bubz :D
the last laugh
What did you think of the exam?
-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Extension History - General thoughts (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter bubz :D
- Start date
ebonypurcell
New Member
it was ok.
i didnt really like question 2. i did jfk. thought it was a bit retarded.
question one was ok. what did everone write for it???
that was my last exam and im just glad its ova!!! yey!!!!!!!! no more school!
i didnt really like question 2. i did jfk. thought it was a bit retarded.
question one was ok. what did everone write for it???
that was my last exam and im just glad its ova!!! yey!!!!!!!! no more school!
rocklobster
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2005
- Messages
- 16
Meh
I thought the exam was OK but what was the deal with question one? I wrote heaps but that source was weird, he just kept repeating himself! And the question wasn't even a question! I did JFK too, I didn't really like it but hey, I think I did OK. And that's all I expect from history extension haha.
It was just me and one other person in our class so it was a weird feeling in the hall! Now I can look onward to drama. How annoying.
I thought the exam was OK but what was the deal with question one? I wrote heaps but that source was weird, he just kept repeating himself! And the question wasn't even a question! I did JFK too, I didn't really like it but hey, I think I did OK. And that's all I expect from history extension haha.
It was just me and one other person in our class so it was a weird feeling in the hall! Now I can look onward to drama. How annoying.
franski
New Member
I did Elizabeth for Q2. it was great! I really liked it.
But I didn't like q1. the source was too selective and the question was too broad. I used
herodotus, marx, bede, and the annales school. how much did everyone write? I did 7 pages for q1 and 8 for q2.
But I didn't like q1. the source was too selective and the question was too broad. I used
herodotus, marx, bede, and the annales school. how much did everyone write? I did 7 pages for q1 and 8 for q2.
rocklobster
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2005
- Messages
- 16
Q1
I used Herodotus, Polybius, Thucydides, Becker and Vincent. I wrote about 8 pages for this one and about 6/7 for question 2.
I used Herodotus, Polybius, Thucydides, Becker and Vincent. I wrote about 8 pages for this one and about 6/7 for question 2.
Are you serious? how can question oe be too selective and too broad? I agree, it was a very repetitive source, and if anything it was too selective. The main thing it was arguing was the relative nature of historical enquiry. It was a question begging for contexts, but left barely any room for much else.franski said:
Q2 was annoying! It was hardly relevant to my case study (Napoleon) as the case study was mainly concerned with changing and differing interpretations of napoleon. A knowledge of sources used by the historians was a not a primary concern, so it was hard to link into the question, but I think I managed to do well (hopefully!)
I wrote 15pgs 4 section 1, and 10 for section two (avging about 8/9words per line)
Eco left now! Argh!
ameh
dirty trick
I wrote 7 pages for Section I and Less for section II
Section I was ok, even though my prepared thesis didn't fit the question my response was fairly solid in answering the damned question.
Section II Omg..it reminded me of a module A question. In that I repeated myself blah blah primary sources Camden sets precedent as first civil historian *wank wank* Ok so my thesis was pretty solid, pity I started studying Elizabeth two hours before the exam and my evidence to back to fucked up question was fairly flaccid, like soggy bread.
Section I was ok, even though my prepared thesis didn't fit the question my response was fairly solid in answering the damned question.
Section II Omg..it reminded me of a module A question. In that I repeated myself blah blah primary sources Camden sets precedent as first civil historian *wank wank* Ok so my thesis was pretty solid, pity I started studying Elizabeth two hours before the exam and my evidence to back to fucked up question was fairly flaccid, like soggy bread.
I did Herodutus, Clendinnen, Ranke, Ayer, Carr, Irving, Evans, Gibbon and Laurance Rees and Windshuttle... lol I did 9 pages for tht question.
the source was so plain and limited I thought for question 1 and for question 2 the quote and question were really really hard to do for the JFK question I thought. I did a really basic conclusion for that because of time... for JFK I did 8 pages. Now I have a sore hand and congrats to everyone who just had their last exam, only one more now for me!
the source was so plain and limited I thought for question 1 and for question 2 the quote and question were really really hard to do for the JFK question I thought. I did a really basic conclusion for that because of time... for JFK I did 8 pages. Now I have a sore hand and congrats to everyone who just had their last exam, only one more now for me!
ameh
dirty trick
I used Melvyn Bragg, my AOS author for OGS in both sections hehe.
