Raw mark of x should give....? (1 Viewer)

[fleepbasding]

I'm sorry but in Modern History quoting is not impressive, it is useless. Understanding is impressive, showing that you understand and can synthesise what a historian is saying, especially in comparison to what other historians say. You obviously need to state who the historian is, and the name of his/her text is also handy.

Quoting does not prove its not bullshit, trying to quote leads to making up bullshit.

which leads to fooling the examiner into thinking you are correct.

 

[kouklitsa]

welll ill agree with the people who are saying quoting adds credibility... i like to quote historians but wat is quite useless is say... quoting someone from the time who isnt a source, just for the sake of it and saying thats historiography..

but yeh quoting means something. my teacher doesnt mark hsc anymore, but he used to... he says that naming a recognised school of historians is good but a quote from them and then contrasting that to another quote from another specific historian is what would get you extremely good marks.

keeping that in mind, i saw exemplar band 6s from last year without an ounce of historiography so i have no idea anymore =s

 

[Crazy Pomo]

which leads to fooling the examiner into thinking you are correct.

Yes. Exactly. They're only modern history teachers. Not historians. The fact of the matter is you can go awesomely either way and everyone does historiography differently. Don't be pissed just cause you hate people that quote historians and learn by ROTE and don't know what they are talking about. We are not those people.

 

[sarahn]

here's my two cents worth on the quote or not quote debate...

our teacher (who has a PhD) told us not to learn quotes, to go more for the historiography and conflicting opinions....like the intentionalist vs structuralist debates for the germany option....im in agreeance with meads on this one

anyway, i thought i was a fair exam, i hope everyone did well!

 

[illmatic]

i quoted , and im glad i did, but i also knew my shit

 

[Crazy Pomo]

here's my two cents worth on the quote or not quote debate...

our teacher (who has a PhD) told us not to learn quotes, to go more for the historiography and conflicting opinions....like the intentionalist vs structuralist debates for the germany option....im in agreeance with meads on this one

anyway, i thought i was a fair exam, i hope everyone did well!

Absolutely! Not denying that! But giving a two or three word quote (or more, but sometimes that is all it takes) gives specific proof of that historiographical standing point. And also, not all intentionalists are the same, just as structuralists aren't, and there are also pluralists people. Each historian differs, sometimes slightly sometimes wildly, and a quote illuminates that, and if it helps your evaluation, what the hells wrong with that. Naturally the best thing to do is set historiography against one another, and come out the other end with something new. Definately a fair exam for all my options (Germany/Cold War)

 

[Meads]

I dont hate quoters, i just find it concerning when so many ppl get upset they didn't quote. The point i was trying 2 make was, that quoting is not historigophy, but hey, it does not hurt. Comparison = historiography = important.

PS - yes its 3 am, but ive been out enjoying the end of my HSC. So im smashed & cant sleep. lol.

 

[chin music]

I know modern history usually gets scaled up a bit. But does anyone know if some topics get scaled up more then others. Like if the average mark for Germany was like 12/20 and the average mark for say china was like 15/20, then would germany get scaled?

 

[Cityboy]

Hisroriography is not important in a 2 unit modern essay. Discussing the differing views of historical schools over certain events is not required in the 2 unit course. This is what is covered in History extension. Putting historiography into a 2 unit essay only wastes your time, and also if historiography is included you are effectively limiting you time to discuss what the question has asked.

The questions for modern never say discuss the differing views on the events, and if any of you had cared to look at the exemplar answers you would have seen that none of the band 5/6 responses used historiography. The marking guide for modern history also does not contain any mention of historiography as the main focus of this course is not historiography but rather knowledge of events. For modern the events should be taken as being historical fact and thus should not need to be debated.

In my opinion the inclusion of historiography in a 2 unit essay limits time to discuss the real issues of the question. The inclusion of valid and relevant knowledge about the time period is far more important than historiography in the 2 unit course. The furthest i believe that the 2 unit students need to delve into historians and their views is by using a few quotes from hisotrians or historical figures to support their argument and show a greater in depth knowledge of the events.

