ATAR Notes: Forum
HSC Stuff => HSC Humanities Stuff => HSC Subjects + Help => HSC History => Topic started by: fantasticbeasts3 on July 19, 2017, 08:07:33 pm
-
a bit of a debate happened at school a while ago... let's see what happens ???
-
Ancient all the way.
-
a bit of a debate happened at school a while ago... let's see what happens ???
I only do Ancient .... so I guess Ancient. Except I think that if I did modern I would have liked it as well. :)
-
a bit of a debate happened at school a while ago... let's see what happens ???
oooooo v controversial ;) Though as the lecturer for both I should probably remain impartial...
Modern was and always will be my baby <3
Still adore Ancient though, and don't regret for a second doing it alongside both Modern and Extension :) And I definitely think that the ancient exam is a lot more accessible as well (not easier - but accessible), which I think modern could take a few pointers from :)
If there are any year 10's viewing this thread, considering studying both - I highly recommend it (and then add extension to boot in year 12 ;) )
-
Ancient all the way.
I only do Ancient .... so I guess Ancient. Except I think that if I did modern I would have liked it as well. :)
i only do modern, but i do like a bit of ancient history as well. my loyalty lies with modern though.
-
oooooo v controversial ;) Though as the lecturer for both I should probably remain impartial...
Modern was and always will be my baby <3
Still adore Ancient though, and don't regret for a second doing it alongside both Modern and Extension :) And I definitely think that the ancient exam is a lot more accessible as well (not easier - but accessible), which I think modern could take a few pointers from :)
If there are any year 10's viewing this thread, considering studying both - I highly recommend it (and then add extension to boot in year 12 ;) )
Yeah, I would definitely recommend extension as well-by far one of my favourite subjects. I actually was given both histories (modern/ancient) when I got my subject selections and ended up changing modern because I thought it would be too much history. Which I kinda ended up regretting.
-
Yeah, I would definitely recommend extension as well-by far one of my favourite subjects. I actually was given both histories (modern/ancient) when I got my subject selections and ended up changing modern because I thought it would be too much history. Which I kinda ended up regretting.
ahahaha definitely a common misconception - I never felt like I was doing too much. Yes, part of that is going to be because I just love history anyway, but also I found that all three were just so different, not just in terms of content but also structure, that I didn't feel like I was repeating myself. The best day of my timetable by far last year - free period in the morning followed by double Ancient, then double Modern, then double Drama, then history extension after school :D
I think that no matter what side of the camp we lie - we can all agree that History > Geography any day o' the week ;) 8)
-
Yeah, I would definitely recommend extension as well-by far one of my favourite subjects. I actually was given both histories (modern/ancient) when I got my subject selections and ended up changing modern because I thought it would be too much history. Which I kinda ended up regretting.
history extension is the best extension out there (i did extension maths in prelim, that didn't go too well). the major didn't pan out well for me and the exam timetables for trials and hsc so i ended up dropping - and that was probably the best decision for me.
you can't go wrong with history!
-
I don't do ancient so I'm not exactly objective but I can't imagine getting as personally invested in Ancient. So much, if not most of modern is stuff that's in living memory. You can actually see the world we live in today reflected in it, and I think without such a direct connection I just can't image Ancient being on the same level
-
I think that no matter what side of the camp we lie - we can all agree that History > Geography any day o' the week ;) 8)
i know loads of people who dropped history for geography... get out, honestly. ;)
-
i know loads of people who dropped history for geography... get out, honestly. ;)
erase them from your life just like Stalin erased Trotsky from history!!!
-
ahahaha definitely a common misconception - I never felt like I was doing too much. Yes, part of that is going to be because I just love history anyway, but also I found that all three were just so different, not just in terms of content but also structure, that I didn't feel like I was repeating myself. The best day of my timetable by far last year - free period in the morning followed by double Ancient, then double Modern, then double Drama, then history extension after school :D
I think that no matter what side of the camp we lie - we can all agree that History > Geography any day o' the week ;) 8)
I hated geography with a passion in year 10. Couldn't wait to get rid of it.
