L.C History

BarryDoodles

History is an easy 'a' if you can can the essay's you've studied. They throw you 40% with the project and documents.
I'm going Reform, sov.+ part, and dic + demo i'm guess one of each has to come up:
Reform.
Parnell
Isaac Butt
1985/86
Land question
Cultural Nationalism
1913 strike and lockout
Sov+Part
1916 rising
war of independance
1921 treaty
inter-war years
Dic+Demo
Church state relations
rallies
holocaust
show trials
vichy
pop. culture

What i am wondering is do you guy's in other schools with a different take on things have any other ideas? teachers tipped anything? i'm not too sure what came up last year either or on the other mocks.
Cheers

conbob

no russian or rise of nazism...... uh oh :eek:

Riotguy

Our teacher's tipping Anglo-Irish Treaty 1921 big time.

Also, everyone seems to be set on Vietnam for the Docs question.

And Show Trials and Church-State Relations seem likely too.

JC 2K3

Teachers who tip things are retards. There's no way they could know.

Last year on here, I heard people saying their teachers were tipping all sorts of things, and the vast majority were wrong.

The Eastern Question was widely tipped last year for Nation States and didn't come up (An essay on Wilhelm 2, which also came up the previous year, did).

Study everything, it's the only way.

Bonj15

I Have a feeling Show Trials and/or Nuremberg Rallies will come up..Also Treaty Negotiations leading to civil war!

Riotguy

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Teachers who tip things are retards. There's no way they could know.

Last year on here, I heard people saying their teachers were tipping all sorts of things, and the vast majority were wrong.

The Eastern Question was widely tipped last year for Nation States and didn't come up (An essay on Wilhelm 2, which also came up the previous year, did).

Study everything, it's the only way.

You're telling me you consider it perfectly feasible to learn three volumes plus the bulk of a fourth?

Surely you've never actually done History if that's the case.

Tipping does, yes, have the potential to be wildly inaccurate and pointless but for those out there that haven't a clue where to start, the topics some of the members here have listed - myself included - are pointers.

If you think it's pointless, don't post.

And no, you're correct, the teachers don't know exactly. That's why we call this little practice...tipping...not assuring.

JC 2K3

Riotguy wrote: »

You're telling me you consider it perfectly feasible to learn three volumes plus the bulk of a fourth?

Well yes, but you don't have to, you can cut out a significant amout if you're smart about it, ie. only learn the politics(what I did). You can also get away with only learning the Economics or Social parts, but you need to have at least an understanding of the politics for this.

This is what's called cutting down the amount you have to learn in a smart manner, not listening to bs "tips".

Riotguy wrote: »

Surely you've never actually done History if that's the case.

I did. Got a B1 too. Might have done better with a bit more effort, but it wasn't a subject I was counting for points.

Riotguy wrote: »

If you think it's pointless, don't post.

As someone who did reasonably well in History last year, I think I'm entitled to give my opinion as to what I think is the best approach to studying it.

ateam

Riotguy wrote: »

You're telling me you consider it perfectly feasible to learn three volumes plus the bulk of a fourth?

Surely you've never actually done History if that's the case.

Tipping does, yes, have the potential to be wildly inaccurate and pointless but for those out there that haven't a clue where to start, the topics some of the members here have listed - myself included - are pointers.

If you think it's pointless, don't post.

And no, you're correct, the teachers don't know exactly. That's why we call this little practice...tipping...not assuring.

+1

All exam papers have trends and people can sometimes make predictions based on those trends. The Jarrow March for example was asked the past 2 years, so I doubt it will appear this year.

For the OP, for 1912 to 1949 topic, study economic policies, Anglo-Irish relations and the Eucharistic Congress. One of them is certain to get asked.

JC 2K3

Lol, nothing is certain. If you did history last year you'd know that all too well.

It's the 3rd year of the syllabus. You or your teachers can know NOTHING of what's likely to come up.

I'm not giving this advice to be a holier than thou asshole, I'm giving it based on experience and trying to help you guys.

ateam

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Lol, nothing is certain. If you did history last year you'd know that all too well.

It's the 3rd year of the syllabus. You or your teachers can know NOTHING of what's likely to come up.

