History Disection

Riamfada

So how did the History Paper Go. Got 4 Questions Done . looking for a C2 so quietly confindent. Wasnt happy with the choice in section D . But everything else seemed okay

Johnerr

i gave a mate a few tips from this board, what came up?

Richard_Fonzie

That paper was terrible I thought. Especially part B & part C. No Bismarck or France in part C? When either topic has come up every year since the course started? If you'd concentrated on Russia and the Eastern Question, I'm sure it would have been fine. But it was very harsh considering the neither France, nor Germany, nor some kind of combination of social/political/church issues in europe has come up. Great Britain isn't covered in enough detail in most textbooks to be warranted in coming up in my opinion. International Relations was a good question, if you had focused on the 1890-1914 period instead of the 1870-1890 period.
B was very harsh, considering the topics I studied: All of Northern Ireland, and Fianna Fail/Cumman na nGaedhal up until 1945. Northern Ireland (which I'd put alot of effort into, and which has come up practically every year as a standalone topic) only came up with Southern Ireland after 1945 (which I hadn't studied). Ireland during World War II wasn't a bad question, but in my case, I hadn't studied it very much (not nearly as much as southern ireland 1922-39 and ni).
Section A was good, I thought. Unionism came up, although I didn't study it, but it was begging to come up. Parnell is the most popular question on the course, and that was a fairly straightforward question. And the Land Question/Cultural Nationalism was in line with the type of questions over the last few years...
Section D was good from the point of view that the Nazi Germany question was very handy, had come up a few years ago and is probably the most popular topic on the course. Stalin was also another big topic that came up. Although, the France & WW2 questions were tough, especially since I know lots of people banking on Spanish Civil War, League of Nations & Weimar coming up.

I'm hoping for at least a B3 (the minimum I need), but I'm pretty uncertain how it's gonna pan out...

Cannibal Ox

No Bismarck or France in part C? When either topic has come up every year since the course started?

They didn't come up in 1993 and 2000 either.
Still, I can imagine they'll be some complaints about it and maybe the other questions will be marked easier because of it.

Rredwell

I think that was a really nice paper. There was a great choice in all sections, especially Section D, where not 1 but 2 dictators (Stalin and Hitler) came up. It was great that Cultural Nationalism came up, as I wasn't expecting it to, as it came up last year. It was a bit strange that neither Cumman na nGaedheal or Fianna Fáil in government was asked on Section B, but Neutrality was ther, and has you studied at all you'd have had at least 1 option. Question C.4. (International Relations, 1890-1914), was phrased a little oddly, but it was doable. All in all, a very good paper, considering the SEC had the temptation to throw the rule-book out the window, given its the last year of the course.

Rredwell

Johnerr wrote:

i gave a mate a few tips from this board, what came up?

A:
The Land Question
Parnell
Irish Unionism, 1886 - 1914
Cultural Nationalism
Arthur Griffith

B:
The Irish Civil War, 22-23
Foreign Policy, 1922-1966
Ireland during WWII
First Inter-Party Govt., 1948-1951
Ireland, North and South, 1945 - 1966

C:
Great Britain 1870-1914
The Eastern Question
Tsar [sic] Russia, 1904 - 1917
International Relations, 1890 - 1914
WWI


France, 1919 - 40
Stalin
Nazi Germany, 1933-39
WWII
The Cold War

Richard_Fonzie

I've never even studied, nor knew that any of the textbooks had it, but I wonder how many people did D.4: World War II Asses the importance of operations in the Mediterranean theatre during World War II.

Rredwell

A guy in my year did it, but he is a military history fanatic!

hada

here a question poised to me looking at the stalin question on the paper: as well as writing about his domestic changes, could you write on his foreign policy and how he transformed the u.s.s.r with his foreign policies also?