-
I don't do ancient so I'm not exactly objective but I can't imagine getting as personally invested in Ancient. So much, if not most of modern is stuff that's in living memory. You can actually see the world we live in today reflected in it, and I think without such a direct connection I just can't image Ancient being on the same level
That's a good point, however my argument is that ancient educates you about the foundations of human history. Studying about events/personalities from such a long time ago gives you a better understanding of how human nature really doesn't change that much. For me personally it's developed my sense of awareness, when I see current world events unfolding I can compare them to the events I learn about in ancient which in some cases allows us to predict what might unfold in today's events.
Also I used to play a lot of ancient warfare video games back in the day..... (Rome Total war anyone?) so that may have corrupted my choice just a bit hahah :D
-
erase them from your life just like Stalin erased Trotsky from history!!!
susie, you're an absolute savage oh my goodness
-
I do both Ancient and Modern. They're both so different... I love parts of ancient more than modern but they can be too sciencey at times. But that being said, it's interesting to compare ancient societies to ours and modern can at times feel too recent, but it's also interesting to see how we have progressed as a society in a short time.
-
susie, you're an absolute savage oh my goodness
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3764/12018331804_b71fab4609_z.jpg)
^^me
-
As a humanities person, I find that modern history overlaps with a lot of my other subjects. The context of Metropolis and 1984 was so much easier to understand when we had Germany and Conflict in Europe as our options. Same goes for the failures of the League of Nations, which is basically a mirror to the United Nations, which we study for world order in legal. Although it's just a handful of connections, it means less time is spent trying to understand content, and the evidence that I memorise can be applied across subjects.
-
As a humanities person, I find that modern history overlaps with a lot of my other subjects. The context of Metropolis and 1984 was so much easier to understand when we had Germany and Conflict in Europe as our options. Same goes for the failures of the League of Nations, which is basically a mirror to the United Nations, which we study for world order in legal. Although it's just a handful of connections, it means less time is spent trying to understand content, and the evidence that I memorise can be applied across subjects.
So true. With Year 11 and 12 modern + extension 1 I've had a continuity from the foundation of the German Empire, to WW1, to Weimar Germany, to WW2, to cold war Germany. If I was doing German it'd be perfect
-
As a humanities person, I find that modern history overlaps with a lot of my other subjects. The context of Metropolis and 1984 was so much easier to understand when we had Germany and Conflict in Europe as our options. Same goes for the failures of the League of Nations, which is basically a mirror to the United Nations, which we study for world order in legal. Although it's just a handful of connections, it means less time is spent trying to understand content, and the evidence that I memorise can be applied across subjects.
Definitely very true, I felt that Modern helped a lot with English and economics! However I definitely felt this way with Ancient history as well, particularly during Studies of Religion! History Extension was the king though - that linked with Modern, English (especially Mod C), Drama and even a little bit of economics too! And if anyone does Society and Culture, I'm sure they'd work nicely together as well :)
-
Ancient is the best... you can learn so much and still not certain about everything.. I'm actually a science person and I never ever thought of doing ancient because I used to do it in junior years in my country and it was very very dry and boring but I dropped physics in the last minute to pick up ancient after I had a look at syllabus and I don't regret it
-
I honestly haven't even looked at the syllabus for ancient history - I just saw modern and picked it. I really like the content,(shame NESA is stopping Personality Studies though - guess I was lucky to be in the final cohort). For example it's fascinating that the American government keeps getting into foreign conflict despite the disaster that was Indochina. Not even counting dead peasants the ARVN embezzled something like $2 billion from US taxpayers and Johnson's social reforms were put off.
I digressed. What's so great about ancient content-wise? My blind assumption is that there'd be a lot of speculation about motives and facts due to a lack of primary sources but this is probably wrong.
-
I honestly haven't even looked at the syllabus for ancient history - I just saw modern and picked it. I really like the content,(shame NESA is stopping Personality Studies though - guess I was lucky to be in the final cohort). For example it's fascinating that the American government keeps getting into foreign conflict despite the disaster that was Indochina. Not even counting dead peasants the ARVN embezzled something like $2 billion from US taxpayers and Johnson's social reforms were put off.
I digressed. What's so great about ancient content-wise? My blind assumption is that there'd be a lot of speculation about motives and facts due to a lack of primary sources but this is probably wrong.
