General Chatter (1 Viewer)

[p342i]

Re: It's over! atleast for me >_>

Both sections were great; I found it definetly worth reading over the source and quote three times, then spending 10 minutes planning.

I still got 16 pages out for Section 1: and 14 pages for section 2 (8 words per line)

A good exam to finish on.

 

[Master Gopher]

Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

Yep that bugged me so bad, probably spent about 5 minutes turning pages to spell her name... could have just called it "the Source" I guess, but exams kind of scramble your brain... that do be my excuse

Otherwise, nice straightforward exam I thought. And I loved the fish metaphor.

 

[thenothing]

Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

the questions were straight forward. question one they told u that it was about aims and purposes u didnt even have to extract it from the source, which made it easier, and the source was straightforward. the second question was the most broad thing i have ever seen, so u could pretty much talk about any historical debate and get away with it. for those who are asking what fish has to do with anything, ever heard of a metaphor?? ill let those people ponder on this for a moment....

Uhm! dood, I really hope you talked about the debate you did in class and not your project.

And, because you're obviously incapable of using grammar, I think you're probably going to fail anyway. And anyone who talked about fish and said it wasn't a metaphor was *joking*.

 

[nessyfreak]

Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

i agree, the guy that made this post is really up himself. congratulations on identifying the fish as a metaphor, give yourself a medal if you need to but dont make assumptions about other people dickhead.

anyway, we learnt about Clendinnen in our case study (aztecs) so as soon as reading time started two of us started laughing (including me) lol.
it was so weird because from that source she appeared to be like an empiracist but from our case study she really isnt... so my question one and 2 were so different when talking about her!
i got a bit muddled in the exam because i was trying to work out what to write but i think i did alright in the end... much better than the trial.
1 more exam to go!

 

[Nelsonian]

Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

I was wondering if it was about some historian called John West and the fish he rejected at some remote dock in Alaska. It never occured to me that a metaphor was what I was looking at. Imagine my disappointment when discussing the catch of the day with other fisherman and finding out the bad news...I felt gutted. Fancy using a quote from Carr like that. I never liked him as Premier anyway, but I was completely unaware that he was into fishing. Perhaps I should have looked at it all from another angle.

 

[nessyfreak]

Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

I was wondering if it was about some historian called John West and the fish he rejected at some remote dock in Alaska. It never occured to me that a metaphor was what I was looking at. Imagine my disappointment when discussing the catch of the day with other fisherman and finding out the bad news...I felt gutted. Fancy using a quote from Carr like that. I never liked him as Premier anyway, but I was completely unaware that he was into fishing. Perhaps I should have loked at it all from another angle.

LOL!! GOOD CALL!

 

[Eusebius]

Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

i hope i did the right thing by sayin she had a view of history's purpose as being empirical but oath did that have to be the worst name to have to refer to...clendillen, clendellen...wtf?!? i give up

The historians name always seem to be a weird one, the worst is when you get a source written by two historians, BOTH WITH FUNNY NAMES!

 

[thenothing]

Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

I knew Clendinnen was a post modernist, and was going to use her in the essay anyway, I wasn't surprised they used her for the source.

I quoted her outside the source as well, from The Boyer Lectures.

 

[nallask8r]

Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

I knew Clendinnen was a post modernist, and was going to use her in the essay anyway, I wasn't surprised they used her for the source.

I quoted her outside the source as well, from The Boyer Lectures.

From the source she wasnt a post-modernist at all. clearly a modernist telling us all the stuff history can offer us. Anyways im a bit worried, you know how it says to make a judgement, wat did that mean? Of course in my response i indirectly said whose perspective was different etc. But did you have to literally say "Therefore i believe blah blah blah".

 

[SL33pY]

Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

I was wondering if it was about some historian called John West and the fish he rejected at some remote dock in Alaska. It never occured to me that a metaphor was what I was looking at. Imagine my disappointment when discussing the catch of the day with other fisherman and finding out the bad news...I felt gutted. Fancy using a quote from Carr like that. I never liked him as Premier anyway, but I was completely unaware that he was into fishing. Perhaps I should have looked at it all from another angle.

ROFLMOA!! brilliant

 

[Asheroth]

Re: It's over! atleast for me >_>

(i.e. people say subjectivity when COME ON its more about how facts aren't "historical facts" until the historian uses them or that there is a "prcoess of attrition" before the past is recorded as facts - its in what is history? pg 12-13).

also section 1 i said the woman was a socialist can that be inferred :/ ?