Flamingfud

Holla, bro. I KNOCKED THAT **** DOWN

A: Unionist Opposition to Home Rule

B: First InterParty

C: Tsars

Hitler's Achievement of a Totalitarian State

Rredwell

I don't think so. Questions on Stalin are generally either Foreign or Domestic. You have plenty to write about on collectivisation, industry, the Show Trials, the Great Purge, etc. so there is no need to go into foreign policy.

love_the_chocol

i was very angrry with that paper, what were they thinkin, no france and they changed the format of the northern ireland essay 22-66. Me was angry, was lookin for B1 but that no france fiasco has after dropping me to a c1 at the most, backstards!!!!!

rosa

I messed that paper up soooo much.
I hadn't studied anything that came up in Section C, can anyone tell me what you were supposed to write about for the International Relations Question? I made a stab at it by using my causes of the First World War essay and adding in the Morroco stuff. Was that wrong though?
Also does anyone know how many pages there are in an answer book?

love_the_chocol

and the fact the tsars question was only on Nicholas was a kick in the ass!!!

Richard_Fonzie

Cannibal Ox wrote:

They didn't come up in 1993 and 2000 either.
Still, I can imagine they'll be some complaints about it and maybe the other questions will be marked easier because of it.

Yeah but Church State relations came up in 2000 (of which France and Bismarck had a big part in), as did Anglo-German Relations 1870-1914 (which would've included Bismarck... although I dont there was much of Bismarck in that topic :P). 1993 had Chrurch state relations in France & Germany as well, as well as Franco Prussian War (which is precursor to both topics).

This time around there was nothing about Bismarck, and practically nothing about third french republic.

hada

Rredwell wrote:

I don't think so. Questions on Stalin are generally either Foreign or Domestic. You have plenty to write about on collectivisation, industry, the Show Trials, the Great Purge, etc. so there is no need to go into foreign policy.

still not totally sure now.. It just said how he grew to consolidate complete power and transform the u.s.s.r. Foreign policy would have a transforming effect on the ussr, i.e. it's entering into the league of nations, invasion of finland, poland, taking over estonia, latvia, lithuania and the non-agg pact August 1939.

But even with that said, I'm not 100% sure.. Argh

Macka

What the Hell was that why the **** was france in D but not C I was so sure....so sure. Stalin was easy that revolutions in Russia question was an absolute bitch. Unionism was alright and FOREIGN POLICY what the **** I was expecting ECONOMIC damn I really enjoy history as a subject and I usually do really well but damn....just damn

baby*cham*bell

yeah it was quite an unfair paper looking back on it, i was never expecting to do well, so it didnt suprise me i found it hard.
that was just bitchy what the did in section c!! hopefully i got a c1 did special topic, cultral nationalism, inter party govts, stalin and a a paragraph on international relations.
i knew 3rd republic inside out, it was basically a dead cer, and i knew bismarck just in case.
if you really studied hard (i mean practically the whole course) then it was ok

jdevlin

Rredwell wrote:

I don't think so. Questions on Stalin are generally either Foreign or Domestic. You have plenty to write about on collectivisation, industry, the Show Trials, the Great Purge, etc. so there is no need to go into foreign policy.

Yeah i used foreign policy, i think it tied in ok. I Wrote paragraphs on 1st 5yr plan,2nd 5yr plan,education,collectivisation,kulaks,purges and i wrote one about how Stalins defensive foreign policy e.g league of nations + nazi-soviet pact created stability domestically until 1941

exiztone

You guys are nuts, that was just about the most unfair paper I've ever sat.

First of all, no Davitt, no Mussolini, no French 3rd Republic

Question A, I'll give them, it was okay. I did the Parnell essay, very doable.

What was up with Question B? Sure, a lot of you had the Interparty Government done but we hadn't and we were expecting Security, Economy and Anglo/Irish relations 1922 - 1932 and 1932 - 1938 to come up! They weren't there. I ended up doing that foreign policy question, even thought I hadn't a clue about the 50s and 60s :rolleyes:

Question C. What can I say? No France... and the Russia essay was ****e... from 1904? Bloody stupid! The choices the rest of the choices sucked too.

Question D pissed me off because I had prepared Mussolini thinking one question or another on him was guarunteed. I did Hitler, but I didn't have the facts on the top of my head...

Very... unfair... paper!

randomfella

i don't think it was fair section C. I reckon they'll go bit easier in that section. Everything else was so easy to predict.

