Modern History Exam Discussion Thread!

[biancadunn_]

The short answers in section I threw me off, I didn't like section I at all but I'm glad you would answer the mc the exact way I did, hopefully there's 5 marks I've already got!!
For Germany I did part a, my teacher did that in class for ages just in case we got a Weimar question, so that was lucky. I spoke about the political issues for majority of my essay but also did as you suggested a paragraph on the economic and social issues within Germany and how these influenced the political landscape and ultimately lead to the failure of democracy.
Then Albert Speer, I basically spoke about the opposing views of whether or not he was a good nazi, and took a bit of risk in my argument (as my teacher suggested to do) so I hope that pays off but not sure how I'm feeling about it now.
Conflict in Europe I did part a as well and spoke about as much as I could but very quickly ran out of time. Hopefully my marks in section 1, 2 and 3 make up for what I missed in section 4 

[pughg16]

Yes!! I walked out of the exam and my modern and history extension teacher were waiting for us and the first thing he said was that sounds just like an extension question!

that really is not fair.... I've been so used to doing significance, and positive impact, and events shaping people and vice versa...
NEVER anything about different perspectives and interpretations helping us to understand significance!!
I was really thrown on that one, and I know a few others were too.

[elysepopplewell]

For the first time ever, I think the two Conflict in Indochina questions were actually answerable! I definitely would have chosen the Pol Pot question - Khmer Rouge was the only section of the syllabus I enjoyed for that topic!
Does anyone else do conflict in Indochina?

[AFix]

For the first time ever, I think the two Conflict in Indochina questions were actually answerable! I definitely would have chosen the Pol Pot question - Khmer Rouge was the only section of the syllabus I enjoyed for that topic!
Does anyone else do conflict in Indochina?

Me!

I felt the COMPLETE opposite!  The previous years had such amaznig questions tbh - but I think the one's this year were very obscure.  I think the Pol Pot one through everyone off as they were expecting a Rise question in lieu of something that I feel had little info to fill 1000 words.  I went with the communism question though and TBH felt very restricted - such a sad year for Indochina in my opinion 

[birdwing341]

I was pretty happy with the exam - the only part of it that was seriously surprising was that the 3 marker was on one impact, and only had 5 lines...although that probably means it's easier to do well in. My mates and I managed to predict the two topics for 7-marker and 10-marker before the test, so the last minute revision we did was top quality . Overall WWI wasn't overly difficult or surprising.

I did Germany, and predicted that there would be a foreign policy question so was decently happy (although I'm rather sad they haven't given us anything out of the third syllabus dot point ). Wasn't sure about the Weimar question but heard that it was doable from others. Section III had a simple part (a) and something a little different for part (b) but something that was entirely workable . Section IV (Conflict in the Pacific) was also a breeze, was spoiled for choice as I'd prepared both essays!!

Overall for my topics was a fairly decent exam!

[biancadunn_]

So, those are my thoughts! You fucking did it! Smashed the hardest exam in your HSC! We're here to help you for the rest of your exams, so chat about Modern below, and ask questions about any other subjects around the rest of the forum. It's all free, it's easy as to get answers, so why not get a leg up in your HSC exam?

Peace out fam

I know one thing, I couldn't be happier to never do this ever again!

[pughg16]

I had actually hoped for a question on civilians for conflict in the pacific, but felt that both were pretty easy to go with!
Same here....No more having to memorise quotes for anything now!!!

[birdwing341]

I had actually hoped for a question on civilians for conflict in the pacific, but felt that both were pretty easy to go with!
Same here....No more having to memorise quotes for anything now!!!

I'm genuinely curious, which one did you pick for Section II and Section IV?

[pughg16]

I'm genuinely curious, which one did you pick for Section II and Section IV?

I did question a) for both!! I think i prepared a lot more for the first parts of the syllabus...although I really like civilians too...

[ld0898]

Overall, not too bad!!
WWI was relatively straightforward.. high marks there I hope Exactly the same source analysis question as Trial paper!
Germany essay - couldn't have asked for a better question!! Awesome!! I did a.
Personality [Speer] - a. I won't complain... but b. GRRR!!! HATED that question!! I mainly prepared for a question based on events shaping the personality, hence most of the structure went west
Conflict - again... another brilliant question!! Option a. was very similar to our trial paper!!

WELL DONE EVERYONE!!! Yet another exam is finished!.. Well on the way to being freed from the bondage of school work

[biancadunn_]

that really is not fair.... I've been so used to doing significance, and positive impact, and events shaping people and vice versa...
NEVER anything about different perspectives and interpretations helping us to understand significance!!
I was really thrown on that one, and I know a few others were too.

I agree, my teacher basically prepared us for analysing cause & effect so it took me by complete surprise, and extension definitely didn't make it any easier to answer! I did the opposing views of Speer as the 'good nazi'. Not sure how I'm feeling about my response anymore though 

[biancadunn_]

I'm pretty much the odd one out in that I thought the WWI was harder than most I've studied.

