-
Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this! Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
General Thoughts: Modern History (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Rafy
- Start date
mcchicken
madman in a box
WWI was fine, the extended responses definitely weren't my strong points but I feel I did a good job.
National Study (I did Russia) was easy peasy, very predictable - same questions every year. I took my time answering this purposely.
Personality (Kollontai) was again, very easy and predictable, same as last year. Smashed both questions out in just under half an hour because I had rote learnt it.
International Study (WWII) hahahahahahhahaha bye bye 80 ATAR. Literally every year they have a Q on turning points so I rote learnt my essay (just as I had for the other two sections - those gambles paid off, this one did not) and died when there was no turning points Q!!!! Ended up writing about 4 pages on the appeasement Q. I guess I'm happy I got a decent response out (filled with fake quotes
) seeing as I was totally unprepared for it. Mistake was obviously on my part, just glad I don't need a high ATAR lol.
How'd everyone else go?
National Study (I did Russia) was easy peasy, very predictable - same questions every year. I took my time answering this purposely.
Personality (Kollontai) was again, very easy and predictable, same as last year. Smashed both questions out in just under half an hour because I had rote learnt it.
International Study (WWII) hahahahahahhahaha bye bye 80 ATAR. Literally every year they have a Q on turning points so I rote learnt my essay (just as I had for the other two sections - those gambles paid off, this one did not) and died when there was no turning points Q!!!! Ended up writing about 4 pages on the appeasement Q. I guess I'm happy I got a decent response out (filled with fake quotes
) seeing as I was totally unprepared for it. Mistake was obviously on my part, just glad I don't need a high ATAR lol.How'd everyone else go?
- WWI was a bit harder than usual I found. Still relatively easy but some of the multi's had me second guessing myself
- Germany 1918-1939 - Really? Consolidation of power 3 times in a row? Holy shit. Thought my essay was okay, I had 3 para's about how Racial policy was, to a moderate extent, key to the consolidation of power, then paragraphs on the control of media, army and economy through terror + repression in order to permeate society with nazi ideology and maintain power
- Personality - I do Leni Riefenstahl and this section was pretty manageable, felt like I was repeating myself in both q's though
- Conflict in Europe - I did Impact on civilians, thought i managed it alright.
Overall thoughts: WWI slightly harder than usual, personality pretty easy, Both extended's were hard to predict, both pretty difiicult.
- Germany 1918-1939 - Really? Consolidation of power 3 times in a row? Holy shit. Thought my essay was okay, I had 3 para's about how Racial policy was, to a moderate extent, key to the consolidation of power, then paragraphs on the control of media, army and economy through terror + repression in order to permeate society with nazi ideology and maintain power
- Personality - I do Leni Riefenstahl and this section was pretty manageable, felt like I was repeating myself in both q's though
- Conflict in Europe - I did Impact on civilians, thought i managed it alright.
Overall thoughts: WWI slightly harder than usual, personality pretty easy, Both extended's were hard to predict, both pretty difiicult.
Last edited:
FlyingKanga
The optimistic pessimist.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 410
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
What were the answers for WW1?
mcchicken
madman in a box
Yup even Russia's had the same questions the past few years, too.
Me too, but I thought best to repeat myself and reap any marks I can rather than risk it for the sake of neatness or whatever haha
i got d,b,b,c,c i think for multi's. That could be wrong, i may've forgotten the corresponding letter, but here were my answers
1. What is the purpose of Source A (the king george v letter) - i chose d, the one about soldiers doing their duty
2. Who is Source A directed towards - I said B) British empire soldiers
3. Source C (Article and picture about women) What was the Queen suggesting women should do - I said make garments for the war effort, b)?
4. Using source C (The German soldier in car), describe the German attitude towards war - i said that the war would be over rapidly and with ease, c i think?
5. Account for the increase in war-related expenditure, I said preparation for ludendorff increased spending, c i think?
I checked these with a few other top students and I think they're right
Last edited:
FlyingKanga
The optimistic pessimist.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 410
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
Yeah I got all of them too. Woot!
sweet! good luck. What mark are you hoping for?Yeah I got all of them too. Woot!
mcchicken
madman in a box
Yeah I got all of those MC answers too! yay
yay
FlyingKanga
The optimistic pessimist.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 410
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
I'm predicting I'll get 80-85 in this. I filled the booklets for each one and answered the questions correctly but my lack of dates is where I screwed up.
