History Extension Question Thread!

[katie,rinos]

Hey Susie,
How long did you spend planning for each essay in the exam, and how long did you spend writing?
Also, how long were each of your essays?
Thanks again

[sudodds]

Hey Susie,
How long did you spend planning for each essay in the exam, and how long did you spend writing?
Also, how long were each of your essays?
Thanks again

I spent roughly 10 minutes planning (not including reading time), and 50 minutes writing! According to my teacher that is about what the markers are expecting, so they'll mark the essay as if it was meant to be done in 50 minutes rather than an hour! The lengths of my essays ranged, but were typically around 1300-1400 word mark So usually intro (which were always a bit longer than a modern/ancient intro), 2-3 paragraphs based around historiographical ideas and then my conclusion

[olr1999]

Hi! What is the best way to separate paragraphs in the what is history essay? I know not to make it chronological and to base it on the ideas within the source, so would we separate them into schools of thought such as history from below/marxist history, empiricism/Ranke/Richard Evans?
Thanks!

[sudodds]

Hi! What is the best way to separate paragraphs in the what is history essay? I know not to make it chronological and to base it on the ideas within the source, so would we separate them into schools of thought such as history from below/marxist history, empiricism/Ranke/Richard Evans?
Thanks!

My preferred method was to focus entirely on historiographical issues and ideas! So definitely some of the examples that you included (eg. impact of history from below), but also stuff like "is objectivity attainable?", "role of pop culture", "role of ideology" etc. etc.

[bellerina]

When talking about the John Vincent, should i refer to this source, 'An Intelligent Person’s Guide to History' ?

[sudodds]

When talking about the John Vincent, should i refer to this source, 'An Intelligent Person’s Guide to History' ?

Yes definitely! Always best to refer specifically to the source (ie. the text itself) rather than just the historian/historiographer! (though of course feel free to still discuss the historian/historiographer more broadly afterwards)!

[bellerina]

Yes definitely! Always best to refer specifically to the source (ie. the text itself) rather than just the historian/historiographer! (though of course feel free to still discuss the historian/historiographer more broadly afterwards)!

Haha, I really like this source! I could use this for other arguments too!!!. But, what is a good way to sum up this source? Like,in a sentence or something.

[sudodds]

Haha, I really like this source! I could use this for other arguments too!!!. But, what is a good way to sum up this source? Like,in a sentence or something.

Depends how you use it! I only used one extract from the source mainly - the part on social history. So if I had to sum up that extract, I'd say that the source deals with the nature of evidence, and to what extent evidence can distort the truth and provide a false narrative, which focuses upon certain members of society (rich, white, heterosexual, old, men!), over emphasising their significance over other groups in society (lower classes, women, non-white, etc.)!

[katie,rinos]

Hey Susie,
I was just reading one of your essays up on the notes section and was wondering if we needed to memorise the names of the historian's works and some of their quotes. Also, I was reading through some of my Half Yearly feedback, and I needed to improve on making more of a critical judgement in section 1 (I think i've improved somewhat but can you give my some tips on this to get into the top band).
Thanks heaps (again!!)

[sudodds]

Hey Susie,
I was just reading one of your essays up on the notes section and was wondering if we needed to memorise the names of the historian's works and some of their quotes. Also, I was reading through some of my Half Yearly feedback, and I needed to improve on making more of a critical judgement in section 1 (I think i've improved somewhat but can you give my some tips on this to get into the top band).
Thanks heaps (again!!)

You will definitely need to know the names (and the names of their works) of historians for your essays, as you are required to integrate other sources! Quotes are absolutely fantastic, however what is even more necessary is a solid understanding of their argument, so much so that you are able to succinctly discuss their interpretations in your own words as well! In terms of making a more critical judgement, that is going to come down to making sure that you yourself have a strong opinion on the subject matter! I think one of the best ways to really demonstrate your judgement is to not only argue one side, but to mention the other side, and completely tear it to shreds. So don't just tell me why your side is correct, but why the other side is incorrect! Analyse their methodology, the ideology, what they include, what they exclude, etc. etc. Make sure that you are not just providing a shopping list of the different interpretations, and that you are critically analysing them!

Hope this helps!

Susie

[bellerina]

There are so many arguments that we can make in the 'What is History' section right. But, how do we remember so many of them so then we go into the exam, we'll be prepared for all of it. I want to focus on three historians, but I'm troubled on which ones I should choose.

[sudodds]

There are so many arguments that we can make in the 'What is History' section right. But, how do we remember so many of them so then we go into the exam, we'll be prepared for all of it. I want to focus on three historians, but I'm troubled on which ones I should choose.

