Quotations (1 Viewer)

[very_confused]

Hey, I was wondering if quotes are necessary to get top marks? Or do they just help and look good?

Our teacher, who is an HSC marker, said that we don't need them and they don't help. Reading this forum though has scared me.

Also can everyone share the quotes they have for section I ?

thanks

 

[SmokedSalmon]

quotes are essential for both sections. How else are you going to back up your statment? with a quote of course! What the hell has ur hsc teacher been telling you? Just find some quotes for the variety of the historians u are using. won't be that hard.

 

[arls]

Originally posted by SmokedSalmon
quotes are essential for both sections. How else are you going to back up your statment? with a quote of course! What the hell has ur hsc teacher been telling you? Just find some quotes for the variety of the historians u are using. won't be that hard.

I actually usually base my argument around quotes from the source compiled with my answer to the question and linked the relevevant historians that we studied... i dont always have quotes to back up each one.. but OCCASIONALY if it really helps the discussion and if theyre easy to remember:

Herodotus called the "Father of History"

Ronke "Wie Elgwentich Gweson." (sp) means "As it actually happened"

"Flaubert once commented" as Pemble remarks "That writing history was like drinking in an ocean and pissing up a cupful. Ranke it seemed was doing the opposite!" - this is from the Evans article called "In Defence of History" - i recommend it, found it really useful to understand the topic well and provided many different quotes on diff areas. maybe you could get it off the net???

Donald Davidson we all see the world through "lenses of our own grinding" - good for post modern stuff.

Apart from these i dont really have any other quotes despite having around 10 historians under my belt for the exam... but i dont think its neccessary as long as you can fully expand your ideas and these quotes i have relate to almost every essay ive done.. so dont worry.

its more important to have a sufficient and complex understanding of issues.. although learning a few is neccessary.

for the case study i think its really important to know quotes.. but only short ones that are to the point. If your doing kennedy, Schlesinger.. something short and sweet like "His eyes brightened when he talked of her.." and then expand and explain. but you can paraphrase, and just explain if theres a big wad of information expressing the historians pov.

enough for me.. hope thats helped..

 

[arls]

Originally posted by SmokedSalmon
quotes are essential for both sections. How else are you going to back up your statment? with a quote of course! What the hell has ur hsc teacher been telling you? Just find some quotes for the variety of the historians u are using. won't be that hard.

I actually usually base my argument around quotes from the source compiled with my answer to the question and linked the relevevant historians that we studied... i dont always have quotes to back up each one.. but OCCASIONALY if it really helps the discussion and if theyre easy to remember:

Herodotus called the "Father of History"

Ronke "Wie Elgwentich Gweson." (sp) means "As it actually happened"

"Flaubert once commented" as Pemble remarks "That writing history was like drinking in an ocean and pissing up a cupful. Ranke it seemed was doing the opposite!" - this is from the Evans article called "In Defence of History" - i recommend it, found it really useful to understand the topic well and provided many different quotes on diff areas. maybe you could get it off the net???

Donald Davidson we all see the world through "lenses of our own grinding" - good for post modern stuff.

Apart from these i dont really have any other quotes despite having around 10 historians under my belt for the exam... but i dont think its neccessary as long as you can fully expand your ideas and these quotes i have relate to almost every essay ive done.. so dont worry.

its more important to have a sufficient and complex understanding of issues.. although learning a few is neccessary.
Ive stuck with this method and my teachers have said its fine ( and dont worry theyre not dodgy ones tha dont have a clue) and i went pretty well in trials.. so yeah.

for the case study i think its really important to know quotes.. but only short ones that are to the point. If your doing kennedy, Schlesinger.. something short and sweet like "His eyes brightened when he talked of her.." and then expand and explain. but you can paraphrase, and just explain if theres a big wad of information expressing the historians pov.

enough for me.. hope thats helped..

 

[lazybum]

yea i use quotes there are some really good ones from Peter Gayle. Quotes help you spike up your arguement and make you sound like a pro.

but i ireally wouldn't worry about it. The examiners know you have miinimal tiime so they don't expect iit. And if worse comes to worse, make them up! That's what my history teacher told us to do hahaha.

 

[MiuMiu]

I don't see how you can't have quotes, this is the essence of your argument?

Originally posted by arls

Ronke "Wie Elgwentich Gweson." (sp) means "As it actually happened"

Sorry Im really anal and cringed when I saw this

"Wie es eigentglich gewesen" Von Ranke
(how essentially things happened)

 

[cadsy48]

with section 1 i can see hwo quotes may not be as important as section II....i mean the WHOLE CRUX of the essay is completely basing your argument around the article they give you. Basically you need to analyse with the historians (which we all knew) and basically give one or two quotes that show what the historan was about..I take my majority of quotes from the actual article they give you because thats what they look for.

 

[MiuMiu]

Its a balance. It has been stressed to us that you cannot make empty asserstions, i.e. say "this historian thinks this" without quoting a source or at least citing it.