which is harder: modern or ancient history (1 Viewer)

[nirvanafreak02]

um, no no no no no no, lol. well.... yes if you want like 10 out of 25.

lol well that's what i did last year and i still got A range

 

[-may-cat-]

lol well that's what i did last year and i still got A range

yes, and that was year 11 wasnt it?

 

[cannibal.horse]

still easier than modern. you need knowledge yeah but regardless...
and it doesn't mean u get shit marks

Bullshit its easier then modern.

The majority of modern history sources write from a revisionist, post WWII viewpoint so problems with historiography are obvious.

Ancient history which uses sources from 500BC to the present requires a far greater depth and variety rather then 'primary and secondary sources'

If you break it down module by module modern history is far harder:
- In the core study there's far more content in ancient plus the discriminating question in modern history (3) is an analysis of sources which requires no knowledge of content. You also only have to deal with reliability in year 12 rather then ancient where its both year 12 and preliminary. Oh and there's far more content.

- In the historical period there is FAR more content (check out the amount of sub dotpoints)

- The personality study for modern history has general questions which have to suit all 30 personalities. In ancient you have speicified personality questions, so you could have to talk on something as speicific as religious policy. Far more difficult is the 'legacy' question which requires you to know what happened outside your personalities time period...

- The national study is a little easier, more content but you can 'fish' modules and put them in different questions. Plus its short answer.

In conclusion ancient history is probably on the whole a lot more difficult.

 

[nirvanafreak02]

yes, and that was year 11 wasnt it?

yeah, but the marking guidelines were the same

 

[cannibal.horse]

yeah, but the marking guidelines were the same

The standard is lower, and in all probability you have a teacher who doesn't even mark the HSC. By the sounds of it you obviously have no idea of the hierarchy of source useage.

 

[SiN3m]

Bullshit its easier then modern.

The majority of modern history sources write from a revisionist, post WWII viewpoint so problems with historiography are obvious.

Ancient history which uses sources from 500BC to the present requires a far greater depth and variety rather then 'primary and secondary sources'

If you break it down module by module modern history is far harder:
- In the core study there's far more content in ancient plus the discriminating question in modern history (3) is an analysis of sources which requires no knowledge of content. You also only have to deal with reliability in year 12 rather then ancient where its both year 12 and preliminary. Oh and there's far more content.

- In the historical period there is FAR more content (check out the amount of sub dotpoints)

- The personality study for modern history has general questions which have to suit all 30 personalities. In ancient you have speicified personality questions, so you could have to talk on something as speicific as religious policy. Far more difficult is the 'legacy' question which requires you to know what happened outside your personalities time period...

- The national study is a little easier, more content but you can 'fish' modules and put them in different questions. Plus its short answer.

In conclusion ancient history is probably on the whole a lot more difficult.

ok i agree about the legacy questions, but i find it easier to gain understanding from the more ancient sources rather than get all the specifics that must be known for modern.

maybe i should also add that your tastes also play a part in how hard one is...

 

[-may-cat-]

yeah, but the marking guidelines were the same

are you telling me that if you wrote a year 11 style essay in year 12 you would still be within A range?

In my classes we must always argue different points of veiw to get full marks, thats the whole point, to be critical. Im really curious, do others do this? everyone seems to think ancient is simply spitting out chronological facts, using sources like quotes or something :S

 

[SiN3m]

are you telling me that if you wrote a year 11 style essay in year 12 you would still be within A range?

In my classes we must always argue different points of veiw to get full marks, thats the whole point, to be critical. Im really curious, do others do this? everyone seems to think ancient is simply spitting out chronological facts, using sources like quotes or something :S

i agree. same here

 

[cannibal.horse]

ok i agree about the legacy questions, but i find it easier to gain understanding from the more ancient sources rather than get all the specifics that must be known for modern.

maybe i should also add that your tastes also play a part in how hard one is...

