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

[reggina_calcio]

I know its a stupid question..and teachers (especially modern) make way differently accross the state...but does anyone know roughly what mark would give what?

Say a raw mark of 75 would to..?? 80..etc...

 

[Silver Persian]

I think thats a pretty impossible question to answer - like you said, we dont know what standard will equal what raw mark will equal what aligned mark

I think the better way to judge your performance in to guess where you came in the state...I think the top 10% were in band six last year... or the year before.

 

[reggina_calcio]

YeahI know...I'm so desperate!I Need answers!

Well..judging by how i went i'd say maybe the 5th or 6 th highest exam mark out of 22...but i dont kno whow my school compares with the state...i'll be conservative and say ~ top 35%...SAM says thats 81 / 82 in 2003...UAIseek0405 says about the same.

 

[zelba]

Aligned Marks

Yeah I really wan to know what raw marks will align to as well

Does anyone know what raw mark you needed in 2004 to get over 90?

 

[a8o]

It was a very easy paper this year, so expect a higher standard,.

 

[stv_87]

german section not easy
teachers refer to totalitarian aaas the hardest question applicable and the conservatives dot point is buried deep beneath the why did weimar fail and rise of hitler. needed to know a lot and understanding of either period.

 

[_dhj_]

Yeah they both seemed analysis questions to me, which is favourable for more capable students. Those who visit the forums tend to be near the front of the bell-curve.

 

[a8o]

I say the papers were easier mainly because everybody I spoke to after the exam seemed thrilled with how they went.

 

[kouklitsa]

the paper, in comparison to previous years, was probably either the same level or slightly harder in my opinion.. loooking back at the past years' questions for the sections i did they were quite alot easier and maybe not so intricate as this years ones.. like Cold War.... that second question is only about the "groups" that are supposed to be mentioned peripherally. also, even the other question took a fair bit of knowledge as opposed to last years "ideological" question... thus this year was more in depth
and germany's conservative party question.. seen it before but yeh its harder than a straight out why did the weimar republic fail.
ww1 was fair though but you can hardly say it was easy. maybe in comparison to trials it was easy (i know thats basically the case for me) but its not easier than other years

 

[myer]

agree that the average will be high. how much does ur use of historiography help increase ur mark? i used 15 quotes throughout the exam, but not sure if it will really help boost my mark

 

[johnny_87]

No offence, but I don't think using historiography should "assist" a mark. If you are writing down the right ideas from the right authors, synthesising it and writing in a sophisticated manner, you should be able to score a high band 6.

 

[crossmyheart]

the questions may have been harder for some elective then others... do markers consider this or what?

 

[johnny_87]

Crossmyheart - What electives were harder? I'm sure that is considered.

On that topic, I'm sure that the rare electives could be slightly favoured. My class did Japan (less than 1% [or 100] students do this) and Kita Ikki (I think we were the ONLY class in the state to do it). There are absolutely no articles on the internet in relation to this. Our teacher had to scan books from historians for it. If we did the elective well, we could be looked on favourably. The same goes for any other rare electives.

 

[crossmyheart]

im not sure, just a hypothetical

 

[Meads]

agree that the average will be high. how much does ur use of historiography help increase ur mark? i used 15 quotes throughout the exam, but not sure if it will really help boost my mark

Quoting is NOT historiography! I wish your teachers told you this. Historiography is the history of history, ie studying the history of history, ie studying the historian. So basically a comparison/use/citation of DIFFERENT sources/historians and linking them together IS historiography. Quotes are not neccessary.

Sorry for the abruptness.

 

[kouklitsa]

Quoting is NOT historiography! I wish your teachers told you this. Historiography is the history of history, ie studying the history of history, ie studying the historian. So basically a comparison/use/citation of DIFFERENT sources/historians and linking them together IS historiography. Quotes are not neccessary.

Sorry for the abruptness.

finally someone who understands it!!.. ive been trying to tell people i know for a while that it isnt using quotes from the time, rather about giving historians opinions particularly contrasting ones.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

finally someone who understands it!!.. ive been trying to tell people i know for a while that it isnt using quotes from the time, rather about giving historians opinions particularly contrasting ones.

However, it would be wise to mention the name of a school of thought or a certain Historian. Quoting saves time. This is a token HSC people.

 

[fleepbasding]

However, it would be wise to mention the name of a school of thought or a certain Historian. Quoting saves time. This is a token HSC people.

agreed. and there is a point to using direct quotation, from people at the time or historians- it's called proof. It show's that you're not just making shit up. And it's impressive.

 

[Meads]

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.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

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.

Quoting saves having to talk about the historiographical opinion in your own infinitely inferiour terms. I'm sure fleep meant in quoting as proof in order to back up your evaluation/argument with something substantial. It saves time aswell if your succinct in your own analysis and you quote.