Conspiracy Theories (2 Viewers)

[xeuyrawp]

oh cmon pwar while yes marks are the primary concern you cant claim that the histx format prevents all "proper" historical enquiry from being worthwhile.

When did I say it prevented all proper historical enquiry? Can you please learn how to read before you post.

I said that it's not condusive to it; meaning that there are better ways, even at the HSC level.

sure you can write a good essay on just about anything if you analyse the historiographical elements properly but it would be much mroe fulfilling and ultimately useful if you approached these issues from an angle that did involve some good historical grounding and that is good history.

Firstly, my idea of good history is probably different to yours. Since extension history objectifies what history is (and leaves out very important histories, like science) extension history, objectively, is different to my idea of history.

Secondly, when did I say that you can't do something enjoyable and useful? Again, learn how to read. I was stating that, in my experience, many kids get caught up in the whole 'I want to be original and earth-shattering' bullshit which really is just silly and a waste of time. Do something interesting, do something you know a bit about, do something that noone else in your peerage may not be doing, check with your teacher, get the marks. It's a simple process.

its much harder to analyse good sources and i think teachers appreciate this and give marks accordingly.

I don't think it's harder at all, and I really don't think any marker knows what a 'good source' is.

What about an essay that involves collective history -- pop culture sources, in this case, are necessary in the question. Yet these are far less 'good' in a traditional sense.

Although I've never marked an essay on a conspiracy theory, I had discussed two of them with the marking team I was in. The students that did them got good marks because they identified what purpose understanding conspiracy theory X had. I know that another student wanted to do one on the whole Bauval/Tunnels under Giza business, but the teacher told him that he'd have to come up with a tight approach to why it was important.

Personally, I think comparitive history is the only valid approach to a conspiracy theory. From my experience, anyway...

so yes INXS you can do whaever topic you want

Maybe you don't understand: The topic has been resloved. The thread was bumped for some unknown reason.

 

[fleepbasding]

Sorry, but I'm a little confused as to this bumper: which user and what post?

 

[veridis]

When did I say it prevented all proper historical enquiry? Can you please learn how to read before you post.

I said that it's not condusive to it; meaning that there are better ways, even at the HSC level.

well lets see...

The HSC is a waste of time if you want to increase your academic or practical knowledge

Extension history is not a method which I think is condusive to proper historical enquiry.

Secondly, and most importantly, 'historical study' has nothing to do with the HSC history course.

while yes you did not qrite it off completely the fact it was repeated numerous times in your post and considering your deservedly high standing on these boards it is the impression most people will get. sure in one instance you say it is only "not condusive", but to then say it has nothing to do with historical study and that its a waste of time the post does lend itself towards a more hardline reading of the word condusive. go off and argue your semantics but my response will remain the same. perhaps it is time you learnt to write without definatives and hyperbole if you expect people to reply without them.

beyond arguing over exact wording the main thing i objected to was what seemed like your active encouragment of furute histx students away from more conservative hsitory topcis and toward conspiracy theories. while yes this can be done quite well perhaps histx would be more condusive towards proper historical enquiry if students chose topcis where it is able to form a core part of their essay. histx is very much what you make it and i dont think it your place to discourage future students from attempting to develop their skills within the framework of histx, something which despite your experiences of finding it non-condusive can be done

 

[xeuyrawp]

well let's see

The HSC is a waste of time if you want to increase your academic or practical knowledge

Nope, that doesn't say anything about historical enquiry.... It talks about academic or practical knowledge. Historical enquiry has never equated to one's own personal knowledge.

Next?

Extension history is not a method which I think is condusive to proper historical enquiry.

Oh wait, we already talked about that one.

Secondly, and most importantly, 'historical study' has nothing to do with the HSC history course.

Again, we've talked about this. I place importance of marks over some idyllic view that you have about expanding your horizons and 'increasing your skills'.

. go off and argue your semantics but my response will remain the same.

I'm sorry, but if you can't handle semantics, you shouldn't be 1. posting on a board where you're likely to be arguing, 2. arguing with me, or 3. speaking a language where semantics is so important.

perhaps it is time you learnt to write without definatives and hyperbole if you expect people to reply without them.