IF i was to do more than france, it woulld have been RUssia and maybe bismarck.

eastern question never, nor causes of ww1.

i got A in junior cert, had hoped for another A, 2 years comes down to 3hours 20mins, what a load of bollox.

I'd say it was grand once u had Section C. Everything was predicted for other sections.

Rredwell

Exiztone, you are complaining about something that was your own fault, i.e., not revising enough material. We had covered on average 3 out of 5 topics in every question on every section, so we were OK. It's the age-old problem with tips and predictions: if you abide by them too much, they'll let you doen.

phantom_lord

I thought it was a great paper, was exacting Davitt for a but i did him instead of my research topic cause i knew him so well. The parnell q was very broud i thought so that was good. Inter and war was what i expected for b. I was suprised at c, i was thinking france, but luckily i had read reform this morning and last night so it came back to me. Stalin was always gonna come up, great q, got to take about rise as well as domestic.
5-6 pages for each essay. Almost certain i got an a1.

randomfella

Rredwell wrote:

It's the age-old problem with tips and predictions: if you abide by them too much, they'll let you doen.

thats a bit stupid in all fairness. How do u do history if u can't predict it. For instance i heard VERY FEW tips for ww1. I could have studied 3 topics and still be ****ed over with C.

exiztone

Rredwell wrote:

Exiztone, you are complaining about something that was your own fault, i.e., not revising enough material. We had covered on average 3 out of 5 topics in every question on every section, so we were OK. It's the age-old problem with tips and predictions: if you abide by them too much, they'll let you doen.

Oh, okay then, so YOU revised modern history to the extent that you can write an essay on German military and naval strategy in the first World War?

I'd love to see how well you do in your other subjects with the amount of time you obviously put into history...

Binomate

exiztone wrote:

Oh, okay then, so YOU revised modern history to the extent that you can write an essay on German military and naval strategy in the first World War?

I'd love to see how well you do in your other subjects with the amount of time you obviously put into history...

I'm kicking myself that I didn't do that question. It was dead simple. All you had to do was talk about the shieffen plan and the plans to go through the netherlands and take out the french armies in a syth like sweep and than talk about the trench warfare. Instead I wrote a little less than a page on the eastern question

hada

exiztone wrote:

Oh, okay then, so YOU revised modern history to the extent that you can write an essay on German military and naval strategy in the first World War?

I'd love to see how well you do in your other subjects with the amount of time you obviously put into history...

ya that's actually simple. Talked to about 8 or 9 people who did that question because they had it prepared.

Having done the history exam twice, and gotten 98% last year in it, it's simply down to learning enough essays, that's about 6-11 essays per section (sometimes more).

People are going to bank on tips, but in order to succeed, you've got to learn 7 or 8 tipped questions. And then some of the "usual suspects".

If you had only learned 2-3 of the tipped questions per section, you would have been in major trouble today.

SO yes it is your own fault.

(oh and ps. "with all the time i put into history", i'd love to see you come close to even getting what I got in my mocks last year.)

Macka

Jesus 6-11 per section we did about 6 or 7 per section in class but damn that's impressive if a little unneccessary

exiztone

Macka wrote:

Jesus 6-11 per section we did about 6 or 7 per section in class but damn that's impressive if a little unneccessary

They're probably in some freak robot school

hada

exiztone wrote:

They're probably in some freak robot school

not really. won the harty this year and all ireland this year, so i wouldn't regard us as much of a freak school.

Oh and there's no need to be bitchy because you can't find anyone else to blame - Paper was tough, but again, fair if you had the work done.

phantom_lord

hada wrote:

that's about 6-11 essays per section (sometimes more).

Eh how about for the whole exam...i did 3 per section and i was fine. I got 2 in 2 sections and one in each of the other two while i did davitt for the research section.

hada

Macka wrote:

Jesus 6-11 per section we did about 6 or 7 per section in class but damn that's impressive if a little unneccessary

that's 6 essays, not topics! Don't think anyone could learn 40 topics. Well maybe, but not me

Shinny-dee

thats such a stupid suggestion its not possible t learn dat many essays per section r u seriously suggestion learin 44 esssays thats ridiculous. i think havin some kind of life is the preferred option f u'd studied everythin it was grand but no one does the course is too big. ive finished my exams an ive never felt on such a downer in my life i felt d rest went **** n was really countin on history but the FCUKS screwed me over. i did causes of WW1 for d inter rels q will i get any marks??

