I'm kinda screwd neglStarting this because no one else will. Soooooo... what are everyones thoughts and predictions? Personally I think that this subject doesnt offer too much but interpretative questions. But if you have anything to offer, post it here pls
I guess thats the hard part, like zbolland said it's mostly dependent on the question. For the first question what I like to do is identify schools of thought that I think will be relevant to my argument during my first read of the source, just so I can quickly grasp what quotes I'll need to be using and what kind of arguments I'll be making. Then I usually get into the specifics and think about a unique argument/point of view that I can offer that relates to the question and the source. That ability to be able to develop and express your "historians voice" in relation to the source and essay question in the exam is essentially what the markers are looking for in your response which is why I place so much importance on not just chronologically outlining what schools of thought said what, but rather I make an attempt to posit original yet sensible historiographical arguments when I'm writing.
straight up thought the pic was like peppa pig or some shit for a second
imagine doing extension history let alone modern+ancient
whos history?imagine doing extension history let alone modern+ancient
ik people that do all 3 and they're acing them all
they must be gifted to have such a competent memory and or work ethic
I do all 3 and am first in my class for all 3 as well. Its just memorisation and spamming practice papers honestly. Ive sent my teachers so many essays this year ive honestly lost count.