Oh and Ranke, Carr, ..Reynolds in section I
What sucked was my evidence to back up the argument was fairly sheet. And section II was a rambling about film and tv history, completely irrelevant BS I tried to cover my gaping holes in knowledge
=/
Oh and Ranke, Carr, ..Reynolds in section I
What sucked was my evidence to back up the argument was fairly sheet. And section II was a rambling about film and tv history, completely irrelevant BS I tried to cover my gaping holes in knowledge
=/
ameh
dirty trick
btw bubz I see you're a seinfeld fan. Check out the banker sketch with newman and kramer. It's funnier than soup nazi 
gosh
Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Messages
- 162
i thought it was a good test
the first section was a bit challenging though. i didnt really understand what the source was saying and couldnt mould that around my answer as good as i planned. it had to be more than a generic essay. i forgot to include one or two details about the historians but overall im relatively satisfied
the second section was bit easier i found. the question and quote were quite simple and i managed to write a fair amount.
overall i think i did better than my trial though im not expecting very high marks just yet
the first section was a bit challenging though. i didnt really understand what the source was saying and couldnt mould that around my answer as good as i planned. it had to be more than a generic essay. i forgot to include one or two details about the historians but overall im relatively satisfied
the second section was bit easier i found. the question and quote were quite simple and i managed to write a fair amount.
overall i think i did better than my trial though im not expecting very high marks just yet
Question 1 was a godsend - I loved it
Question 2 was a bitch - what were they thinking!!! I walked out and wanted to cry, even though I'm sure I did a good job. It was just so disorienting having to factor a quote and reduce the question down to something that was feasibly understood, let alone answering it well. Argh, the worse Question 2 since the new hsc without a doubt..
Question 2 was a bitch - what were they thinking!!! I walked out and wanted to cry, even though I'm sure I did a good job. It was just so disorienting having to factor a quote and reduce the question down to something that was feasibly understood, let alone answering it well. Argh, the worse Question 2 since the new hsc without a doubt..
nwatts
Active Member
Loathed question 1. I didn't get to discuss the debates I had prepared, because they just weren't relevant to Jenkins' little article. I ended up raving on about Marxism and the Annales school, commenting on how Jenkins rejects the patterns we place on history, where as I think they're valuble. I ran out of time too. Wasn't happy. Expecting about 4/25.
Question 2, was fantastic. The whole discussion of the interpretation of sources is totally central to my case study (Jebus), and I weaved together a solid discussion on how people through time have interpreted/rewritten sources/evidence to their own benefit.. rar.. rar.. Great question. Couldn't have asked for better.
Question 2, was fantastic. The whole discussion of the interpretation of sources is totally central to my case study (Jebus), and I weaved together a solid discussion on how people through time have interpreted/rewritten sources/evidence to their own benefit.. rar.. rar.. Great question. Couldn't have asked for better.
jenni12345
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2005
- Messages
- 3
I dunno how I went with this one. As usual I hated the stupid source, why can't historians write in laymans terms and say very simply and precisely what they are trying to say? I did elizabeth for the second one which I thought i did a bit better in then the first! But hey it's over and i cling to the thought that I have done better then I think I have! I just wish that drama wasn't on cause it's so annoying and it means that I have to wait for another week! Echhhhh.....good luck to the rest of you who are still going and enjoy your freeedom those of you who have it now....
bonniejjj
Member
Question I- I thought this was a fantastic question, I wrote 13 pages and wrote about the Annales school (Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre, Disabled peoples history, history of smells, David Suzuki's biography of a tree,) GR Elton, the American History Wars, the Australian History Wars, the David Irving trial, Japanese textbooks, Prime Minister Howard, Marxism, Feminism, Postmodernism (Foucolt, Saussere, Derrida, Joy Damousi in the great debate,) Herodotus, Tacitus, Ronald Mellor, television history (documentaries, "living history" such as the 1900 house, and blockbuster movies such as "Alexander the Great," and "Troy."
I actually think I managed to pull it off without being superficial; some things I dealt with in detail, others only as examples to back up a point.
Question 2- A little more challenging (had to read over it a number of times,) I wrote 13 pages on this one, a little less coherent than my response to question1. I did Tacitus and the question did fit in quite well, I talked about the issue of Tacitus' bias, modern historians' interpretations, and changing interpretations on the basis of new archaeological evidence (particularly teh SCPP.)
I felt really good about this exam, I'm just so glad that I've done my best and its out of my hands!
I actually think I managed to pull it off without being superficial; some things I dealt with in detail, others only as examples to back up a point.
Question 2- A little more challenging (had to read over it a number of times,) I wrote 13 pages on this one, a little less coherent than my response to question1. I did Tacitus and the question did fit in quite well, I talked about the issue of Tacitus' bias, modern historians' interpretations, and changing interpretations on the basis of new archaeological evidence (particularly teh SCPP.)
I felt really good about this exam, I'm just so glad that I've done my best and its out of my hands!