Also, remember the label at the top Source C - the German cartoon? It said 'cartoon thought to be from 1915', so would it be fine to argue that the reliability of the source is limited since its origin/authenticity hasn't correctly been identified?
I don't think not having dates for certain things is that significant of a thing, some markers may dock you one or two marks, but that would be that absolute max I would've thought.
Yes, I think that's fine, that's exactly what I did! Did you link the reliability to the usefulness?
crowley926
Active Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2014
- Messages
- 252
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2015
WWI multiple choice LOL but i think it was okay
Russia and Soviet Union- surprised there was no Stalinism question this year but I was prepped for both options anyway. I picked soviet foreign policy and it seemed good
Trotsky- yeah it was okay personality section never gets too difficult anyway
Cold War- I kind of expected those questions but still wasn't as prepared as possible haha I picked the early crises one and I don't think it was too bad
overall i thought the test was good - could've been much worse or i could've been more prepared but I reckon it was fine
Russia and Soviet Union- surprised there was no Stalinism question this year but I was prepped for both options anyway. I picked soviet foreign policy and it seemed good
Trotsky- yeah it was okay personality section never gets too difficult anyway
Cold War- I kind of expected those questions but still wasn't as prepared as possible haha I picked the early crises one and I don't think it was too bad
overall i thought the test was good - could've been much worse or i could've been more prepared but I reckon it was fine
What scaled mark are you hoping for? And what do you think you got raw
attackallaround
Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2015
- Messages
- 55
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
b5/b6 raw mark cutoff???
Excellent exam.
- WWI section was very good. I made two mistakes in the multiple choice unfortunately (I rushed too quickly), but it happens. Source questions were very good.
- Germany section was also very good. Nazi racial policy + consolidation was a very broad question, and hence, you could use most of the syllabus. The one on political, economic and social issues was also a very good question.
- Personality - I did Speer and the questions were extremely predictable. Hence, my rote learning paid off here.
- Conflict in the Pacific - honestly both questions were great but I stuck with the growth of tensions one since I had done more on it this year. Turning points was also great. I wish I could have done both since my knowledge is extensive on turning points. I was just more confident with growth of tensions during the exam. I did rush this response, but I still think I managed a very decent one.
- WWI section was very good. I made two mistakes in the multiple choice unfortunately (I rushed too quickly), but it happens. Source questions were very good.
- Germany section was also very good. Nazi racial policy + consolidation was a very broad question, and hence, you could use most of the syllabus. The one on political, economic and social issues was also a very good question.
- Personality - I did Speer and the questions were extremely predictable. Hence, my rote learning paid off here.
- Conflict in the Pacific - honestly both questions were great but I stuck with the growth of tensions one since I had done more on it this year. Turning points was also great. I wish I could have done both since my knowledge is extensive on turning points. I was just more confident with growth of tensions during the exam. I did rush this response, but I still think I managed a very decent one.
Last edited:
B5 = Around 73? Not too sure to be honest
B6 = Last year it was around 86, I'm predicting about anywhere between 85 and 86 as this year may've been a bit harder.
crowley926
Active Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2014
- Messages
- 252
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2015
Scaled mark I'm aiming for 94-95
Based off past exams and considering I wrote same amount/same quality stuff I think I'll get a raw of high 80s-90. I think I'll lose a few marks for Cold War (lack of specifics) and maybe a couple for WWI as well cos I can never perfect usefulness and reliability. I think my Russia and Trotsky essays should be good enough for the top range marks but you never know
What about you?
It was a pretty decent exam.
WWI - pretty standard, probably even easier compared to some of the other papers, sources gave enough to sustain responses.
