gambling on particular questions... (1 Viewer)

[apollo]

gidday, i've posted something along these lines elsewhere, but it really applies to ancient history more than anything else, so i figured i should ask it here...

is anyone trying to predict questions for their topics this year? like, for the greek world 500-440bc... the last 2 years out of the personalities in the period, they've done cimon and themistocles... so logically this year you could forget studying those 2 and study the others like ephialtes, miltiades, aristides, etc.

this is the thinking of a lot of my class mates, but i'm sceptical, and not following it - best 2 know everything imho.

thoughts?

 

[SmokedSalmon]

I think that if you have the time to learn everything then do so. But if you can't then I guess you can go with that gut instinct.

 

[FunkmistrssDina]

It's a good bet but you never know... They could always spring a simlar question with a different emphasis.
I'm placing my bets (and study) on certain topics as well...

By the way, what does the H stand for in 'In My H? Opinion'? Or is it something completely different?

 

[apollo]

in my humble opinion, funkmistrssdina

 

[Belle]

I'm wondering the same thing apollo...

In the NK Egypt section that we studied the last two years have had an essay q. on Ramesses II - building in 2001 and military in 2002 I think.

Chances are they won't do it again (there isn't much else you can write about on him) but I don't know whether to study it just in case or not!

It's a hard call, but I think better to be safe than sorry... although I'm studying everything else considerably more than Ramesses

 

[mememe]

I know a lot of people would tell you "know everything in the syllabus well, you MUST know everything" but when it comes down to it, i physically don't have the time left. It's my own fault of corse for not doing enough work during the year, but i can't take that back, so all i can do is study smart in the little time i have left.

I went through my ancient topics syllabus' and in lead pencil crossed out the dot points they'd already asked questions on in 2001 and 2002. So now as i'm writing up my notes and learning things, i know if a dot point has been asked in the past, not to waste my time learning it and just go over it briefly so i would know enough to scrape through. but if a dot point hasn't been asked, i do far more detailed notes and learn quotes etc.

It may be risky, but it's a matter of necessity, with so little time left to study.

 

[vivien]

im thinking greek world they've pretty my got the option of persian wars, delian league or athenian democracy to focus a question on. my teacher recomends that u try and avoid athenian democracy like the plague unless you understand it THOROUGHLY!!! harder to answer and get in the top band apparently!! and as for personalities my teachers hint is that u wont be asked about a Persian leader in a section entitled The Greek world because they are too out of focus... also when ur looking at the personalities focus on the ones u could incorporate into an essay eg; leonidas bites it at Thermopylae so you cant really write 40 minutes worth on him. Look at the big guns!! Also with reference to historiography if you looked at the exemplars for the greek world you'll see that there were HARDLY ANY direct quotes, there was just a lot of "name dropping" eg; As herodotus tells us the greek forces at bla bla bla were bla bla bla. No need for extensive direct quoting, just get the jist. anyways i dont know if this works for u guys but it works faaaaaaaaantastically for me
goodluck everyone

 

[dothelimbokimbo]

Originally posted by vivien
im thinking greek world they've pretty my got the option of persian wars, delian league or athenian democracy to focus a question on. my teacher recomends that u try and avoid athenian democracy like the plague unless you understand it THOROUGHLY!!! harder to answer and get in the top band apparently!! and as for personalities my teachers hint is that u wont be asked about a Persian leader in a section entitled The Greek world because they are too out of focus... also when ur looking at the personalities focus on the ones u could incorporate into an essay eg; leonidas bites it at Thermopylae so you cant really write 40 minutes worth on him. Look at the big guns!! Also with reference to historiography if you looked at the exemplars for the greek world you'll see that there were HARDLY ANY direct quotes, there was just a lot of "name dropping" eg; As herodotus tells us the greek forces at bla bla bla were bla bla bla. No need for extensive direct quoting, just get the jist. anyways i dont know if this works for u guys but it works faaaaaaaaantastically for me
goodluck everyone

just and addd... also study the peleponnesian league they asked about it in 2001 but not last year, and there's a really good chance it will come up
there's not a lot on the origins except in de croix

 

[ssssonicyouth]

exemplars are the bare minimum for a 20. Those ones that don't use direct quotes tread a very fine line. I think that it can't hurt putting in a couple of nice quotes that aren't in bradley. People from the advice line say quotes r good too. Did you consider that they chose the one exemplar WITHOUT any direct quotes so that people wouldn't steal them in this year's exam?

In modern, some people i know found these really nice quotes only to find them in exemplars, so maybe the ancient people were trying to avoid that?