Honestly, I'm not gonna miss personality study hahaha
It just feels very unwieldy as a component of the syllabus to me. It doesn't test any skills that the other sections don't; depending on the personality it has nowhere near as much depth as the other sections; and tbh I don't see any unique educational benefit to it besides forcing students to analyse historiography and historical debate/interpretation, which is already implicitly in the course in topics 2 and 4 and could be made explicit by an extra sub heading to either of those.
-
I digressed. What's so great about ancient content-wise? My blind assumption is that there'd be a lot of speculation about motives and facts due to a lack of primary sources but this is probably wrong.
I just love ancient, but mainly studying the different societies of that time. I find it really cool to learn about how people way back in the past lived, and how it was so much different to us today.
My class is studying Pompeii, Sparta, the Julio Claudian period (the emperors Tiberius, Gaius/Caligula, Claudius and Nero) and Agrippina. With the evidence it depends on what topic your looking at. Pompeii has been all preserved so you have human bones, plaster casts, buildings pretty much everything in exactly the same condition it was in before the eruption. I know for the other topics there isn't lot of archeological sources during that time period so there is more speculation. In terms of Ancient writers, their are quite a few but many write 100's of years after the event.
-
An I'm actually a science person and I never ever thought of doing ancient
Haha same! I started in year 11 with engineering studies, then i dropped that since i was doing too much maths related subjects, and went to ancient, then i dropped ancient and went to business studies (honestly don't know why i did that) then i dropped business studies and went back to ancient....
So glad i went back to ancient and stayed best choice ever :D :D. But if I went back in time and told my year 10 self that I was doing both Ancient history and extension history! he probably wouldn't believe me.
Funny how what we think we won't enjoy sometimes ends up being the best :D
-
What's so great about ancient content-wise? My blind assumption is that there'd be a lot of speculation about motives and facts due to a lack of primary sources but this is probably wrong.
As a history extension student, I can tell you that that blind assumption is true - but that is also very much true for modern ;) With modern you run into the problem of collective memory, which is very easily shaped by the agendas of society that are still very much present today (take a look at the history of the Cold War for example, on both the American and the Soviet side!). That's not to say that in Ancient, sources aren't subjective - they most definitely are (all sources are!) - However (for the most part, not always), ancient history is not so much tied to the ideologies of the present, so it can be easier to detach oneself (still overall impossible though! Plus you further run into the problem of looking at ancient through a "modern lens", but I digress ;) ), at least imo :)
Honestly, I'm not gonna miss personality study hahaha
It just feels very unwieldy as a component of the syllabus to me. It doesn't test any skills that the other sections don't; depending on the personality it has nowhere near as much depth as the other sections; and tbh I don't see any unique educational benefit to it besides forcing students to analyse historiography and historical debate/interpretation, which is already implicitly in the course in topics 2 and 4 and could be made explicit by an extra sub heading to either of those.
Though the personality was my best section haha, I agree with you here, mainly because I am a staunch opponent of "Great Men History" or the "Top Down" approach - I feel like it is super reductionist to assert such a high degree of significance to one individual, which is what the unit, whether they planned to or not, conveys. However I did find Trotsky super interesting, so hoping at least he'll still feature a bit in the new Russian syllabus (not a massive fan - focuses way too much on Stalin imo).
I just love ancient, but mainly studying the different societies of that time. I find it really cool to learn about how people way back in the past lived, and how it was so much different to us today.
My class is studying Pompeii, Sparta, the Julio Claudian period (the emperors Tiberius, Gaius/Caligula, Claudius and Nero) and Agrippina. With the evidence it depends on what topic your looking at. Pompeii has been all preserved so you have human bones, plaster casts, buildings pretty much everything in exactly the same condition it was in before the eruption. I know for the other topics there isn't lot of archeological sources during that time period so there is more speculation. In terms of Ancient writers, their are quite a few but many write 100's of years after the event.
When we literally did all the same options for Ancient <3 Literally how interesting are the Julio-Claudians - definitely my favourite topic. Whose ya favourite Princeps? In terms of effectiveness - Claudius (though I do have a soft spot for good ol' Tibby - think he has been really harshly treated), in terms of most fun to learn about? Definitely Gaius (when he made his horse consul? literally what a meme lord)
Haha same! I started in year 11 with engineering studies, then i dropped that since i was doing too much maths related subjects, and went to ancient, then i dropped ancient and went to business studies (honestly don't know why i did that) then i dropped business studies and went back to ancient....