Hey! There are so many arguments, so many that you actually can't really study all of them. That is the nature of this subject, its so interpretive, and there aren't exactly set - "you have to go over this in class" work, that it's really more about finding that niche and sticking too it. My recommendation would be to have an opinion on these three questions:

- Can history be true?
- Does truth have to mean objective?
- What are the aims and purpose of history?

As they are fairly universal. Study your major work as well, because often that can come in very handy during the What is History section - in the HSC my essay covered similar issues to that I covered in my major work. Another good idea would be to create an argument table - so all the major debates and issues down one side, then one column for arguments for, and one for arguments against When it comes to picking sources, I'd pick three that cover different areas, so that you have more scope. I chose EH Carr (just cos he's like the history extension god, has something on everything), John Vincent (so I could incorporate the idea of evidence and social history) and Keith Jenkins (for postmodernism and the nature of truth).

Hope this helps!

Susie

[katie,rinos]

Hey,
I would first look at the source and get the main ideas from it (usually about 3-4ish). I would highlight those points, summarise into my own words and say if I agree/disagree. I would then pick historians that would correspond with the main arguments of the source. So, in this way you can't really only choose three historians to study and memorise but have to know a lot more.
I know it's really hard to memorise these historians but I made a lot of flashcards, and for homework I have to do tables for the historians with headings such as the ones on the syllabus such as:
Who are the historians?
What are the purposes of history?
How has history been constructed and recorded over time?
Historian’s Interpretation on their 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
Susie beat me to it, but this is a different view-although her's sound really great!!

[katie,rinos]

Hey! There are so many arguments, so many that you actually can't really study all of them. That is the nature of this subject, its so interpretive, and there aren't exactly set - "you have to go over this in class" work, that it's really more about finding that niche and sticking too it. My recommendation would be to have an opinion on these three questions:

- Can history be true?
- Does truth have to mean objective?
- What are the aims and purpose of history?

As they are fairly universal. Study your major work as well, because often that can come in very handy during the What is History section - in the HSC my essay covered similar issues to that I covered in my major work. Another good idea would be to create an argument table - so all the major debates and issues down one side, then one column for arguments for, and one for arguments against When it comes to picking sources, I'd pick three that cover different areas, so that you have more scope. I chose EH Carr (just cos he's like the history extension god, has something on everything), John Vincent (so I could incorporate the idea of evidence and social history) and Keith Jenkins (for postmodernism and the nature of truth).

Hope this helps!

Susie

Hey Susie,
What are the major debates that we should know? Also, is it good to talk about our major work in the essay as i'm not really sure if they would know who my historians are? Who is John Vincent-is he someone that we need to know (my class hasn't studied him-is he important?)

[sudodds]

Hey,
I would first look at the source and get the main ideas from it (usually about 3-4ish). I would highlight those points, summarise into my own words and say if I agree/disagree. I would then pick historians that would correspond with the main arguments of the source. So, in this way you can't really only choose three historians to study and memorise but have to know a lot more.
I know it's really hard to memorise these historians but I made a lot of flashcards, and for homework I have to do tables for the historians with headings such as the ones on the syllabus such as:
Who are the historians?
What are the purposes of history?
How has history been constructed and recorded over time?
Historian’s Interpretation on their 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
Susie beat me to it, but this is a different view-although her's sound really great!!

AWESOMMMEEEE! Some great suggestions here Katie Especially love you flashcard idea - sounds like an awesome study method!

Hey Susie,
What are the major debates that we should know? Also, is it good to talk about our major work in the essay as i'm not really sure if they would know who my historians are? Who is John Vincent-is he someone that we need to know (my class hasn't studied him-is he important?)

The major debates/issues that I suggest having a look at are:
- Can history be objective? (so empiricists v. relativists v. postmodernists)
- Should history be objective? (empricists v. postmodernists)
- Popular history v. Academic History? or Public v. Private history?
- Social History (pros and cons)
- Role of imagination
- Role of popular culture
- Nature of evidence - only official documents?

Those kinda things I'm sure you can think of a tonne more as well! It is DEFINITELY a great idea to talk about your major work - it doesn't matter if they don't know about your historians, YOU know about them, which means you'll be able to provide a super sophisticated and thorough analysis of them + you'll be going beyond the conventional, seen-them-all-before historians like Herodotus and Von Ranke. Some schools may study John Vincent, but not every school! My school didn't, I just read some of his works - he's a really great source, deals with the nature of evidence and social history really well!