history exam(hl)

bearwhite

After going through my exam papers and looking at the questions from each year, I've started questioning the "learn everything" attitude of my history teacher. Am I right in assuming that if I learn social change in twentieth century, international relations, most of my people in histories, and the second year course I can more or less ignore the rest of the course in any great depth and get an a?

Bored_lad

bearwhite wrote: »

After going through my exam papers and looking at the questions from each year, I've started questioning the "learn everything" attitude of my history teacher. Am I right in assuming that if I learn social change in twentieth century, international relations, most of my people in histories, and the second year course I can more or less ignore the rest of the course in any great depth and get an a?

I did the JC last year and our teacher did not recommend the learn everything approach. If you go through the past papers you will be able to predict nearly exactly what will come up. I would recommend you do this rather than just learning random topics. Also I would advise against doing the social change question as any teacher I know who teaches or has though history says not to do that question as it is extremely hard to get full marks in it as you can end up waffling for the whole thing.

bearwhite

Bored_lad wrote: »

I did the JC last year and our teacher did not recommend the learn everything approach. If you go through the past papers you will be able to predict nearly exactly what will come up. I would recommend you do this rather than just learning random topics. Also I would advise against doing the social change question as any teacher I know who teaches or has though history says not to do that question as it is extremely hard to get full marks in it as you can end up waffling for the whole thing.

Really? I thought it would be easier because I got like full marks for that in the mocks... But maybe political developments would be easier to answer. Thanks for the advice.

spurious

Have to agree about the social history question - almost as bad as the Northern Irish questions in terms of people scoring well.

bearwhite

Also, would de valera count as an Irish political leader during 1960-85 and 1900-21?

Mr Rhode Island Red

Last year I left out any in-depth learning of Modern Irish History (1900 onwards) and Social Change completely and still flew through the exam and got an A.

But that was having 1st Year and 2nd year stuff known perfectly, except stuff that had came up the year immediately previous, and having my WW2, European History, Cold War etc. known as well.

For example, looking at the 2014 People in History Question, an industrial revolution times mine/factory owner and Pre-christian Ireland native came up, which makes it very unlikely that you will see those in this year's people in history question.

Using a system of elimination like this could really help you avoid learning stuff that probably won't come up.