Yeah. Good one.

beyond arguing over exact wording the main thing i objected to was what seemed like your active encouragment of furute histx students away from more conservative hsitory topcis and toward conspiracy theories.

No it's not. I said it's possible. I never, ever said that any topic was preferable. I said that getting marks was preferable.

However, I will say it now: Conspiracy theories, whilst being a very do-able area, are not the best choice for extension history.

while yes this can be done quite well perhaps histx would be more condusive towards proper historical enquiry if students chose topcis where it is able to form a core part of their essay.

Perhaps it would be more condusive to proper historical enquiry if students weren't marked... I've even heard PhD theses students commenting on how they'd wanted to explore x avenue, but had to stay away from it because their markers mightn't have been interested.

I also personally don't like the criteria involved in the major work, but that's just me disliking all the traditional history stuff.

histx is very much what you make it and i dont think it your place to discourage future students from attempting to develop their skills within the framework of histx, something which despite your experiences of finding it non-condusive can be done

Oh, how very nice. Someone that believes in the BOS' bullshit about 'developing skills'.

Considering you haven't experienced any academia beyond the HSC, you might have to face the possibility that you don't know any better.

You'll understand when you get to uni.

 

[veridis]

haha shall we put it down to my naivety or your cynicism.
given most of it seems to be about the importance of marks vs skills and we obviously disagree there i have just one question for you.

what, if not knowledge, do we gain from historical enquiry? and given the individual is undertaking this enquiry when is this knowledge not personal and of a practical or academic nature?

hhhmm maybe 2

 

[xeuyrawp]

haha shall we put it down to my naivety or your cynicism.

It's definitely my cynicism. I'm really nasty when it comes to the HSC and 'learning'.

what, if not knowledge, do we gain from historical enquiry?

Whilst most historical enquiry is done in the persuit of knowledge, there are other reasons, such as money -- look at all the scientific historians.

I think I was talking more about historical enquiry in relation to Extension History, though.

 

[smurfygirl]

Oh my god, please don't do something about conspiracy theories. Overdone and not really related to historiography. The focus of your work needs to be not on the event, but the changing interpretations of your event/issue etc. Appeasement is far too big a topic to cover in a 2500 word paper.

 

[xeuyrawp]

Overdone

They might not be, at the school.

and not really related to historiography.

Yes it is. Read my above post.

For all those who don't read the whole thread, here is a summary:

1. A large part of historiography is asking the question 'Why is this important?'
2. Conspiracy theories are important.

You do the math.

The focus of your work needs to be not on the event, but the changing interpretations of your event/issue etc.

Interpretations are a minor part. Historicity CAN be a topic.

Appeasement is far too big a topic to cover in a 2500 word paper.

Who said that they were doing the whole Appeasement topic? :S

 

[fleepbasding]

I still agree with Veridis and think that students can gain skills and knowlege out of the history extension course. I know I did, regardless of what you might say.

And, Pwar, I think your being altogether a little uncivil about this. While that is your right, getting personal isn't doing the topic any favours.

 

[xeuyrawp]

I still agree with Veridis and think that students can gain skills and knowlege out of the history extension course.

I didn't say the didn't. I said that there were better ways.

Why have people suddenly ignored whole posts in this forum?

I know I did,

I did, too.

regardless of what you might say.

I thought we covered this....

And, Pwar, I think your being altogether a little uncivil about this. While that is your right, getting personal isn't doing the topic any favours.

Firstly, I'm not getting personal. Please quote me when I'm attacking them for anything that they didn't deserve, and I'll gladly apologise.

Secondly, your use of the pronoun ' I ' shows that you're getting personal, and correctly so.

If you some how misinterpreted what I said, maybe posting after you've thoroughly read the thread would be more judicious.

 

[fleepbasding]

you quoting Veridis- "histx is very much what you make it and i dont think it your place to discourage future students from attempting to develop their skills within the framework of histx, something which despite your experiences of finding it non-condusive can be done "

Your response- "Oh, how very nice. Someone that believes in the BOS' bullshit about 'developing skills'."

