History Extension Question Thread!

[theyam]

Hey,

This was actually my trial question last year (but the source could have been different).
I argued that history cannot be fully objective as it's construction cannot be divorced from it's purpose.

My points were:
- History can be written with a purpose & initial hypothesis in mind and historians are guided by their beliefs. I talked about public history and how this is funded by the government and could push different political beliefs/ideologies.
- You could also talk bout teleology or how some historians selectively use evidence (I used E.H Carr's fishmonger analogy for this and the historians in my major did this as well).
- I also talked about marginalised groups & how post-modernism gave rise to the acceptance of marginalised groups writing history. The purpose of post-modern historians was that there is no truth and everything is equally valid. I talked about Foucault and how he was influenced by his post-modern beliefs and focussed on concepts/power struggles due to his own context.
- I also talked about 'outside traditional academic practises' through the Annals school which aimed to have a total history and therefore constructed history using branches such as oral history, genealogical research, maps, and science.

Those were some of my points (some were a bit weak though) but you could definitely come up with others as well (especially as you could have a different source).

Hope this helps!! 

Thank you katierinos it did

Was also just wondering you guys structured notes for Extension History, did you guys do it under conceptual questions or just by individual historians?

thank you
theyam

[chickenlaksa123]

Thank you katierinos it did

Was also just wondering you guys structured notes for Extension History, did you guys do it under conceptual questions or just by individual historians?

thank you
theyam

Hi,
Personally I've structured them under the school each historian is in, then by historian, i.e. Empiricists then Ranke and Elton.   

Hope this helps

[katie,rinos]

Thank you katierinos it did

Was also just wondering you guys structured notes for Extension History, did you guys do it under conceptual questions or just by individual historians?

thank you
theyam

Hey,
I also had mine for each individual historian. I structured mine in a table under some of the main history extension questions:
- Who are the historians?
- What are the purposes of history?
- How has history been constructed/recorded over time?
- Historians interpretation on the subject
- Why have approaches to history changed over time?
- What impact has the historian had on historiography?
- What are some of the criticisms of their approach?

Hope this helps! 

[katie,rinos]

Hey,
I found this paper of sample questions released by NESA for next years syllabus. Some of the questions are a bit different to what we are used to (e.g 2 sources/2 case studies). However you could always mould the questions or try to use it as a challenge if you want some extra practise (or even just pull apart the sources & do an essay plan).

Hope this helps! Good luck with exams!! 

[chickenlaksa123]

Hello,
Does anyone know the recommended amount of historians we should be using for section 1 of the HSC exam?
My teacher said it was best to use just two, but I have seen some practice essays using many more, leaving me quite confused

Thank you 

[owidjaja]

Hello,
Does anyone know the recommended amount of historians we should be using for section 1 of the HSC exam?
My teacher said it was best to use just two, but I have seen some practice essays using many more, leaving me quite confused

Thank you 

Hey there,
Since the question says "at least TWO other relevant sources", you can go with two, but personally I think two isn't enough. There's no specific number of historians to use but you should have enough to back up your ideas, but not too much that you're just name-dropping historians and not really analysing them, if that makes sense.

Personally, it depends on what I'm talking about. In my postmodernist paragraphs, I mention 2 historians because there's a lot to cover on postmodernism. For something like the political use of history, I've included 3 or 4 historians.

Hope this helps!

[afg123]

I know they haven't in the past, but does anyone think there's a possibility they could ask us to discuss TWO areas of debate in the case study section?

Also, my teacher said to write about 2 historians for section 1 as well because its good to discuss a couple in depth, and to compare and contrast them - so is this a bad approach?

Also, what does Carr believe the purpose of history is? I can't find it in my notes ((

Mod edit: Post merge, use the Modify button!

[owidjaja]

I know they haven't in the past, but does anyone think there's a possibility they could ask us to discuss TWO areas of debate in the case study section?

Hey there,
They can ask us two areas of debate- my teacher taught us two areas of debate just in case.

Also, my teacher said to write about 2 historians for section 1 as well because its good to discuss a couple in depth, and to compare and contrast them - so is this a bad approach?

