I loved my timetable, only challenge was the first week tbh.
No sadly, I've got Biology on the fourth
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.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*.
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 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)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!