That is what I was referring to when saying I learnt skills from this course. Sure, its not perfect, but like Veridis said, you can get a lot out of it if you make a presonal decision. Having said this, when the exam came around, I did go for marks, and it paid off (48/50- 10th in state). So I don't really agree with the marks 'vs' idealism dichtomy, the crafty student can have both!

What I meant about "getting personal" was more your condecension and rudeness.

"Learn how to read"- rude

"Considering you haven't experienced any academia beyond the HSC, you might have to face the possibility that you don't know any better.

You'll understand when you get to uni."- condecending

 

[silvermoon]

oh dear god, not appeasement *shudder* anything but appeasement. Taylor *shakes head*

fleeps, there's probably some middle ground between you and pwar --> yes, you can get valuable skills out of the ext course, however pwar is right also, you need a far greater skill set to do well at a tertiary level.

and for gods sake be nice pwar, it won't kill you you know - though veridis might...

 

[xeuyrawp]

"Learn how to read"- rude

I'm sorry, but if you can't handle bluntness, you should go elsewhere. I could be like a thousand other 'helpers' around here, and say 'please refer to the entirety of my post, and then continue. We appreciate your contribution' -- or I could just say 'learn how to read'. Deal with it.

"Considering you haven't experienced any academia beyond the HSC, you might have to face the possibility that you don't know any better.

You'll understand when you get to uni."- condecending

Again, I never operate under the pretense that we're all equal. I could be not condecending and say 'well, you might find things different when you get to uni!', or I could just outline the reality that validity of this argument relies on experience.

So I don't really agree with the marks 'vs' idealism dichtomy, the crafty student can have both!

I know you can have both! I'm saying that it is, however, more important to get the marks than be idyllic. Going all airy fairy for the HSC is not a good idea.

oh dear god, not appeasement *shudder* anything but appeasement. Taylor *shakes head*

I think I just don't mind it because I've never done Modern History!

and for gods sake be nice pwar, it won't kill you you know - though veridis might...

I'm not going to be nice if people are 1. too lazy to read the discussions, and 2. too stupid and assume they know life after the HSC.

 

[fleepbasding]

ahhh... I get it now. I'm just dealing with an arse-hole. Right, it's all much clearer now.

 

[silvermoon]

I think I just don't mind it because I've never done Modern History!

oh, me neither - ancient always has had the appeal. our ext hist teacher was modern though so he picked appeasement - and then didn't teach half the stuff because "my modern kids have covered all the groundwork so they already know it - you'll be fine". yeah, thanks huh? anyway, we did fine so it doesn't matter now.

ahhh... I get it now. I'm just dealing with an arse-hole. Right, it's all much clearer now.

i was going to say something about the inappropriate nature of such posts...but i think i might leave it...im sure pwar can defend himself much better than i can

 

[veridis]

ahhh... I get it now. I'm just dealing with an arse-hole. Right, it's all much clearer now.

i love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.
if you dont like what pwar says prove him wrong, but the whole moral high ground approach doesnt work when he's actualy right.

oh dear god, not appeasement *shudder* anything but appeasement. Taylor *shakes head*

i lvoed appeasement, CATO is brilliant, taylor is so fun and purposely controversial, and kennedy is so soft and undecided on issues that you can pretty much say anything you want and he'll agree with it to an extent. add to that the factthat WWII is just generally a great topic. i cant see why anyone would choose mod if they werent into the WWs, i did mod and found appeasement really enjoyable and easy as

and for gods sake be nice pwar, it won't kill you you know - though veridis might...

i would like to note for the benifit of the courts that this was not and is not my intention. i maintain the fact that pwar hit my fist with his face...the fell on my knife...repeatedly

 

[fleepbasding]

OK, sorry, that post was a little innapropriate. OK, I'll express what I mean in more tangible terms.

I'm sorry, but if you can't handle bluntness, you should go elsewhere. I could be like a thousand other 'helpers' around here, and say 'please refer to the entirety of my post, and then continue. We appreciate your contribution' -- or I could just say 'learn how to read'. Deal with it.