Silver Persian
Banned
Well, considering I studied for the exam for a grand total of two hours and my hand is still retarded from yesterdays modern history extravaganza, I'm quite happy with the exam
I thought the article was quite specific too - but I thought since we were meant to evaluate her perspective I could criticise it bys aying she ignores the historians purpose, the influence of evidence and stuff...( I used Tacitus, Marx, Clendinnen, Remarque and... somebody else who I've already forgotten about an hour after the exam...go me).
I didn't really like the second question (I also did Elizabeth) but I think it ended up working OK...I just hope I didn't get my historians mixed up
I thought the article was quite specific too - but I thought since we were meant to evaluate her perspective I could criticise it bys aying she ignores the historians purpose, the influence of evidence and stuff...( I used Tacitus, Marx, Clendinnen, Remarque and... somebody else who I've already forgotten about an hour after the exam...go me).
I didn't really like the second question (I also did Elizabeth) but I think it ended up working OK...I just hope I didn't get my historians mixed up
fleepbasding
HSC TUTOR
section 1- horrible. didn't like the source and didn't like the question. I wasn't thinking straight. I argued against the source. I only refered to two other sources- Elton and Carr. I shouldn't have done Carr, he really didn't fit my argument. Overall a traumatic experience. My preparation didn't seem to fit this question. I spent the whole exam arguing against the source, using Elton and Carr to back me up.
section 2- not much better. I was expecting/hoping for the usual contexts and perspectives of the historians reflected in their constructions. found myself inventing the sources upon which the historians used. not a fun experience. I did JFK.
on the whole, I found the exam quite difficult, definitely more challenging than usual.
section 2- not much better. I was expecting/hoping for the usual contexts and perspectives of the historians reflected in their constructions. found myself inventing the sources upon which the historians used. not a fun experience. I did JFK.
on the whole, I found the exam quite difficult, definitely more challenging than usual.
Question 1 - The only way to answer this question, to my mind, was to break away from writing essays that focus upon schools of thought and really come to grips with the source's argument. You have to adress the issues that he raises about the practice of history, in particular the problems inherent with history that attempts to address present needs of society and the distortions that this can cause. You must focus on this and integrate "sources" as in comments by other critics similar to Jenkins that discuss similar issues of history.
Pointlessly talking about annals, marxism etc will serve no purpose. These can be used to make a specific point, but the focus needs to be upon the source and its comments on history.
Pointlessly talking about annals, marxism etc will serve no purpose. These can be used to make a specific point, but the focus needs to be upon the source and its comments on history.
Note - previous post was my friend using my account
Easiest paper iv seen in a while. source for Q1 was a piece of piss and easy to adapt to. pretty much an aims and purposes of history question. i just tore apart the source and then analysed it while using other sources such as Bede, Herodotus, Thucydides, Ranke, Abraham, Elton, Carr. Wrote about how each historian through the ages has had to change the style that history is written to adapt to 'who history is for'. i then went into how its not just the target audience that dictates what history is but what effects the historians as well like context and purpose. like for eg i talked about national histories by ranke and abraham that were being used to promote national pride while historians such as Bede was like a propaganda for the church in the writing of his 'christian history', writing 'god work'. Wrote 12 pages overall...bout 9-10 words a line.
Q2 was a challenging one but was pretty decent overall. it should seperate those that know what they're doin and those that are gettin an easy internal mark free ride. basically i adapted how historians use the sources available to them and how it effects the history they write and ultimatly creates the debates that come from their histories. I did appeasement so it was pretty easy to adapt to the debates on hitler and the significance of the agreement at munich between Taylor and Watt. Wrote 11 pages
Overall pretty happy with how it went and just glad the hsc is finally over
Easiest paper iv seen in a while. source for Q1 was a piece of piss and easy to adapt to. pretty much an aims and purposes of history question. i just tore apart the source and then analysed it while using other sources such as Bede, Herodotus, Thucydides, Ranke, Abraham, Elton, Carr. Wrote about how each historian through the ages has had to change the style that history is written to adapt to 'who history is for'. i then went into how its not just the target audience that dictates what history is but what effects the historians as well like context and purpose. like for eg i talked about national histories by ranke and abraham that were being used to promote national pride while historians such as Bede was like a propaganda for the church in the writing of his 'christian history', writing 'god work'. Wrote 12 pages overall...bout 9-10 words a line.
Q2 was a challenging one but was pretty decent overall. it should seperate those that know what they're doin and those that are gettin an easy internal mark free ride. basically i adapted how historians use the sources available to them and how it effects the history they write and ultimatly creates the debates that come from their histories. I did appeasement so it was pretty easy to adapt to the debates on hitler and the significance of the agreement at munich between Taylor and Watt. Wrote 11 pages
Overall pretty happy with how it went and just glad the hsc is finally over