 

[fleepbasding]

Hisroriography is not important in a 2 unit modern essay. Discussing the differing views of historical schools over certain events is not required in the 2 unit course. This is what is covered in History extension. Putting historiography into a 2 unit essay only wastes your time, and also if historiography is included you are effectively limiting you time to discuss what the question has asked.

The questions for modern never say discuss the differing views on the events, and if any of you had cared to look at the exemplar answers you would have seen that none of the band 5/6 responses used historiography. The marking guide for modern history also does not contain any mention of historiography as the main focus of this course is not historiography but rather knowledge of events. For modern the events should be taken as being historical fact and thus should not need to be debated.

In my opinion the inclusion of historiography in a 2 unit essay limits time to discuss the real issues of the question. The inclusion of valid and relevant knowledge about the time period is far more important than historiography in the 2 unit course. The furthest i believe that the 2 unit students need to delve into historians and their views is by using a few quotes from hisotrians or historical figures to support their argument and show a greater in depth knowledge of the events.

I'm sorry, but that post is very untrue. The band 5/6 responses I've read from 2003 standards package contain quite a lot of historiography to support/elucidate their points (for the national study). As intelligent history students, we are expected to understand the problems of historical knowledge and the differing perspectives offered. We can’t just ignore historiographical issues/historical debates relating to our topics, and place blind faith in the “historical facts” that you purport to exist. It is one of the dot-points in the syllabus for every topic:

significant historiographical issues in relation to a study of World War I and its aftermath 1914–1921
• the variety of primary and secondary sources available for the study of
World War I and its aftermath 1914–1921
• the usefulness and reliability of the sources for investigating the study
• recognition of the different perspectives and interpretations offered by the sources

4. Significant historiographical issues in relation to a study of Germany
1918–1945
• the variety of primary and secondary sources available for the study of Germany
1918–1945
• the usefulness and reliability of the sources for investigating the national study
• recognition of the different perspectives and interpretations offered by the sources

4. Significant historiographical issues in relation to the study of the Cold War 1945–1991
• the variety of primary and secondary sources available for the study of the Cold War 1945–1991
• the usefulness and reliability of the sources for investigating the study
• recognition of the different perspectives and interpretations offered by the sources

And again in the notes from the marking centre for 2004:

{on responses to the “international studies in peace and conflict”}… “Better responses also used historiography in their argument and were able to benefit from this.”

So you are comprehensively wrong and misleading. I suggest you concede that historiography is enshrined in the syllabus, evident in a number of standards package band 5/6 responses, and has been praised in the notes from the marking centre.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

Hisroriography is not important in a 2 unit modern essay. Discussing the differing views of historical schools over certain events is not required in the 2 unit course. This is what is covered in History extension. Putting historiography into a 2 unit essay only wastes your time, and also if historiography is included you are effectively limiting you time to discuss what the question has asked.

The questions for modern never say discuss the differing views on the events, and if any of you had cared to look at the exemplar answers you would have seen that none of the band 5/6 responses used historiography. The marking guide for modern history also does not contain any mention of historiography as the main focus of this course is not historiography but rather knowledge of events. For modern the events should be taken as being historical fact and thus should not need to be debated.

In my opinion the inclusion of historiography in a 2 unit essay limits time to discuss the real issues of the question. The inclusion of valid and relevant knowledge about the time period is far more important than historiography in the 2 unit course. The furthest i believe that the 2 unit students need to delve into historians and their views is by using a few quotes from hisotrians or historical figures to support their argument and show a greater in depth knowledge of the events.

You, my friend, are completely and utterly wrong and fleepbasding proves you so.