I thought it was quite hard too! You're not alone 

[sudodds]

Pretty chuffed because I predicted correctly the question for all of my sections (apart from personality... woah)! Beat even my teachers who have been in the game for like 10 years so I'm pretty happy with myself haha. Overall, I thought the paper was okay.

WW1: I actually really liked the WW1 section, but I wrote way too much for it.

National Study (Russia): The questions were good (and exactly what I predicted!) though I was disappointed that there was no Bolshevik consolidation question, as that is what I am the best at, and what I studied the most. The first time they've never had a Bolshevik question But I did the Stalinism question and it was fine.

Personality (Trotsky): Woah. What a question! Way more like an extension question, which luckily I do so I felt okay with it, but I'm very concerned that I did not have enough detail or a clear enough judgement because it was not something i'm used to in relation to Trotsky. My thesis was that the political, philosophical and ideological background of a historian shapes their interpretation of Trotsky and thus informs our own understanding, contrasting (the luckily clearly defined differences in regards to Trotsky) the right wing and left wing perceptions of him. I honestly don't know how I went in this section, and am not 100% sure I answered the question. We'll have to see.

Conflict (Cold War): Both of the questions were great! I predicted Cuba, and Truman Doctrine was our trial question. However I did not give myself enough time for this, so I only had 30 mins to write the whole essay. I got two paragraphs out that I am semi happy with (not sure how effectively I linked the Truman Doctrine to the arms race, we'll see), but I'm worried that they are going to automatically doc marks just because its not 8 pages

But yeah, pretty happy overall, just annoyed that I ran out of time. Hope everyone is happy with how they went! I'm sure everyone did fantastic, and even if you're not happy it's not the end of the world and I'm sure your other exams will be better!!

[jakesilove]

Pretty chuffed because I predicted correctly the question for all of my sections (apart from personality... woah)! Beat even my teachers who have been in the game for like 10 years so I'm pretty happy with myself haha. Overall, I thought the paper was okay.

WW1: I actually really liked the WW1 section, but I wrote way too much for it.

National Study (Russia): The questions were good (and exactly what I predicted!) though I was disappointed that there was no Bolshevik consolidation question, as that is what I am the best at, and what I studied the most. The first time they've never had a Bolshevik question But I did the Stalinism question and it was fine.

Personality (Trotsky): Woah. What a question! Way more like an extension question, which luckily I do so I felt okay with it, but I'm very concerned that I did not have enough detail or a clear enough judgement because it was not something i'm used to in relation to Trotsky. My thesis was that the political, philosophical and ideological background of a historian shapes their interpretation of Trotsky and thus informs our own understanding, contrasting (the luckily clearly defined differences in regards to Trotsky) the right wing and left wing perceptions of him. I honestly don't know how I went in this section, and am not 100% sure I answered the question. We'll have to see.

Conflict (Cold War): Both of the questions were great! I predicted Cuba, and Truman Doctrine was our trial question. However I did not give myself enough time for this, so I only had 30 mins to write the whole essay. I got two paragraphs out that I am semi happy with (not sure how effectively I linked the Truman Doctrine to the arms race, we'll see), but I'm worried that they are going to automatically doc marks just because its not 8 pages

But yeah, pretty happy overall, just annoyed that I ran out of time. Hope everyone is happy with how they went! I'm sure everyone did fantastic, and even if you're not happy it's not the end of the world and I'm sure your other exams will be better!!

Can't believe you predicted the questions! Sounds like you killed the exam, congratulations! I know how much work you/all the users on here put in, so hopefully you can take the night off and relax. You all deserve it!

[lilyporra]

Very disappointing questions for South Africa and Conflict in Indochina!    definitely feel that other students were much better off with most of the other Options' questions.

South Africa's first question involved the issues faced by the National Party AND the ANC which lead to the transition to democracy. Such a question has never been asked before! Plus it was very wordy! Though I attempted this question. It isn't even a specific syllabus point.
South Africa's other question was about the Bantustans- a topic not everybody covers because they very RARELY ask it- the question itself is very restricting on the amount of content we have learnt, and is not a very important aspect as to speak.

Indochina's first question was also one I've never seem similar to! "Assess the role of communism in shaping the conflict in Indochina until 1964". The role of communism??? Okay so we talk about the communist north, being influenced by China and the Soviet Union, Ho Chi Minh blah blah blah. It was answerable, but definitely restricting and never seen before- not even a stimulus dot point!

Indochina's second question was about Pol Pot and Cambodia. I don't know about other schools, but ours only briefly touched on conflict in Cambodia and Laos and the Khmer Rouge etc. Our focus was all over the Conflict in Vietnam, for this was the direct location of the wars, and the divided country. Therefore I definitely was not doing this question!!




As for Section III- I did Nelson Mandela (the only good (nice) person in there lol) and found it difficult to provide different perspectives for it is hard to be pessimistic towards such a significant figure in the fight against apartheid in South Africa.