History Disection

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.

rose**

HATE THAT HISTORY COURSE!!! the course is just wooful. u can work ur backside off for years and get a slap in face. tzarist russia on nick2 only!?
stalin was phrased weird. didnt get to write all my essays down in time. very iffy.




but it could ave been worse! :eek:

Richard_Fonzie

Macka wrote:

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?

ROFL? You're saying I could have done that? The only thing I've heard about is that people with autism or other disabilites can get special exemptions, if they apply 10 months in advance.

leggo

I think people are just moaning since they didn't put the work in to be honest. I thought it was a VERY fair paper.

-- You got four VERY basic questions in Q1 (Land Question, Parnell, Ulster, Griffith).

-- The War Question in Q2 was fine, and considering it's one of the most important periods of our history then I think everyone should've at least known some **** on it. If not then you had Lemass, who I didn't study because I opted for CnaG and Dev's main years and not the Inter-Party Govt-Lemass side. Either way you were fairly well covered.

-- I'll admit the Q3 was tough. I gave the Eastern Question a go and did...okay on it. It was a bit of a bogey not giving Bismarck or France, but complaining about it is ridiculous. It's not their responsiblity to give you what you've prepared for, you shouldn't throw all your eggs in one basket.

-- Q4 was a brilliant question. They say you're fine if you cover the dictators, here you got two of them and two simple questions.

Another few points:

1) I don't think people should moan about military plan questions or anything like that coming up. If you bothered your arse to look through the papers you'd know that almost ALWAYS a question not neccessarily politically related and looking more at a period from a social/military standpoint comes up, you should be prepared and if not, prepared to be ****ed for the question.

2) Why did people study essays? For any subject?! That's VERY dodgy if you ask me. Study facts and write your essay around them when you get in there. Even if you know an essay REALLY well, you're just asking for a domino effect to **** you up if you forget one small thing. Know a few points and a few facts to back up your points...bleh, it's too late to even bother now.

3) Sorry if I sound a little harsh on people who are genuinely upset that the exam didn't go your way, but I just can't stand bad workmen who blame their tools. If you didn't prepare well enough, fair enough be angry with yourself. Don't blame the course or the Exams Commission because you should've been well prepared for them. This was a manageable test if you knew how to handle yourself in History.

Delta_ie

phantom_lord wrote:

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

I feel your pain, my hard is in bits after that.

Generally thought it was a good paper, Sec. C throw me a bit but I think I knew enough about ww1 to give a good anwser on it.
Ah well, its over now and no amount of complaining can change that.

BraveheartGal

hada wrote:

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.

we*kicked*ur*ass*in*1st*year*hurling*comp*though*;)

Cool_CM

What a paper, i only ended up bullsh*tting one question!

shoutman

I failed
A1 essay for my special topic
b2 essay for my essay on first inter party government
and thats it.

I was so pissed off about off about 3rd french republic, i'm so pissed off that the second half of the 3rd french repubic came off,

Also davtt came up in the same section as the special topic.


im so sad
tear

Macka

Richard_Fonzie wrote:

ROFL? You're saying I could have done that? The only thing I've heard about is that people with autism or other disabilites can get special exemptions, if they apply 10 months in advance.

I'm pretty sure you can there's a guy in my year who's doing it all on computer and he's not autistic or disabled in any way

hada

shoutman wrote:

I failed

Also davtt came up in the same section as the special topic.

so did john redmond. Pretty lousey the way they did that.

Oh well!

segadreamcast

randomfella wrote:

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.

In fairness now, I've been touting that WW1 is gonna come up for ages. Look at the patterns - every 5 years I think? Furthermore, I also predicted that it'd focus on the central powers...which was close enough for my study liking anyway (end smugness).

I liked the paper anyway, my predictions were spot on on nearly every count - I even said, contrary to everyone else - that they were gonna stick us on one of the dead certs, as they always do, and I even said that it would probably be third republic - since they seemed to give people the unexpected in section B already last year.

I did Cultural Nationalism (my last essay - had 20 minutes so started doing really short fact-laden paragraphs), Inter-Party Government (anyone who didn't study this was, frankly, a fool, EVERYBODY said it was coming up), WW1 (hardly out of the blue now in fairness - AND you could've done the eastern question) and Stalin (again, expected. The TCD lecture crew were spot on once again with their predictions)

Well done everybody - this was probably the most demanding exam you'll ever have to do. Wish you all the best... I think I got my B2 out of it, and that's all I care about bye bye Bismarck, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Davitt, Pearse, etc...