Flamingfud

hada wrote:

ya that's actually simple. Talked to about 8 or 9 people who did that question because they had it prepared.

Having done the history exam twice, and gotten 98% last year in it, it's simply down to learning enough essays, that's about 6-11 essays per section (sometimes more).

People are going to bank on tips, but in order to succeed, you've got to learn 7 or 8 tipped questions. And then some of the "usual suspects".

If you had only learned 2-3 of the tipped questions per section, you would have been in major trouble today.

SO yes it is your own fault.

(oh and ps. "with all the time i put into history", i'd love to see you come close to even getting what I got in my mocks last year.)

I'd love to see you come close to being a nice person.

German military tactics is bolt from the blue as far as the History course I've been studying this year goes. The fact is, that a lot of people were unhappy with this test paper. I personally lucked out, and had at least one question for every section, but I didn't learn 6-11 essays, and frankly, I'd think "More fool you" if you did.

Frankly, I have no time for people like you. No-one cares if you knew the damned history book word-for-word. It still doesn't give you the right to antagonise someone who is obviously upset about the exam they just finished.

Macka

I still say 6-11 is a little above the average of what most would've prepared. I have trouble remembering more than 4 essays per section and as long as you make an educated guess at what could come up you'll be grand

sci0x

I was exctremely lucky that the few things I had learnt off came up. I had barely 2 topics per section with only one in Section C - France . Bullsh*ted my way through Russia from what I could remmember. Very unfair question just asking on Nicholas. My History teacher said from last year that the Eastern Question would come up! Why didnt i just sit down and bloody learn the thing . Anyway everthing else was fine so surely got a B.

phantom_lord

hada wrote:

ya that's actually simple. Talked to about 8 or 9 people who did that question because they had it prepared.

Having done the history exam twice, and gotten 98% last year in it, it's simply down to learning enough essays, that's about 6-11 essays per section (sometimes more).

People are going to bank on tips, but in order to succeed, you've got to learn 7 or 8 tipped questions. And then some of the "usual suspects".

If you had only learned 2-3 of the tipped questions per section, you would have been in major trouble today.

SO yes it is your own fault.

(oh and ps. "with all the time i put into history", i'd love to see you come close to even getting what I got in my mocks last year.)

You really are taking the piss, how could you do that many and have a life outside history. and no one wants to hear that its their own fault when the exam threw up some unexpected stuff.

hada

No-one cares if you knew the damned history book word-for-word.

I never said I had. Why, did you think otherwise?

It still doesn't give you the right to antagonise someone who is obviously upset about the exam they just finished.

When someones says it was the most unfair paper he had ever seen, I simply said no, no it wasn't. If you had been prepared enough, had a wee bit of luck (which is very important) as in your case, then the paper was perfect, no worse than other years.

There are surprises every single year, hence the idea of learning that buffer essay of one or two extra ontop of the 3-4 tips.

hada

Macka wrote:

I still say 6-11 is a little above the average of what most would've prepared. I have trouble remembering more than 4 essays per section and as long as you make an educated guess at what could come up you'll be grand

That 11 per section is a little extreme, whoops

The reason i said is because if you were to learn off all of fascism which is a guarenteed question on section d every year thats 7 essays, then ww2 and de gaulle. Bingo, that's about 9 essays! Only 2 and a bit topics though.

Finch*

THAT WAS THE WORST EXAM I HAVE EVER DONE!! im pretty sure i failed that! no davitt no butt no france/bismarck no motherfuking anything!

Flamingfud

hada wrote:

I never said I had. Why, did you think otherwise?


When someones says it was the most unfair paper he had ever seen, I simply said no, no it wasn't. If you had been prepared enough, had a wee bit of luck (which is very important) as in your case, then the paper was perfect, no worse than other years.