So glad i went back to ancient and stayed best choice ever :D :D. But if I went back in time and told my year 10 self that I was doing both Ancient history and extension history! he probably wouldn't believe me.
Funny how what we think we won't enjoy sometimes ends up being the best :D
They always come back ;) I was originally going to do Chemistry instead of Ancient until I found out we studied Pompeii, a historical issue I always found really fascinating (ended up enjoying the other sections even more!). Really makes me laugh though, considering how un-sciency I am as a person today!
-
Honestly, I'm not gonna miss personality study hahaha
It just feels very unwieldy as a component of the syllabus to me. It doesn't test any skills that the other sections don't; depending on the personality it has nowhere near as much depth as the other sections; and tbh I don't see any unique educational benefit to it besides forcing students to analyse historiography and historical debate/interpretation, which is already implicitly in the course in topics 2 and 4 and could be made explicit by an extra sub heading to either of those.
Yeah topics 2, 3 and 4 are very similar but I like that 3 focuses on a single person, it really compliments the national study if the person links in to that. It's interesting to focus on a character rather than a time period for some variety, that's my experience with Trotsky at least. I believe this is what the new syllabus will look like:
(http://i.imgur.com/3FAsOQQ.png)
First impression: looks generic af. These are the options for the changing modern world:
(http://i.imgur.com/me7Gdpu.png)
Seems to me like personalities is being replaced with something similar to conflict studies with a focus on politics and social reform. Without having looked at the syllabus in depth or done the content, I'd say I'd prefer to be doing a personality study.
-
When we literally did all the same options for Ancient <3 Literally how interesting are the Julio-Claudians - definitely my favourite topic. Whose ya favourite Princeps? In terms of effectiveness - Claudius (though I do have a soft spot for good ol' Tibby - think he has been really harshly treated), in terms of most fun to learn about? Definitely Gaius (when he made his horse consul? literally what a meme lord)
It's so cool how we did the same options! When we first started Julio Claudians I didn't think i'd like it as much as Pompeii or Sparta but by the end I've really loved it :) . In terms of effectiveness definitely Claudius but like you said I reckon Tiberius wasn't as bad as some of the Ancient sources made him out to be (In terms of treason trials he didn't actually do too many.) Fun to learn about either Gaius or Nero (my class had some jokes about his neck beard :D )
-
Though the personality was my best section haha, I agree with you here, mainly because I am a staunch opponent of "Great Men History" or the "Top Down" approach - I feel like it is super reductionist to assert such a high degree of significance to one individual, which is what the unit, whether they planned to or not, conveys.
This is just speculation but I feel like that's a hold over from how history was taught in the bad old days when history wasn't considered a social science with debate over why things were as much as how things were. If all history is to you is a story, then fixating on the contribution of a few major characters makes sense, because all engaging / morality reinforcing stories have protagonists. And if you're a Victorian gent who believes that the only people who are worth more than their labour are upper-class statesmen, only studying "movers and shakers" kinda fits that right
God I wish I did extension history :'(
Yeah topics 2, 3 and 4 are very similar but I like that 3 focuses on a single person, it really compliments the national study if the person links in to that. It's interesting to focus on a character rather than a time period for some variety, that's my experience with Trotsky at least. I believe this is what the new syllabus will look like:
(http://i.imgur.com/3FAsOQQ.png)
First impression: looks generic af. These are the options for the changing modern world:
(http://i.imgur.com/me7Gdpu.png)
Seems to me like personalities is being replaced with something similar to conflict studies with a focus on politics and social reform. Without having looked at the syllabus in depth or done the content, I'd say I'd prefer to be doing a personality study.