Some exemplars in the 5/6 bands don't contain historiography. However, allmost all the band 6 exemplars contain some form of historiography. Not only are you wrong, you are delusional. It is not neccessary for an answer to be teeming with historiography, but it is certainly to ones advantage to employ it.

 

[chin music]

Ye i know. You definately need historians to refer to in any essay. The use of historians to support your argument and to refute historians that disagree with your argument is essential. Its possible to get 20/20 without the use of historians but itd be hell hard

 

[jackal8]

Hisroriography is not important in a 2 unit modern essay. Discussing the differing views of historical schools over certain events is not required in the 2 unit course. This is what is covered in History extension. Putting historiography into a 2 unit essay only wastes your time, and also if historiography is included you are effectively limiting you time to discuss what the question has asked.

The questions for modern never say discuss the differing views on the events, and if any of you had cared to look at the exemplar answers you would have seen that none of the band 5/6 responses used historiography. The marking guide for modern history also does not contain any mention of historiography as the main focus of this course is not historiography but rather knowledge of events. For modern the events should be taken as being historical fact and thus should not need to be debated.

In my opinion the inclusion of historiography in a 2 unit essay limits time to discuss the real issues of the question. The inclusion of valid and relevant knowledge about the time period is far more important than historiography in the 2 unit course. The furthest i believe that the 2 unit students need to delve into historians and their views is by using a few quotes from hisotrians or historical figures to support their argument and show a greater in depth knowledge of the events.

you are a complete and utter Bull Sh!+ Artist.
you speak as if you know all about whether or nto to use quotes.
yet, in actual fact you dont have a clue.

 

[crossmyheart]

cityboy is now regretting not using historiography

 

[Crazy Pomo]

cityboy is now regretting not using historiography

If I wanted to, I would say 'Cityboy is an ignorant, arrogant, unlearned, narrow historian, scholar and human being,' but I wouldn't want to say that because I wouldn't want to credit him with the acknowledgement.

 

[c_james]

While it is completely true that historiography is, under most circumstances, essential, what is even more important than its use is putting forward an argument and thesis. For example, in regards to totalitarianism, some evaluation of Germany's status as a totalitarian state must be made, not simply a regurgitation of historians' viewpoints and ideas.

Thing is, if you do this well enough, you needn't use historiography at all (granted, this is a VERY risky approach, one I'd never take myself). For example, I saw an examplar Indochina essay which made no use of historiography whatsoever, but the argument it put forward was so articulate and well-supported by events and dates that the examiners deemed it worthy of full marks.

So yes, kiddies, learn your quotes, but don't become a Modern History drone.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

While it is completely true that historiography is, under most circumstances, essential, what is even more important than its use is putting forward an argument and thesis. For example, in regards to totalitarianism, some evaluation of Germany's status as a totalitarian state must be made, not simply a regurgitation of historians' viewpoints and ideas.

Thing is, if you do this well enough, you needn't use historiography at all (granted, this is a VERY risky approach, one I'd never take myself). For example, I saw an examplar Indochina essay which made no use of historiography whatsoever, but the argument it put forward was so articulate and well-supported by events and dates that the examiners deemed it worthy of full marks.

So yes, kiddies, learn your quotes, but don't become a Modern History drone.

Yeah, it's no fun not having a stance anyway. Of course what is more important (given the question) is that you answer it, and fulfilling whatever that may entail. I (think) I did more evaluating that quoting, but I definately used Historiography to substanciate my evaluations.

Hey c_james, did you evaluate that (basically) it was or it wasn't a totalitarian society?

 

[c_james]

Yeah, it's no fun not having a stance anyway. Of course what is more important (given the question) is that you answer it, and fulfilling whatever that may entail. I (think) I did more evaluating that quoting, but I definately used Historiography to substanciate my evaluations.

Hey c_james, did you evaluate that (basically) it was or it wasn't a totalitarian society?

I concluded that German society was superficially totalitarian up to 1945, but was, from within, actually a morass unworthy of being classified totalitarian. Our good friend Kershaw supported my conclusion .