I'm not giving this advice to be a holier than thou asshole, I'm giving it based on experience and trying to help you guys.

Again economic polices, Anglo-Irish relations or the Eucharistic Congress, one of those topics are bound to come up. I would not advise anyone to only study one topic per question but if you use logic and common sense, you can reduce the number of topics you have to study. The papers always have a trend and repeat questions.

It maybe the 3rd year of the new syllabus but the people who write and correct the exams are the same people as before. And from experience of the old course which you don't have, questions constantly repeated themselves like Parnell came up every second year. Thus, it's a given that a student studies Parnell this year over say something like Industry in Belfast or the Suffragettes.

One should always use common sense in deciding what to study and because the student is given a choice of 4 questions, he/she can leave out parts of the course. To blanketly say that don't even bother looking at past exam papers and study everything is illogical and pointlessly time consuming.

I presume you used the exam papers last year and noticed that the 1885/1886 elections was asked in the document question in 2006, so everybody knew that either the GAA or the Lockout was going to be asked in 2007.

BTW, the only question that can not and should not be predicted is the document question. It's the first year for the American question and who knows what's going to come up. Some are saying that the Vietnam War may come up, there's no basis for that as far as I can see.

JC 2K3

ateam wrote: »

To blanketly say that don't even bother looking at past exam papers and study everything is illogical and pointlessly time consuming.

I didn't say not to look at past exam papers, I said not to listen to tips.

I should probably retract my initial "Study everything", what I really mean is to study everything that'll leave you covered.

ateam wrote: »

I presume you used the exam papers last year and noticed that the 1885/1886 elections was asked in the document question in 2006, so everybody knew that either the GAA or the Lockout was going to be asked in 2007.

Well, I still studied 1885/86, it was very short and easy. And knowing about Parnell etc. gave me a nice introduction to my essay on Pádraig Pearse.

And everyone thought the Eastern Question would come up last year too. It didn't. They gave a question on Wilhelm 2, which they had done the previous year too.

claire h

With a new course, the third year is too soon to start trying to predict a 'pattern' - one hasn't been established yet, those who draw up the papers are still trying to figure it out for themselves. Play it safe, hope but don't count on a specific question coming up. There's no rule that says something can't come up twice in a row. [/my two cents]

Mars Bar

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Lol, nothing is certain. If you did history last year you'd know that all too well.

It's the 3rd year of the syllabus. You or your teachers can know NOTHING of what's likely to come up.

I'm not giving this advice to be a holier than thou asshole, I'm giving it based on experience and trying to help you guys.

I have to agree here. I did last years exam and it couldn't have gone more wrong for us! Everything our teacher "predicted" DIDN'T come up. You just have to be smart about it(echoing JC's earlier post), I will be doing mostly the economic and social parts(something has to come up from this) but I am also learning at least one thing from the political sections also. I am also learning both Vietnam and Montgomery for documents. I am taking no chances this year...

ateam

mars bar wrote: »

I have to agree here. I did last years exam and it couldn't have gone more wrong for us! Everything our teacher "predicted" DIDN'T come up. You just have to be smart about it(echoing JC's earlier post), I will be doing mostly the economic and social parts(something has to come up from this) but I am also learning at least one thing from the political sections also. I am also learning both Vietnam and Montgomery for documents. I am taking no chances this year...

Well you have to know Vietnam and Montgomery, as well as the Moon Landing, it's a compulsory question on the paper! So you can't take any chances with that.

For last year, perhaps the Eastern question was predicted, but any good teacher will stress to students not to rely on one topic per question. I would advise students to know 5 topics per question. The most unpredictable question on the paper is Dictatorship and Democracy, it was unpredictable in the last course and remains very hard to read. So students should be warned over that one.

ateam

JC 2K3 wrote: »

I didn't say not to look at past exam papers, I said not to listen to tips.

I should probably retract my initial "Study everything", what I really mean is to study everything that'll leave you covered.


Well, I still studied 1885/86, it was very short and easy. And knowing about Parnell etc. gave me a nice introduction to my essay on Pádraig Pearse.

And everyone thought the Eastern Question would come up last year too. It didn't. They gave a question on Wilhelm 2, which they had done the previous year too.