Hmm it sounds like its getting more towards the analytical side of history, which tbh I find more interesting than narrative. Don't get me wrong, I still find that side of history interesting, but as a school subject I'd rather do something debatable / interpretive. Different strokes for different folks I guess :)
-
As a history extension student, I can tell you that that blind assumption is true - but that is also very much true for modern ;) With modern you run into the problem of collective memory, which is very easily shaped by the agendas of society that are still very much present today (take a look at the history of the Cold War for example, on both the American and the Soviet side!). That's not to say that in Ancient, sources aren't subjective - they most definitely are (all sources are!) - However (for the most part, not always), ancient history is not so much tied to the ideologies of the present, so it can be easier to detach oneself (still overall impossible though! Plus you further run into the problem of looking at ancient through a "modern lens", but I digress ;) ), at least imo :)
Source analysis I've been looking at mostly seems to do a good job of considering the ideology of the author and how events are remembered more broadly (or forgotten like Chernobyl). My assumption was that with ancient a lot of it would rely on archaeological evidence rather than eyewitness accounts for example (depends how ancient we're talking about). Like there'd be thousands of Cold War sources from both sides that you could compare to come to some conclusion but most sources regarding ancient Egypt would be secondary (unless those rock carvings reveal everything). But there's plenty of people who love ancient so this probably isn't as big of an issue as I think it is.
-
It's so cool how we did the same options! When we first started Julio Claudians I didn't think i'd like it as much as Pompeii or Sparta but by the end I've really loved it :) . In terms of effectiveness definitely Claudius but like you said I reckon Tiberius wasn't as bad as some of the Ancient sources made him out to be (In terms of treason trials he didn't actually do too many.) Fun to learn about either Gaius or Nero (my class had some jokes about his neck beard :D )
what neckbeard?
(https://img.ifcdn.com/images/83b073a64f62b802e0143d9d1076edde122e917441a486b0f780c02454ab4848_1.jpg)
This is just speculation but I feel like that's a hold over from how history was taught in the bad old days when history wasn't considered a social science with debate over why things were as much as how things were. If all history is to you is a story, then fixating on the contribution of a few major characters makes sense, because all engaging / morality reinforcing stories have protagonists. And if you're a Victorian gent who believes that the only people who are worth more than their labour are upper-class statesmen, only studying "movers and shakers" kinda fits that right
God I wish I did extension history :'(
you would have LOVED history extension omg :( If you ever want to feel like you're studying it, feel free to pop by the history extension debating thread anytime ;)
Source analysis I've been looking at mostly seems to do a good job of considering the ideology of the author and how events are remembered more broadly (or forgotten like Chernobyl). My assumption was that with ancient a lot of it would rely on archaeological evidence rather than eyewitness accounts for example (depends how ancient we're talking about). Like there'd be thousands of Cold War sources from both sides that you could compare to come to some conclusion but most sources regarding ancient Egypt would be secondary (unless those rock carvings reveal everything). But there's plenty of people who love ancient so this probably isn't as big of an issue as I think it is.
Great point! You're definitely not wrong, it is definitely a problem that Ancient historians have to deal with a lot.
-
I do both and I can say - ancient is EASIER but less interesting
Modern is MUCCCH HARDER!!1 but more interesting.
Maybe its because 300 BC is so distant, and i cant really relate to the romans and egyptians buttt i find ancient a tad boring. Modern is much more excitign becaue i feel like we can relate to it in this age of trump and nucelar weapons.. anyways thats my thoughts on it. :D
-
I do both and I can say - ancient is EASIER but less interesting
Modern is MUCCCH HARDER!!1 but more interesting.
Maybe its because 300 BC is so distant, and i cant really relate to the romans and egyptians buttt i find ancient a tad boring. Modern is much more excitign becaue i feel like we can relate to it in this age of trump and nucelar weapons.. anyways thats my thoughts on it. :D
Kind of understandable, I guess. I love Ancient but can definitely see your point in modern being more relatable. Although I wouldn't exactly say I find Ancient easy (I have easier subjects)-and the amount of evidence we need to know is heaps!! What topics are you studying in Ancient?
Also, welcome to Atar notes!! :D
-
I do both and I can say - ancient is EASIER but less interesting
Modern is MUCCCH HARDER!!1 but more interesting.