It really depends on the teacher. And yes it is easier to break open ancient sources, there problems are bleedingly obvious (eg Herodotus claims Xerxes destroyed the statue of Marduk and then later claims to have seen it).

Certainly the amount of content in ancient presents a problem. My teacher was quite suprised when the two weren't brought into line last time th esyllabus was updated.

 

[cannibal.horse]

are you telling me that if you wrote a year 11 style essay in year 12 you would still be within A range?

In my classes we must always argue different points of veiw to get full marks, thats the whole point, to be critical. Im really curious, do others do this? everyone seems to think ancient is simply spitting out chronological facts, using sources like quotes or something :S

The standard for ancient history is incredibly low...

An overwhelming majority of schools are taught ancient history by someone who didn't study it (a gneral humanities teacher) and don't mark so they focus on memorising big wads of content from those studid maquarie and excel guides.

My teacher says the furtherest most kids get to source useage is 'as herodotus points out...'

 

[axlenatore]

Modern is much much harder, i did ancient in year 11 and it was very easy, i didnt study cause i knew i was going to drop it and got consistant marks of 85%+,but from talking to friends who do modern, or both, modern is the much harder history

 

[nirvanafreak02]

The standard is lower, and in all probability you have a teacher who doesn't even mark the HSC. By the sounds of it you obviously have no idea of the hierarchy of source useage.

not at my school, from the get go we have to be hsc standard
and as for teacher's who don't mark the hsc........ all the ancient teachers are markers + my teacher was the head marker

 

[Kujah]

Depends on the teacher and the individual alike.

if you want to die do history extension

I wouldn't say so. If you're dedicated and can plough through the reading, its not that difficult.

 

[nirvanafreak02]

Depends on the teacher and the individual alike.



I wouldn't say so. If you're dedicated and can plough through the reading, its not that difficult.

lol i was referring to the fact that it is essentially 2 units squashed into one
you definitely have to be dedicated to do it

 

[cannibal.horse]

not at my school, from the get go we have to be hsc standard
and as for teacher's who don't mark the hsc........ all the ancient teachers are markers + my teacher was the head marker

My apologies. Your comment about 'bsing ancient history' made you look quite ignorant.

IMO I dont like either. In legal studies and religion you can prepare your essays which is much more fair on students who actually do the work.

If I had my time again I would have dropped modern history and done extension 2 english. Both histories is far far too much content. Also your ability to do well depends on access to sources (which because my modern history teacher picks obscure topics, we have none).

 

[nirvanafreak02]

are you telling me that if you wrote a year 11 style essay in year 12 you would still be within A range?

In my classes we must always argue different points of veiw to get full marks, thats the whole point, to be critical. Im really curious, do others do this? everyone seems to think ancient is simply spitting out chronological facts, using sources like quotes or something :S

yes it would still be an A range essay
in year 11 to aim for 25/25
in year 12 we aim for 30/25

 

[Kujah]

Haha, yeah it is more like 2 units but I think in all, if you're quite good at writing essays and doing a lot of reading, then History Extension wouldn't be that hard.

 

[SeftonIsAHole]

i reckon it depends on which you like better (ancient or modern), its more likely that you'll find something easier if you actually like studying it. Also since there is quite a variety of topics in both histories, it would depend on the topics your school chooses also.

however. from what friends tell me, ancient history is a tad harder.

 

[-may-cat-]

The standard for ancient history is incredibly low...

An overwhelming majority of schools are taught ancient history by someone who didn't study it (a gneral humanities teacher) and don't mark so they focus on memorising big wads of content from those studid maquarie and excel guides.

My teacher says the furtherest most kids get to source useage is 'as herodotus points out...'

that makes me sad... no wonder so many people think its shit

 

[SiN3m]

depends what you learn sicne there are many topics for the histories.

yeah doing nuthin but Egypt really makes it suck...but for those who do Hannibal and Sparta, it would be much more enjoyable