Can I ask why you brought Parnell into a Padraig Pearse essay? I think the HR bill of 1912 and it's suspension in 1914 would have been the main background issues for Pearse.

JC 2K3

ateam wrote: »

Can I ask why you brought Parnell into a Padraig Pearse essay?

Because I knew Parnell well and could tie it in

Seriously though, I was talking about the background of the struggle for independence and how the new wave of Irish nationalism, headed by Pearse and Co., differed from efforts to get Home Rule in the past, such as the one fronted by Parnell and later Redmond.

My essay was a lot more about Pádraig Pearse's beliefs and convictions and how they were unique, rather than a commentary on the political situation in Ireland during Pearse's life.

ateam

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Because I knew Parnell well and could tie it in

Seriously though, I was talking about the background of the struggle for independence and how the new wave of Irish nationalism, headed by Pearse and Co., differed from efforts to get Home Rule in the past, such as the one fronted by Parnell and later Redmond.

My essay was a lot more about Pádraig Pearse's beliefs and convictions and how they were unique, rather than a commentary on the political situation in Ireland during Pearse's life.

And that's why you got a B and not an A. History essays for the leaving are supposed to be a commentary filled with facts and not a analysis of the character. It's a history essay, not an English essay. Your intro/background paragraph seems a little irrelevant, the 1914 suspension of HR gave rise to Padraig Pearse, if anything you should of brought in how Pearse's hatred for the English was passed down from his mother because her family was affected by the famine. Parnell was irrelevant IMO.

JC 2K3

Parnell, Redmond, the HR movement = the phase of Irish nationalism preceeding Pearse and Co.

The question:
"What were the aims and achievements of Patrick Pearse."

Now surely it wasn't irrelevant to mention Parnell in the context of Pearse being central to a republican style of nationalistic thinking, as opposed to a Home Rule style, as a background to what the aims of Pearse actually entailed in comparisons to past views on nationalism.

And History essays do have to have analysis, not just facts, 40% of every essay goes for the overall quality of the answer, so it's not just about facts.

In this case, I can't see how a mere political commentary would have fitted at all. The question wasn't "What was going on politically in Ireland during the life of Padraig Pearse?". You had to analyse his aims and evaluate his achievements IMO.


Oh and I reckon I got a B due to my lack of knowledge rather than my essay style. I didn't count History in the end, so meh.

boobookitty

How long should analysis be? A line or a few sentences?

Can we take success of 1918 Sinn Fein for example?

Or if anyone's willing to help me out on MSN: silverswan2000@hotmail.com

ateam

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Parnell, Redmond, the HR movement = the phase of Irish nationalism preceeding Pearse and Co.

The question:
"What were the aims and achievements of Patrick Pearse."

Now surely it wasn't irrelevant to mention Parnell in the context of Pearse being central to a republican style of nationalistic thinking, as opposed to a Home Rule style, as a background to what the aims of Pearse actually entailed in comparisons to past views on nationalism

Pearse was a militant republican and Parnell was a constitutional politician. They couldn't be any more different. Pearse followed in the footsteps of Wolfe Tone, Robert Emmet, James Stephens and the various Fenian rebellions, he did not follow on from Parnell. Thus again, bringing Parnell into a Pearse question was unnecessary and irrelevant.

Students should not concentrate on analysis or more accurately they shouldn't get bogged down in analysis. The aim is to get 60 out of 60 in the CM, the OM mark will be decided upon by the CM mark. You can't get 60 out of 60 with analysis alone. A good conclusion can count as the analysis.

Bambi16

Would it not make sense if it was tha Luther King question as it was his 40th anniversary this year?

JC 2K3

ateam wrote: »

Pearse was a militant republican and Parnell was a constitutional politician. They couldn't be any more different.

EXACTLY.

I don't understand how you can't fathom that I made a contrast between Pearse's militant nationalism and Parnell's constitutional politics....

ateam

JC 2K3 wrote: »

EXACTLY.

I don't understand how you can't fathom that I made a contrast between Pearse's militant nationalism and Parnell's constitutional politics....