Personally, I don't think there's any "bad approach" in History Extension, unless if you're structuring chronologically then a lot of markers hate that. Like I said in the previous post, there's no specific number of historians to include in essays since it depends on what you're talking about. It also depends on how you're using the historians- sometimes I'm using a historian's philosophy and applying their philosophy to another historian/debate to reinforce my point, or sometimes I'm just using the historian as a whole to support my idea.

Also, what does Carr believe the purpose of history is? I can't find it in my notes ((

Hey there,
I don't think I've used Carr in any of my essays where it centres around purpose. I think he could fit if you want to discuss whether truth is the purpose of history since he believes in relativistic truth, but I think Carr would fit better if the question asked about objectivity.

Hope this helps!

[katie,rinos]

Also, what does Carr believe the purpose of history is? I can't find it in my notes ((

Hey,
Welcome to the forums!!

Just to add on to Olivia's answer. Carr's purpose was to:
- Provide a balance between the science & arts, and the past/present, subjective and objective.
- Show history is an unending dialogue between past/present.
- Demonstrate that studying the dialogue is historiography and studying the past is history.
- Historians should make value judgements.
- "History means interpretation."
- “history is a dialogue not only between past and present but past and progressively emerging goals”
- "The aim of historians is to warn their readers against acting in ways which would help create the type of society that gave rise to such individuals"

Hope this helps!!

[Never.Give.Up]

Hello! 
For Section 2- if the question says 'to what extent' - do we need to explicitly provide an extent (limited, significant, etc) and also if it says 'to what extent does this statement apply' - are we meant to include the statement verbatim in our thesis?? or is just another way of saying 'to what extent is the view expressed...' ??
Also- does anyone have any tips for how to approach the questions of friday, some sort of plan of attack??
And for Section 1- is there a guide on how many ideas to include (Say 2-3 ideas?? for the whole essay...)
thanks so much 

[imogen.b]

Hello! 
For Section 2- if the question says 'to what extent' - do we need to explicitly provide an extent (limited, significant, etc) and also if it says 'to what extent does this statement apply' - are we meant to include the statement verbatim in our thesis?? or is just another way of saying 'to what extent is the view expressed...' ??
Also- does anyone have any tips for how to approach the questions of friday, some sort of plan of attack??
And for Section 1- is there a guide on how many ideas to include (Say 2-3 ideas?? for the whole essay...)
thanks so much 

Hey there!
When a question says "to what extent does the statement relate..." etc. I normally say something like "...... is evident in the debates surrounding Winston Churchill's significance in history, and hence ____'s statement is relevant to Churchillian history to a significant extent". So you don't need to re-write the statement verbatim, but basically provide a judgement on how well it actually applies to your debates.

For section 1, I generally try to draw out at least 3 ideas from the source, and see which of my historians/sources I can apply to those arguments. Often I might include 2 or three sources/historians per paragraph, to avoid the essay seeming like it is just a recount of the historians' work, and analyse the significance, similarities or differences of the sources.

The only other tip I can really give for Friday is to learn some quotes (especially for Question 2, I think) by historians, and do practice papers/essay plans.

Good luck!

[afg123]

Hi,
How many paragraphs should we be aiming for in section 2 and how many historians?

[katie,rinos]

Hi,
How many paragraphs should we be aiming for in section 2 and how many historians?

Hey,
Theres no real specific structure or number of paragraphs that you should be doing in your section 2 essays-it can vary between people. I wrote mine with paragraphs on the historians context, methodology and interpretations so I had quite a few small paragraphs, but I've read exemplar essays with 2-3 large paragraphs that work really well. I wrote about 3 different historians because my case study (JFK) had 3 different/contrasting schools of history.

Hope this helps!! 

[afg123]

Thank you

[imogen.b]

Hey everyone, hope your study is going well!

I'm feeling quite nervous for tomorrow. I know all of my sources and quotes, but I still feel pretty stressed. Does anyone have any advice for the night before the exam? What are you guys doing to prepare tonight?