MedVision ad

General Thoughts: History Extension (2 Viewers)

Lina3

Lina3

Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
507
Gender
Female
HSC
2013
Amaranth95 said:
I loved my timetable, only challenge was the first week tbh.



No sadly, I've got Biology on the fourth :(
Click to expand...

Aww, strange how they put the sciences on so late. Usually it's like English, English, Maths, Sciences and then Humanities/Arts. Oh well good to have the histories done with, if we had to end with an exam like Ancient *shudder*.
 
Amaranth_

Amaranth_

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,033
Location
The Moon
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Lina3 said:
Aww, strange how they put the sciences on so late. Usually it's like English, English, Maths, Sciences and then Humanities/Arts. Oh well good to have the histories done with, if we had to end with an exam like Ancient *shudder*.
Click to expand...
It was more strange how they didn't give us a gap between English Paper 1 and 2. I reckon the band 6 cut off will be low so we should be good. :D
 
G

gee-dee-enn95

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
40
Location
Somewhere in Sydney
Gender
Female
HSC
2013
I generally thought the exam was do-able.

Question 1 was a bit weird, but hopefully I've answered it sufficiently. Source was too wordy for my liking, but what can you do? I didn't answer it in the same way as anyone else here, not sure if that's good or not. Discussed how historians are "disciplined" by the conventions and attitudes of their context in their construction of history, which affects their historical purpose and the sources that they use. Then, in posing answers to the "uncertainties" of historical debates, historians draw upon such conventions and attitudes to put forth what they "imagine" to be the most plausible explanation, when contrasted with other differing interpretations/methodologies, is revealed as a work of the historian's imagination. A lot less confusing then it sounds!!!
I mentioned Bede/Gibbon, History Wars and the rise of technology in history (with a focus on Assassins Creed). I wrote 9 pages, I was going to write about Herodotus and Thucydides as well but I was short on time and needed to move on to Question 2!

Question 2 was beautiful. It worked brilliantly for JFK and for the historians I'd studied. The source was very easy to integrate, and the question was pretty open-ended. My overall thesis was that historical interpretations within the debate are products of the historian's context, as evident through the historian's purpose and methodology. I mentioned Schlesinger, Sorensen, Chomsky and Virtual JFK.

I'm sad to see this subject go...I don't know what to do with my life anymore!
 
V

vanster12

New Member
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
13
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
Question 1's question wasn't bad.. it was just worded funny lol. The source was not particularly useful because it aligned so well with relativist thought that there wasn't really much to argue if you are in that category. So for the most part of source integration, it was just using it to support the ideas I explored with other historians. I did three paragraphs: The talk about post modernism (Herodotus + Jenkins) and I used the metaphor of tennis and 'on the edge' play causing responses (i.e. Post modernist works sparking debate/historical scrutiny) ; had a paragraph about the political purpose of history mainly for didactic/moral reasons (used Tacitus + Evans and brought in feminist historiography) ; and lastly had a paragraph on relativism vs empericism using Elton and Carr. Question two was perfect, like seriously... Just memorised a response the day before and spat it out. No real need to mould it except for the Stem integration because in any case, I talk about context anyways. Wrote 19 pages in total, and although I had like 10-15mins to spare I was just rambling on about the same crap (I did question 1 last) .. :p
 
V

vanster12

New Member
Joined
May 19, 2012
Messages
13
Gender
Male
HSC
2013
gee-dee-enn95 said:
I generally thought the exam was do-able.

Question 1 was a bit weird, but hopefully I've answered it sufficiently. Source was too wordy for my liking, but what can you do? I didn't answer it in the same way as anyone else here, not sure if that's good or not. Discussed how historians are "disciplined" by the conventions and attitudes of their context in their construction of history, which affects their historical purpose and the sources that they use. Then, in posing answers to the "uncertainties" of historical debates, historians draw upon such conventions and attitudes to put forth what they "imagine" to be the most plausible explanation, when contrasted with other differing interpretations/methodologies, is revealed as a work of the historian's imagination. A lot less confusing then it sounds!!!
I mentioned Bede/Gibbon, History Wars and the rise of technology in history (with a focus on Assassins Creed). I wrote 9 pages, I was going to write about Herodotus and Thucydides as well but I was short on time and needed to move on to Question 2!

Question 2 was beautiful. It worked brilliantly for JFK and for the historians I'd studied. The source was very easy to integrate, and the question was pretty open-ended. My overall thesis was that historical interpretations within the debate are products of the historian's context, as evident through the historian's purpose and methodology. I mentioned Schlesinger, Sorensen, Chomsky and Virtual JFK.

I'm sad to see this subject go...I don't know what to do with my life anymore!
Click to expand...
Was a hectic paper but agreed, source was odd lol. I don't know how you enjoy this subject though :( I like it and it sparks thought and is somewhat interesting but it's sort of dull :p Just my opinion (I'm sort of utilitarian and so, although I do the histories, still don't find it too useful for life - except for critical thought/greater awareness of humanity lol)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top