There are surprises every single year, hence the idea of learning that buffer essay of one or two extra ontop of the 3-4 tips.

Hey, guess what? I DIDN'T even think about it. Amazing that, that what you know makes no difference to me whatsoever. Life is soooooo weird.

The fact remains, that person DID prepare, tried to learn the essays that had been suggested and were unlucky. I certainly wouldn't say "It's your own fault that you possibly just ruined your future (or at least another year of your future)"........ I think about saying "Hard luck".

Maybe I just don't have your hard-edge of ****tiness

jdevlin

Hada,when you say you got 98% last time do you mean you repeated or was that your fifth year exam.(im guessin 5th year seein as you give a percentage not a grade)

exiztone

Yep, I worked hard consistently for two years... but I took study leave in the last month so I missed important things like Stalin and the Cold War. We hadn't even covered the Interparty governments in class and with the stress of all my other exams, I put my faith into learning what most teachers were saying were going to come up.

The exam was so difficult, I think it was really unfair, they could have just given one bad section, but three, that was awful.

I wouldn't sacrafice my other subjects and social life to learn off 40 essays anyday :rolleyes:

hada

[QUOTE=Flamingfud
The fact remains, that person DID prepare, tried to learn the essays that had been suggested and were unlucky. I certainly wouldn't say "It's your own fault that you possibly just ruined your future (or at least another year of your future)"
[/QUOTE]

Why you telling me this? I'm the one who is repeating.

Think you're not understanding me, I'm simply saying it wasn't a bad paper.

There is absolutely, positively nothing wrong with going into an exam as prepared you can be, and things not working out. Happens to everyone, and it's just awful.

BUT, someone who hasn't prepared properly (and no matter what you say, exitzone was not fully prepared) and is depending on it for points and then saying, oh man it sucked, can't believe it, worst paper ever, and then insults people's hard work. Now that's just plain bad form, don't you think?

phantom_lord

Hm i guess everyone did come down a bit hard on you. I just happened to be lucky for part c, alot of people were banking on france.

Richard_Fonzie

Thankfully, it's a good thing they're getting rid of this course. For me personally, writing 15 pages by hand is something I cannot do. I could type 30 pages easily in the time provided. Since anyone with a career in any form of writing types and uses computers these days, its unfair to test people on how much they can write down in a short period. Especially when hundreds of hours and 25+ topics of history boils down to 3hrs 20mins and 4 topics. Not to mention that most people study in the hope that a minimum of 2 topics come up for them, thus they dont even study half of the course. I have put alot of time into History, more than in Chemistry or Physics or French (for example), not to mention I like it, but there's little doubt that I'll have a much better choice in those exams, a more stress free test structure and a better evaluation through the test at how good I am at them.

hada

exiztone wrote:

I wouldn't sacrafice my other subjects and social life to learn off 40 essays anyday :rolleyes:

See this is just the crap that you've been spitting out trying to get me to react.

On a positive note, do try and relax, and don't worry too much about the history exam. You probably did better than you think. And secondly, you're prob doing atleast 7 subjects, so you're points will balance out just fine with the actual 6 that you count.

phantom_lord

Richard_Fonzie wrote:

Thankfully, it's a good thing they're getting rid of this course. For me personally, writing 15 pages by hand is something I cannot do.

Try double that, after writing 30 for business. Pain.

Macka

hmmm this may seem a stupid Q but Richard Fonzie why didn't you just type your history paper instead of writing it by hand if your faster doing that way?

randombassist

I thought section C was a bit harsh, but all the same they did ask the Eastern Question which comes up very often, so there was still one of the main 3. Section A was fine, I did the Cultural nationalism one just because I knew everyone else would be doing Parnell!
B was Ireland in the Emergency, great question.
D was the one the hardest for me, did it last and I was running out of time. Did the Cold war one, went reasonably well all the same. Staying hopefull for an A fingers crossed!

Awayindahils

Such a good paper, had a choice in every section bar c but i knew the tsars so it was fine!!! but hada right its all about work, though i didnt learn essays i had 5 topics covered for each section. im really pleased and so were most people in my school.