It's not really. It's only about that if you've read What Is History?, which lots of people, me included, haven't. If you don't have the background on Carr to work with, the source is simply about selectivity in the creation of historical writing, and can be widened to deal with bias, anachronism etc. I know Carr's ideas of 'historical facts' but I didn't see them stated in the source - yes, you can infer them by extending the metaphor (they become historical once the historian has 'cleaned' them etc) but the source is hardly MORE about that than it is about selectivity and subjectivity.

I think a certain amount of straw-clutching would be needed to characterise Clendinnen as a socialist, but you might get away with it

 

[emanuellasker]

Re: It's over! atleast for me >_>

Hooray I'm finished, what a fabulously easy test!!! 1st section was tops I just explained it bit by bit, then next question Tacitean view of the principate, (the quote given summed up that exactly.) Overall a great test.

 

[rickn]

Re: It's over! atleast for me >_>

source 1 was tough, i couldnt pick up on her main purpose in mass detail...i tried to engage in the idea of empiricism through her quote as an objective analysis with history as a science...hope this works. section 2 wasnt too bad. i didnt find the fish metaphor to ambiguous but in saying that i didnt make as many good points as i probably should have... are you supposed to engage in the source in section 2 as much as you are in section 1?

The question said 2 analyse this interpretation so i would say you have to deal with it in detail but as theres not as much to talk about as in one you would still talk about the source in one more

 

[rjharley]

Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

wow tis amazing how angry some people get if you just make a simple post. and some person replies and tells me i cant use grammar and calls me "dood". i wasnt trying to be up myself actually, and for everyone thinking im claiming the fact that i realised the metaphor, if u bothered to look at some of the other topics, people are asking what the fish source was all about. no i didnt talk about my own research project our case study was thucydides, i just wanted to say what we studied fitted really easily with the questions and i found it to be the easiest exam ive done so far, and just because i say its easy and others dont agree they go crazy at me.

edit: yea have to agree with the people about rewriting clendinnen for the first source though.

 

[v_wangnet]

Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

I was wondering if it was about some historian called John West and the fish he rejected at some remote dock in Alaska. It never occured to me that a metaphor was what I was looking at. Imagine my disappointment when discussing the catch of the day with other fisherman and finding out the bad news...I felt gutted. Fancy using a quote from Carr like that. I never liked him as Premier anyway, but I was completely unaware that he was into fishing. Perhaps I should have looked at it all from another angle.

you, my friend, are funny.

 

[ane_st]

Re: wow, possibly the easiest thing ive done

Well.. If you knew the content it was an ok test... But i kinda forgot most of my stuff.. I think it was nerves...

And i also thought the the sections could've been swapped around.. I kept seeing aspects of my case study in section1 and vice versa...

 

[Bobness]

Re: It's over! atleast for me >_>

It's not really. It's only about that if you've read What Is History?, which lots of people, me included, haven't. If you don't have the background on Carr to work with, the source is simply about selectivity in the creation of historical writing, and can be widened to deal with bias, anachronism etc. I know Carr's ideas of 'historical facts' but I didn't see them stated in the source - yes, you can infer them by extending the metaphor (they become historical once the historian has 'cleaned' them etc) but the source is hardly MORE about that than it is about selectivity and subjectivity.

sucks to be you then. we are meant to base around the source but (as top answers have done in the past .. go read some standards packages) knowledge of the background of the historian is almost imperative if you want to push that top band

i liked your 'cleaned' facts idea becoming history thats so good with the fish metaphor. i hope you said that in the essay.

otherwise seriously we are not ONLY limited to the source. the syllabus outcomes for history extension also incl. independent and individual investigation so if you knew about what is history (its THE seminal text for history how can more than half the state for hist ext not know it?) it was almost a gift writing a bit about that in the essay

 

[eleanor88]

Re: It's over! atleast for me >_>

I forgot to write the name of my case study (Elizabeth I) on the top of my Section II essay!!! Grr, I feel like such a dork.

How dumb can one be?

Oh well, I hope they don't get pissed off about it and mark me shitly.

Elle

 

[undotwa]

For the first question, how strictly do you think they'll mark it? Did one have to say "So and so considers historical purpose as such...". My main concern with my essay is that whilst everything was considered in terms of historical purpose, it wasn't explicit. For instance, I spoke at length about historical objectivity and then its effects upon historical purpose (though I don't think I actually used the 'purpose', but rather words like 'aims' and 'end').