National Study - I did Germany, the first question on how effectively the Nazis dealt with the political, economic and social issues that Weimar left. I thought it was a little bit different, but had a good knowledge of the issues and then twisted knowledge I had from nazi consolidation etc to show that they pretty effectively dealt with it. Talked about, for economics, the war economy, infrastructure investment, Hjalmar Scacht, Autarky, and how the Nazis basically fixed most of the problems Weimar left, and then some. Political & Social I talked about the whole one party state thing, liquidation of the SA basically got rid of previous instability, divisions, changes in gov and the army being a state within a state. Then the material benefits of nazism a little for social - showed that they had a pretty widespread appeal, especially with hitler pulling Germany out of the depression. Hoping I do alright, thought I mounted a decent argument after I got my head around the question, but I may have spent a little too long establishing the Weimar issues.
Personality - part a was standard, found part b a little challenging as Riefenstahl didn't really have any massive life challenges, so I just twisted her response to the request to be Hitler's filmmaker, later life controversies to be the challenges, and showed how her personal response to them was what shaped her reputation, contribution etc. Was a little rushed as I did it last.
Conflict in Europe - questions were both a little unusual but appeasement was good. Basically went with the statement, argued that yes appeasement aimed to forestall war, not to maintain peace, but further argued that in doing so, it really failed as it perpetuated the growth of aggressive dictators, contributed to the failure of the league, and basically actually drew war nearer. Tried to focus on the statement, and then go further and look at how it failed to do what it was intended to in each sort of paragraph, used Munich conference and Abyssinia as my main examples. Looked at both sides of the policy too, the actual concessions and the non-intervention
Hoping I did okay, really would like to go well. Anyone wanna tell me if they think my arguments seem valid enough to get me up there?
WWI - pretty standard, probably even easier compared to some of the other papers, sources gave enough to sustain responses.
National Study - I did Germany, the first question on how effectively the Nazis dealt with the political, economic and social issues that Weimar left. I thought it was a little bit different, but had a good knowledge of the issues and then twisted knowledge I had from nazi consolidation etc to show that they pretty effectively dealt with it. Talked about, for economics, the war economy, infrastructure investment, Hjalmar Scacht, Autarky, and how the Nazis basically fixed most of the problems Weimar left, and then some. Political & Social I talked about the whole one party state thing, liquidation of the SA basically got rid of previous instability, divisions, changes in gov and the army being a state within a state. Then the material benefits of nazism a little for social - showed that they had a pretty widespread appeal, especially with hitler pulling Germany out of the depression. Hoping I do alright, thought I mounted a decent argument after I got my head around the question, but I may have spent a little too long establishing the Weimar issues.
Personality - part a was standard, found part b a little challenging as Riefenstahl didn't really have any massive life challenges, so I just twisted her response to the request to be Hitler's filmmaker, later life controversies to be the challenges, and showed how her personal response to them was what shaped her reputation, contribution etc. Was a little rushed as I did it last.
Conflict in Europe - questions were both a little unusual but appeasement was good. Basically went with the statement, argued that yes appeasement aimed to forestall war, not to maintain peace, but further argued that in doing so, it really failed as it perpetuated the growth of aggressive dictators, contributed to the failure of the league, and basically actually drew war nearer. Tried to focus on the statement, and then go further and look at how it failed to do what it was intended to in each sort of paragraph, used Munich conference and Abyssinia as my main examples. Looked at both sides of the policy too, the actual concessions and the non-intervention
Hoping I did okay, really would like to go well. Anyone wanna tell me if they think my arguments seem valid enough to get me up there?
Last edited:
Core: Multiple choice was more difficult than expected but I think overall it was okay.
National Study (Germany): I didn't really enjoy the options. The fact that they linked certain dot points together that I wouldn't have expected :/
Personality Study (Albert Speer): Absolute gold. Essay questions were expected
International Study (Conflict in Europe): I forgot what the second option was but the Appeasements question was amazing. Expected it since they haven't really asked about tensions in Europe before this year.
Overall hoping for a raw mark of high eighties
National Study (Germany): I didn't really enjoy the options. The fact that they linked certain dot points together that I wouldn't have expected :/
Personality Study (Albert Speer): Absolute gold. Essay questions were expected
International Study (Conflict in Europe): I forgot what the second option was but the Appeasements question was amazing. Expected it since they haven't really asked about tensions in Europe before this year.
Overall hoping for a raw mark of high eighties