Maybe its because 300 BC is so distant, and i cant really relate to the romans and egyptians buttt i find ancient a tad boring. Modern is much more excitign becaue i feel like we can relate to it in this age of trump and nucelar weapons.. anyways thats my thoughts on it. :D
Interesting! I personally found Ancient harder (though that is probably partly due to the fact that I put more effort into modern). Reason being is that I found modern questions, though arguably more complex, often a lot more predictable in structure. Like I knew if there was a Bolshevik Consolidation of Power question I would be structuring it according to the same themes no matter what the focus was - whereas with Ancient it was completely unpredictable, as questions were derived from dot points and not syllabus sections. However I was also singled out as a rarity by my history teachers that I did better in Modern - usually the inverse is what occurs!
Personally I agree with you when it comes to my level of interest for the two subjects - though I did really enjoy Ancient, it definitely didn't compare to Modern History. I think this is because in Modern we were looking at ideology - something that I inherently find super interesting :) I also loved how I could see clear, direct links to current situations (however that isn't impossible in Ancient! For my historical investigation in year 11 I looked at the role of dogs in Ancient societies, and it was super interesting how similar our relationship was in many ways!)
-
however that isn't impossible in Ancient! For my historical investigation in year 11 I looked at the role of dogs in Ancient societies, and it was super interesting how similar our relationship was in many ways!
That sounds so interesting :D In year 11, mine was 'To what extent did Tutankhamen effectively rule the eygptian empire?' Really cool to look at because all I knew beforehand was that he was a young pharaoh. :)
-
That sounds so interesting :D In year 11, mine was 'To what extent did Tutankhamen effectively rule the eygptian empire?' Really cool to look at because all I knew beforehand was that he was a young pharaoh. :)
Feel free to have a read! Haven't looked at it in ages - so glad that i still have it on my laptop though. One of the most fun assessment tasks I've ever had (only one that beat it was my modern historical investigation aha - looked at the Jonestown massacre for that one!). That is my dog on the front cover btw ;)
I've always found Tutankhamen to be super fascinating - probably the first historical personality that I was interested in learning about, I remember having quite a few books on him :) Did you enjoy the assessment? What was your conclusion? :)
-
Maybe its because 300 BC is so distant, and i cant really relate to the romans and egyptians buttt i find ancient a tad boring. Modern is much more excitign becaue i feel like we can relate to it in this age of trump and nucelar weapons.. anyways thats my thoughts on it. :D
For me at least, Ancient being distant is what can make it so intriguing: 'human nature' is etched out even thousands of years ago, and through retrospect we can see the development of mass ideologies and how they've been adapted to suit society over time. I just find the idea more fascinating than modern.
Note - i'm slightly biased seeing as I have never tried modern and have absolutely no clue what is in the syllabus
-
Feel free to have a read! Haven't looked at it in ages - so glad that i still have it on my laptop though. One of the most fun assessment tasks I've ever had (only one that beat it was my modern historical investigation aha - looked at the Jonestown massacre for that one!). That is my dog on the front cover btw ;)
I've always found Tutankhamen to be super fascinating - probably the first historical personality that I was interested in learning about, I remember having quite a few books on him :) Did you enjoy the assessment? What was your conclusion? :)
Your dog is so adorable! :) I downloaded it and will definitely read once exams are over. I loved the assessment task-it was so much fun. :D
Basically my conclusion was that he was somewhat effective as an pharaoh. If anyone's interested I attached it here-although it's not the best written essay. I've summarised the main points below though.
My main points were that:
- Before his reign his father Akhenaton changed the main religion of Egypt from polytheism to monotheism (to worship only the sun god Aten). However, this was a disaster as he neglected his subjects while working on the new religions. Tutankhamen changed the religion back to polytheism (however, we are unsure if he was forced by his advisors or not). It was thought that in tut's time both religions were able to coexist.
- He may have trained the Egyptian army and led them into battle. It was something that pharaohs were expected to do, however we have been unsure due to his age. There were blocks in Luxor that showed Tut leading the army into battle so he may have witnessed the battle of Kadesh but it is questionable.
- However, he was really sick and suffered from many different illnesses. Two mummified foetuses have been found in his tomb and are tested to be his daughters. He had a also had a crumbling foot due to osteonecrosis and a congenital malformation of his second toe. He had to walk with the aid of his staffs and also had a deadly case of malaria. All this would have affected the way he could rule over the empire.
-
a bit of a debate happened at school a while ago... let's see what happens ???
look y'all. Modern history couldn't have been created without ANCIENT.
-
I'm doing both as I love history :D