Qualify the contrast. I don't see the point or relevance in making such a contrast in an essay about Pearse to speak about Parnell. If they were similar I could maybe see a connection, but to make a contrast seems unnecessarily complicated. But each to their own.

In my view, Pearse was a militant republican and followed in the footsteps of Tone, Emmet etc and did not follow in the same path as Parnell. Therefore, why would one bother making a contrast when the contrast isn't relevant to anything. The fact that Pearse adopted a different approach as to the means of getting independence from Parnell is neither here nor there in the context of the question. The background paragraph should of made reference to the 1912 Home Rule bill and it's suspension in 1914. They acted as the springboard to Pearse's prominence. A contrast with Parnell seems almost pointless in the context of the question.

JC 2K3

It was just an introductory paragraph, giving a background to the entire last wave of nationalism, i.e. the Home Rule movement, in which Parnell, and later Redmond, were heavily involved in. The question asked what were the aims of Pearse. How is it irrelevant to contrast his aims with the general nationalistic aims of the era before his? The suspension of the bill in 1914 wouldn't have been so frustrating for nationalists in other circumstances, i.e. if there hadn't been three Home Rule bills vetoed before. And in the context of the History exam, you have a whole paragraph, ie. 12 whole marks which you can earn for content outside the date range of your question. I would have thought that an intelligent way to gain marks and provide a good introduction to your answer would be to discuss the Home Rule movement and politics in Ireland between 1870 and 1914, which gives you scope to start your second paragraph discussing Pearse's aims and views in the political context of the time.

I think you just think ideologically and I think chronologically.

The Walsho

Jaysus, ateam and JC 2K3, get a frickin' room.

BarryDoodles

After a discussion with my teacher (i'm starting to feel bad haunting her especially after the ordeal that was the project) i'm going to add the rise of fascism and church state relations to that list.
For people who don't do history the problem is doing the full document question and 3 6page essays in the allotted time which gives you 42.5 minutes for each section (6 pages) (stress) this leads to a need to learn of and reguratate info in a time effective manner. There is no time to do that thinking thing.
the plan learn of a rake of essays and a general knowledge on everything else. History has four text books and a project. A rediculous amount of work for an 18yr old with god knows how many other subjects

eoins2345

6 pages for each essay is completely unnecessary.3 and a half to four pages is more then enough

BarryDoodles

eoins2345 wrote: »

6 pages for each essay is completely unnecessary.3 and a half to four pages is more then enough

our teacher is the chief examiner in history. Susan Cashell

dip

I don't see how anyone could write three six page essays and have time for the document question :eek:

Four to five pages is what we were told.

All you need is five decent paragraphs, or six if you don't think you can get 12 marks per paragraph, the max is 60 for the CM so I don't see the point in writing an 6 pages and getting extra CM marks which aren't going to be counted anyway.
As long its coherent with a conclusion then you'll get most of the 40marks for OE as well..However fair play if you do manage to write 6pages!:pac:

BarryDoodles

dip wrote: »

I don't see how anyone could write three six page essays and have time for the document question :eek:

Four to five pages is what we were told.

All you need is five decent paragraphs, or six if you don't think you can get 12 marks per paragraph, the max is 60 for the CM so I don't see the point in writing an 6 pages and getting extra CM marks which aren't going to be counted anyway.
As long its coherent with a conclusion then you'll get most of the 40marks for OE as well..However fair play if you do manage to write 6pages!:pac:

We've been trained all year to do it. The average a maker will give you is 7 marks for a good paragraph(look up the inservice website) no one will get twelve marks for a paragraph. also the conclusion is only worth 4 mrks if you do not introduce new information. 12 marks are availible for background. no more.
I can do 4.5-5 pages in forty minutes but a friend consistantly hits 7 pages. Thank god for the intitutes boot camp like style
Its not about getting extra CM is just berely reaching the full CM. your teacher < Head examiner. I dont want to worry you though like my teacher is scary and she could be guilty of just trying to create super students. Also note though that sean delapp (the teacher that wrote dic+demo) recommends writing six pages and he's a consultant for the SEC

boobookitty

Are 6 pages necessary? I got an A1 (93%) in my Sinn Fein essay on the Pre and I only did 3 1/2 pages. Just use smaller paragraphs.