What you expected? (1 Viewer)

[chantellet]

What did everyone think? Was it harder than you expected? Easier? Or was it basically what you thought?

 

[Fungrys]

I thought it was an alright test. I was expecting something the same as the other years, but it wasnt too bad...

I got a bit thrown off at first looking at the question... but I done a bit of a plan, jotted down some notes, and went from there... Bascially they had just rephrased the question.

I'm done now anyway!!

 

[callisto]

yeah the test was pretty good, could have been better I suppose but it could also have been a lot worse. haha, I think half of my class fell asleep during the exam, everyone is so overwoked...damn you HSC!!

 

[chantellet]

It was pretty much what I had expected it to be.. The Source wasn't too difficult to grasp and the question was nothing out of the blue. The Q2 kinda threw me off a bit, but I think I did alright once I figured out what I was going to do

 

[Craig]

I thought it was a very fair paper. The source was very accessible, something which is always good. The only real difficulty was in the second section, as the quote they provided was sometimes hard to link to your response. Apart from that I thought it was an excellent paper, however they always tend to mark quite harshly for this subject.

 

[kelboo]

Unfortunately it is the fact that they do mark everyone so harshly for this subject that it'll cause the downfall of many a smart little chookey

 

[LadyBec]

it was harder then i expected. The first question was fine, but i had no idea on the second, and i didnt really study that angle of it.

 

[pukkatukka]

i thought it was pretty damn good :uhhuh: .. the second question work well for the JFK case study..
how many/which historians did everyone use?
for the first one i did
carr/elton debate
herodotus
bede
von ranke
for the second, my case study was JFK i did
sorenson and reeves for berlin and cuba...

 

[*rinney*]

yeah i reckon it was a fair paper but the source was a bit gay i reckon

i talked about the approaches of different schools and their respective historians:
- ancient/classical (thucydides and herodotus)
- relativist (commager, becker, croce)
- empiricist (von ranke)
- post-modernist (jenkins) and i tied the source in w postmodernist cuz i interpreted the source to be saying that history has kinda lost its meaning and the facts have been lost etc etc

how did everyone else incorporate that source into their answer? did u constantly refer to it or just spend a paragraph or so on it?

 

[The Nick]

I told you it would relate to the History Wars. The conflict with the metanarrative, and history being run by the press and "self-appointed polemicists" (a way to mention Windschuttle without naming him), well yeah I told you so

 

[senso]

i thought it was a bit better than what i expected, because they didn't specify the amount of historians or areas of debate. But not by far.
I mean for two simple essay questions it can't vary very much anyway

 

[silvermoon]

i didnt really like the source for the first question - maybe if id studied for the test i may have...but meh. i luved q2 though: worked really well for appeasement, which was a godsend.

 

[scruffy012]

yeah it was what i was expecrting, rather the ssame as the past years, q1 was alright i wrote 6 pages (well its better than my case study that was 5)

well it was alright

scruffy

 

[nessie_lee]

yeah it was a pretty fair test.... i just didn't come up with the goods! oops! hehe.

 

[charlie_charlie]

Unfortunately it is the fact that they do mark everyone so harshly for this subject that it'll cause the downfall of many a smart little chookey

But doesn't it scale well? Or considered a 'hard subject' - which I thought it was!

Yeah, i thought it was as I expected, but I just didnt deliver!