 

[fleepbasding]

I concluded that German society was superficially totalitarian up to 1945, but was, from within, actually a morass unworthy of being classified totalitarian. Our good friend Kershaw supported my conclusion .

Don't you think it becomes a little semantic with the argument against Nazi Germany being totalitarian? Like really, dictatorships don't come much more powerful and all pervasive as Nazi Germany. And "morass" (damn you Geyer!) seems like one hell of an exaguration to me. The origins of the term (totalitarian) and the reasons for it's implementation and usage largely undermine it's merit as a historical descriptor. Sure, to label Nazi Germany as totalitarian is somewhat of a generalization, in so far as it may seem to ignore the so-called "inner workings and structure" of the state, but what historical descriptor doesn't? As E.H. Carr points out, as historians we will always be generalizing- it is in the very nature of language. For example, we call certain events in history "revolutions", despite the very different and unique nature and circumstances of each individual "revolution". Likewise, I think we can label Nazi Germany "totalitarian" (perhaps a less ideologically rooted word would be better) and at the same time, recognize the unique and less totalitarian features of the state. This is afterall what good historians do, make complex generalisations. If we let our useful generalisations, like totalitarian, be undermined by historians desperate to show that Nazi Germany was such a damned phenomenom that cannot be aligned to any other historical event/situation, then things become very boring and fruitless.

As to your previous post, yes I agree. Obviously a balance is necessary and historiography shouldn't gain primacy in the modern history. It also shouldn't be used as an intellectually lazy attempt to evade having a strong, original argument. My post was directed mainly at 'city boy', with the main purpose of proving to him that historiography does have a place in HSC modern history, even if it is (as it should be) secondary to factual information and events from the time period.

EDIT- by the way, if it isn't clear I argued that Germany was largely totalitarian state. Unfortunately I focused more on state than society, but if anyhthing, society was even moreso totalitarian than state (although it's naturally difficult to seperate the two).

 

[c_james]

Don't you think it becomes a little semantic with the argument against Nazi Germany being totalitarian? Like really, dictatorships don't come much more powerful and all pervasive as Nazi Germany. And "morass" (damn you Geyer!) seems like one hell of an exaguration to me. The origins of the term (totalitarian) and the reasons for it's implementation and usage largely undermine it's merit as a historical descriptor. Sure, to label Nazi Germany as totalitarian is somewhat of a generalization, in so far as it may seem to ignore the so-called "inner workings and structure" of the state, but what historical descriptor doesn't? As E.H. Carr points out, as historians we will always be generalizing- it is in the very nature of language. For example, we call certain events in history "revolutions", despite the very different and unique nature and circumstances of each individual "revolution". Likewise, I think we can label Nazi Germany "totalitarian" (perhaps a less ideologically rooted word would be better) and at the same time, recognize the unique and less totalitarian features of the state. This is afterall what good historians do, make complex generalisations. If we let our useful generalisations, like totalitarian, be undermined by historians desperate to show that Nazi Germany was such a damned phenomenom that cannot be aligned to any other historical event/situation, then things become very boring and fruitless.

As to your previous post, yes I agree. Obviously a balance is necessary and historiography shouldn't gain primacy in the modern history. It also shouldn't be used as an intellectually lazy attempt to evade having a strong, original argument. My post was directed mainly at 'city boy', with the main purpose of proving to him that historiography does have a place in HSC modern history, even if it is (as it should be) secondary to factual information and events from the time period.

True, but to argue as such in a Modern History essay would make it sound, in my opinion, more like an Extension History essay (the subject for which I usually save such profound ideas). So yes, while I agree that the idea of calling Nazi Germany totalitarian being anathema is quite trite and hackneyed, and that generalisations are all well and good (the 1918 'revolution' in Germany, for example, was anything but), it still forms the best basis for a totalitarianism essay in the 2 unit course.