Ancient is like 10 times better!!

 

[shortygb]

it wasnt as bad as i thought it was going to be..

short answer was sooooo easy.

russia was good because what i studied is what was in the exam, trotsky questions were easy becasue i did last minute on trotskys life, and mostly that period

south africa was pretty good, nice broad question.

 

[*ccs*]

I do both too, and Ancient is like 10 times better!!

agreed...modern was my faveourite subject...not only because of the teacher Mz Azzam *LEGEND* and my mad class (we got cake and coffee lol if u were there ud understand) but i actually enjoyed the subjects and the writing?? weird as it sounds i agree too about enjoying the exam

 

[azzmang]

s'ok in all

WW1 was a breeze

Russia was a give away question, easy 20 marks in that one, but the Trotsky questions i though were a littile retarded, they were practically the same response the 2nd with a lot more detail. how boring

Indochina was fun. Good question (b- was anyway)

 

[aurora_05]

WW1 was easy. Cept I left it till last so ran out of time on the q. about the Somme...
Russia not too bad - had stuff to write about so cant complain. Although Im pretty sure I couldve (and shouldve) written more specifically about the changing ideology. I did write about it, but probably not in enough detail. Trotsky was good. Very basic questions and it was good not having to refer to a quote.
Indochina I had no problems with. Having said that, I probably failed.
Overall it wasnt too bad. Hoping for 80's

 

[ozza3]

Shockin

That exam was pretty bad. WW1 and speer was hell easy as expected but Germany was a schoker and israel was not to much better, SO SPECIFIC

I ask, y did evryone spend so much time on studyin totalitarianism....lucky bastards, i had nothin for either germany questions and ended up writing 6pgs of crap which im not sure was right. I'm usually heaps good as this subject liek near band 6 and this exam has screwed me royally!!

Can anyone tell me wat were the basic pts for the germany question bout the elites and conservative parties?

 

[Arvin Sloane]

but conflict was good cause i loved the strategies question.

What did you write about? I

I thought the whole paper was ok. Despite the fact I had no little idea about the all muslim league, or whatever it was called. Jinnah was sok. The Gandhi question was almost ext.hist type of question.

Think I went well.

 

[Vikinda]

I thought modern wasnt too bad hey!
I was stressing out soo bad last nyt but turned out ok! WW1 was soo easy and so was the Indochina stuff! Russia was a lil hard.....Trotsky stuffed me up


Anyways hope you all did very well and good luck for the future!!!!

 

[yew_315]

Good time...

I reckon the exam was pretty easy. WW1 was a breeze. Sooo good. Germany wasn't too bad. I did the conservative elite question, just rambled on how they wanted political power in Germany. Riefenstahl was standard. Indochina wasn't too bad either, just rambled on again. I did how US intereferred wtih the villagers one. THEY BOMBED THEM!!!! I had finished with about 5 minutes left though, so i was pretty happy. Wrote about 5 booklets and filled every line in the Core. Only Physics left everyone!!!!

 

[RyddeckerSMP]

WWI - Awesome! Battle of the Somme, something i actually knew stuff about unlike freaking stupid total war.... was really happy especially as i usually stuff this section really badly.
Russia- Did the Lenin question, again was really good. Consolodation was the thing i knew the most about by far and thus loved the question.
Trotsky- Despite its boring genericness, actually was easy... quote would have been better than repeating 'sucess' like 17 times or watever...
Cold War- Policies question, happy again as i knew the USSR policies from my cramming the day before.
All in all aiming for a band 6 really......

 

[zelba]

Quotes

Did people use heaps of Quotes????

 

[_dhj_]

Nope. I used on average like bout 4 quotes per essay, didn't stack them with quotes. Hope they won't mark me down for that =/

 

[RyddeckerSMP]

It'd be more using the quotes effectively to support your argument that is the main thing.

 

[johnny_87]

WW1 - Didn't study at all for Battles and Trench warfare. Only looked at total war/women on the home front/chaning attitudes throughout the war. Even though I had to wing it, I feel I did pretty well and should get 25-26.

Japan - The question was ok although it only asked about the period 1918-1932, which meant that you could not include the Marco Polo Bridge incident in Manchuria, 1937. Should get 16-17.

Kita Ikki - The outline question was simple. The 2nd question was just a little left field, asking about his role in attempts to achieve liberal democracy in the period up to 1941.
First of all, Kita was socialist and nationalist so was against liberal democracy because of those who corrupted it, and 2nd, he was executed in 1937. Err, ok then. Should get 9 and maybe 8.

Conflict in the Pacific 25a) Strategies of Allied forces

I got 26/30 in the CSSA trial for a similar question (why Japan failed to consolidate power after Pearl Harbor), but I mentioned more in this question. Very happy with it!

Should get a raw mark of 80-85, possibly pushing for 86-87 (with a bit of luck). If they're really tough, just below 80. Only business to go now!

 

[_dhj_]

lol RyddeckerSMP just realised I do exactly the same subjects as you

 

[jackal8]

i found the questions for my particular depth studies and ww1 were abnormally easy and straightforward (and what i studied ^_^)..

luckily we had been given almost identical questions in assessments/trials!

i realised i hadnt studied at all for ww1. except for somme/verdun/total war... so i was extremely lucky.

so glad its over

finished all my hsc exams .. totalling ONE exam

(accelerant) yay, the stress was enormous

 

[=slade=]

i completly stuffed the cold war question...i mentioned something about comecon, berlin wall and cuba which were products of USSR desire to expand comm. totalling 3 pages. shit!

the other questions on russia and trotosky were ok-ish..how much do they mark you down for no quotes?

world war 1 EASY!

this was my 'not counting' 2 units ...so just a respectable ^50 will do me fine..!

 

[Homercles]

WWI: The first bit seemed as simple as always, I suppose they want to make sure everyone gets some marks.
2nd bit: It was great to actually do a WAR question! My half-yearly was women, trial was Versailles, it was a relief to do something vaguely important instead of the usual history from below rubbish.
3rd: Seemed pretty standard, neither one was perfect but both were useful especially when used in conjunction bla bla bla.

Russia: I thought the Stalin question was great, a real opportunity to display your knowledge. The other question looked difficult though.

Trotsky: Again seemed very standard.

Indochina: Like Russia really, seemed to be more of an opportunity to get marks than to lose them! (unlike English and Chem) I did b but a seemed OK as well, I rattled on about Diem, search and destroy, My Lai, defoliation, Khmer Rouge...

Over all, and I don't mean to sound arrogant, it was like a dream test. Now may Extension be the same!

 

[rego2]

Indochina: Like Russia really, seemed to be more of an opportunity to get marks than to lose them! (unlike English and Chem) I did b but a seemed OK as well, I rattled on about Diem, search and destroy, My Lai, defoliation, Khmer Rouge...

Over all, and I don't mean to sound arrogant, it was like a dream test. Now may Extension be the same!

hey why would u talk about diem?
i wrote about bombs such as napalm and agent orange, and halmets am i correct? im not very good with modern history. but i did try my best...

 

[johnny_87]

Slde - If you don't use sources, expect the bottom band for that question. That's what our teacher did to a few students in an assessment during the year.