LC Higher Level History - from a third level perspective

Lady_Macbeth

I'm a third level student majoring in history and out of interest's sake I decided to take a peek at the sample exam paper for the new course, being examined for the first time this June.

To be honest, I'm quite shocked.

Compared to the old exam (for those of you who don't know, there were 5 sections (Ireland 1860~1920, Ireland 1920~1970, Europe 1860~1920, Europe 1920~1970 and the Research Topic), from which you chose one essay from each section. That accumulated to five essays in 3 hours 20 minutes. If you were aiming for the better end of results, it meant that it was a test of physical endurance: how much can you write?

My knowledge of the new course isn't very indepth, but from what I do know I admire that it does include a wider variety of issues and has more scope to it. It does, theoretically, aim to engage the student more and to involve him in the greater study of history.

However, the exam at higher level is undoubtedly not of the same level as the old course. Perhaps it may benefit the student in that it no longer places the additional stress of time management on the student, but I feel that it does really allow for much indepth historical analysis as an essay would. I realise that there are essay-type questions, but a considerable portion of the paper is given over to questions on unseen documents.

What are students' views on the revised course? How do you feel about the content of the course? And the exam itself?

I'm interested to see how students feel towards the new version!
Meanwhile, I should really be preparing myself for a history exam tomorrow (time wise it does get better - two essays in two hours is quite feasible )

- Lady

casanova_kid

I'm doing it this year and it's a bitch to be honest. You still have to read four books and the sample questions don't give you enough scope to write a proper essay on. Plus having to hand in a research topic around the start of April with all the orals going on is **** hard. I hate leaving cert histrory actually, now that i've thought about it.

Lady_Macbeth

casanova_kid wrote:

You still have to read four books

Oh dear! Four, eh?! I wish I had to read only four books by tomorrow

casanova_kid wrote:

Plus having to hand in a research topic around the start of April with all the orals going on is **** hard.

Tbh, I'd have preferred to have done that than put in the work that I did for my research topic only to write it out in the exam itself. Pointless, if you ask me. A research topic should be handed up all dolled up for the examiners, to show off how much you've done; not just stuck in with other essays in the exam.

casanova_kid wrote:

I hate leaving cert histrory actually, now that i've thought about it.

well, third level history is nothing much like it, if you're that way inclined

-Lady

Rockerette

i love history... i forget loads of stuff in exams, and in essays, but hey.. i still lvove the course, and would happily sit and read the 4 books from start to finish... if only i had the time!


the research study could have been done aaaages ago, so i dont listen to anyone moaning about how tis due at the same time as our orals.. do it now, get it over with..


Im glad the course has changed, but the fact remains you still have to cover all the topics.. adn you dont know which essay topics are gonna come up.. so you still have to prepare loads for them..
but the Ireland 1870-1914 is good, that we only have documents - i have traumatic memoreis of my older sister reciting essays on Parnell.....!


but yeah, im glad im doing it this year and not last! 3 essays and document questions is very do-able.

Dagnir Glaurung

Lady_Macbeth wrote:

I'm a third level student majoring in history and out of interest's sake I decided to take a peek at the sample exam paper for the new course, being examined for the first time this June.

To be honest, I'm quite shocked.

Compared to the old exam (for those of you who don't know, there were 5 sections (Ireland 1860~1920, Ireland 1920~1970, Europe 1860~1920, Europe 1920~1970 and the Research Topic), from which you chose one essay from each section. That accumulated to five essays in 3 hours 20 minutes. If you were aiming for the better end of results, it meant that it was a test of physical endurance: how much can you write?

My knowledge of the new course isn't very indepth, but from what I do know I admire that it does include a wider variety of issues and has more scope to it. It does, theoretically, aim to engage the student more and to involve him in the greater study of history.

However, the exam at higher level is undoubtedly not of the same level as the old course. Perhaps it may benefit the student in that it no longer places the additional stress of time management on the student, but I feel that it does really allow for much indepth historical analysis as an essay would. I realise that there are essay-type questions, but a considerable portion of the paper is given over to questions on unseen documents.

What are students' views on the revised course? How do you feel about the content of the course? And the exam itself?

I'm interested to see how students feel towards the new version!
Meanwhile, I should really be preparing myself for a history exam tomorrow (time wise it does get better - two essays in two hours is quite feasible )

- Lady

Surely it's better that we have documents because it means we have to actually engage with a historical source instead of belting out an essay we have written before which tests how much you can remember and not how good a historian you are?

Rockerette

where about is everyone on the course?
we just started the 4th book on Ireland between 1912-1945 (? i think those ar the years) today