OK, heres the thing- it is not bluntness that I dissaprove of. Oh no, you would like to think your real blunt. But actually, it is just not true. Despite never saying exactly or in the exact words what Veridis was arguing, it was more than implied. I'm not going to quote- refer to the quotes Veridis made a few posts ago, and also the ones I made more recently. Even in the contexts of your entire posts, they have the same cynical, history ext is fairly useless sort of vibe. How can you deny that they don't give that impression, if not for the likes of I (and Veridis formerly) then for all the 06'ers in this forum. My point is, that your constant claims that others have to learn to read, is more a case of you having to learn to write in a clearer manner. I'm sorry, but people have read your posts and are dissagreeing with them, I don't mind your counter-arguments, but excusing yourself with the whole "misunderstood" bullshit is rather lame. In conclusion, stop making the "Learn to read" claim (where it really isn't justified), and simply stick to arguing what is obviously your position on this.

Again, I never operate under the pretense that we're all equal. I could be not condecending and say 'well, you might find things different when you get to uni!', or I could just outline the reality that validity of this argument relies on experience.

Yeah, I don't mind you drawing on experience to argue, if you actually do draw on that experience, not just hint at it. Why don't you flesh out this argument of how different it all is at Uni, instead of using it as some feeble attempt to end the argument prematurely. Please! I'm serious, I want to know what this wildly different historiographical experience of University is! Just tell us!

I'm not going to be nice if people are 1. too lazy to read the discussions

You see, I have read the discussions, and just because I don't adress every point you make (because I agree with a good many) doesn't mean I haven't read and comprehended everything you've said. But with every reply I've made, I think you'll find it has been in direct response to something you've said. And if I didn't point out exactly what I was responding to (followed by your usual act of playing dumb), I then cited what I was responding to (even though it was obvious enough to anyone else). Look closely Pwar, you should always read posts thoroughly before you start assuming it is the fault of everyone else and not you. In conclusion, I've read your posts and responded selectively (the stuff I disagreed with), so enough with the "learn to read", and "too lazy to read" excuses.

2. too stupid and assume they know life after the HSC.

You see, I've never said anything about Uni(or life after the HSC), you just invented this fallacy that people have been claiming to know what history is after the HSC. I demand a quote. Either way, it is your lack of elucidating this mysterious university history, that has made a real debate impossible. Ach, you might be referring to Veridis more here, you should be more specific in future.

Back to the original debate- whether or not to do a conspiracy theory for history extension IP. Even from the marks perspective I would think its advisable for most students to avoid it, for no other reason that many history teachers will cringe at the site of it and give a low mark. And one more thing- if you're not smart, doing something requiring a lot of original and complex thought to do well in (conspiracy theories) is not a good idea- you might be better off hiding under the protective dust of something old and much written about.

 

[veridis]

i'm not quite sure what pwar was referring to with that last bit. given this is a forum set up specifically for helping those currently undertaking the HSC course histx i should think that knowledge of uni isnt needed. indeed with pwar's insistance that everyone should just play the hsc game for what it is any attempts to emulate university work would probably be counter productive.

 

[silvermoon]

i lvoed appeasement, CATO is brilliant, taylor is so fun and purposely controversial, and kennedy is so soft and undecided on issues that you can pretty much say anything you want and he'll agree with it to an extent. add to that the factthat WWII is just generally a great topic. i cant see why anyone would choose mod if they werent into the WWs, i did mod and found appeasement really enjoyable and easy as

im sure appeasement is a far more likeable subject if you are into modern history - however, like i said, im an ancient girl, so it wouldn't have been my pick if given the choice. yes, i found it easy as well - though, taylor aside, not particularly enjoyable

attempts to emulate university work would probably be counter productive.

can't say i agree here - any histx work could only be improved by such emulation.

i maintain the fact that pwar hit my fist with his face...the fell on my knife...repeatedly

lol - dont worry darlin, im sure he did. we'll all be your witnesses. definately fell on the knife

 

[veridis]

can't say i agree here - any histx work could only be improved by such emulation.

that statement was working on pwar's supposition that histx is not about skilled historical enquiry but rather playing the marks game and reproducing what the markers want to see

and the cash for your testimony should be coming through any minute now =)