Search results

so stop buying it then. This is part of what we call capitalism. The idea is that if you don't like something, you don't have to buy it, and if you do like something, you have the oppurtunity to buy it. Most of your points about SAM are completely indefensible. The purpose of SAM is made...

The moderating process takes care of the difference between schools. Getting a low rank at Hornsby Girls will probably be better than getting fifth at a crappy school. You're not disadvantaging yourself by going to a selective school.

Dude, 7 applicants for Comp Lit from one school? You guys pretty much outnumber the whole course candidature of 2006 :P (i loled at the guy who got first in Comp Lit this year, just because he had to beat all of ten people :p no offense, dude, whoever you are, but you did do comp lit) I got in...

I call troll.

She was joking. Right?

I think what that's getting at is that your rank in 2u maths may have been reported to you by your school as ONLY including those who do 2u maths and not Extension 1. The Board includes Ext 1 students in the ranks. It's to stop you from getting alarmed when your 2u rank is crappier than you...

How are there more people doing IPT than Advanced English at your school, Shin? :p 2006: Drama: 4/16 Modern History: 1/4 Extension History: 1/3 Music 1: 2/8 Philosophy: not ranked 2005: English Advanced: 3/22 English Extension 1: 2/7 I'm happy with those.

History is the study of the past. Fuck you, relativism.

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum? The dude above me, while having appalling spelling and grammar, is right. :D As long you justified your interpretation by backing it up from the source, you should be fine.

Re: It's over! atleast for me >_> It's not really. It's only about that if you've read What Is History?, which lots of people, me included, haven't. If you don't have the background on Carr to work with, the source is simply about selectivity in the creation of historical writing, and can...

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum? 1. Clendinnen may be post-modernist, but the vast majority of people in the state probably didn't study her, and so we have to form impressions based on the source alone. 2. Rubbish. As I mentioned elsewhere, she was discussing history as a whole. Show...

Re: Fish? No, that doesn't work. She was discussing history as a whole, as a huge record of human achievement. That's what the 'useable truths' thing was referring to, so the plural just refers to the many records that we can extract truths from. Empiricist, in my view.

Re: Fish? NON-SERIOUS ATTEMPT F MINUS MINUS :p Dasphoebus: If you didn't talk about Carr himself, that's OK, as long as you analysed the quote. In fact I think giving a exposition of Carr of any length would have been a waste of time. Analysing the source without giving an account of...

Re: First question's quote: ho-hum? Yeah, I'll jump on this bandwagon. I only referred in proper depth to two parts of the quote: the part which mentions the public professional historian (Vincent/Jenkins, woot!) and the parts that mentions history as a record of past events with the purpose...

Re: Fish? I did Crusades, and referred to about six or seven historians, some in more detail than others. Since the questions asked us to 'analyse' the source I made reference to it in most points I made, and managed to keep the fish puns to a minimum. I am, however, ashamed/SO PROUD of one...

Okay, well first off it seems that it was harder to write about Leni than Douglas Macarthur (the personality I did). There's heaps of stuff in his background and rise to prominence to talk about. Past questions are irrelevant because of the new Personality syllabus and exam question...

See, I learnt my personality study under the syllabus headings - it's how I did all my topics - and so the question seemed pretty clear to me: "talk about the syllabus dot points under these two headings". But, p342i, even if the markers do decide on a narrow interpretation, there's enough...

I still have not received an explanation as to why you'd only manage half marks if you answered the question in strict accordance to the syllabus outline. I'm not suggesting that anybody who talked about their personality's later life did poorly, all I am saying is that it should be possible to...

I didn't do Leni. But I find it hard to believe that if the question asks you for a description of the person's BACKGROUND and RISE TO PROMINENCE, you can only get half marks if all you do is talk about their BACKGROUND and RISE TO PROMINENCE. Those syllabus dot points are in there for a reason.

Does anybody ever do Anil's Ghost? I know I didn't, last year...