The Student Room Group

History B - British Depth Study OCR

Hey guys so I just did my history exam and I thought it went well overall but I think I've made a few mistakes.
- I interpreted the last source wrong because I thought it was anti-feminist instead of feminist. How many marks could I possibly lose? I thought my answer was good but I understood the source wrong.
- Also, I was really pushed for time and I forgot to talk about reliability in the 16 marker. How many marks would I lose?
What do you guys predict for the grade boundaries?? Hopefully they're low because I'm not really sure whether the exam went well anymore!! ahh
How did the exam go for you?

Scroll to see replies

If you've used source detail and own knowledge you could still get a few marks on that Question 4, I think!

As long as you've mentioned the sources you should be fine - Question 5 is now based mainly on own knowledge so as long as you've used the sources at all, it won't matter too much that you haven't mentioned their reliability.

I think (I hope!) the grade boundaries will be quite low - probably not as low as last year (I think it was 34/53 for an A*) but still quite low, because looking at all the angry memes on twitter, I think a lot of people found it hard! I think it was quite hard to use own knowledge for a lot of the questions, but the first few sources were quite nice.

To be honest I'm just happy I'm done with History :u:
Reply 2
What did you guys speak about in the equal pay act source question what was the message I think
I thought it went well. The question about the last source was only 9 marks and if you said what was in the source (content) and put in some contextual knowledge, you can probably still get 4 or 5 out of 9. Talking about the reliability of the sources in the last 16 marker would not have mattered anyway as it was mainly about knowledge anyway.
For the caveman question I interpreated it something like this:
men and women have separte spheres and as they are cavemen it has always been around.
Is this right do you think? If not will I still get some marks? 😧😖
I've heard people that it was FOR the vote as its saying the idea of separate spheres is outdated.
ahh i talked about both for the cavemen. like i said it could be viewed i think as meaning women should remain in their traditional roles n like seperate spheres n waffled a bit abt that n backbench conservatives, n then i did a second paragraph saying sorta how the message could be viewed different and it was calling the fixed gender roles outdated, and wasn't democratic ?? yikes i made everything up tbh. like would you be marked down for having conflicting ideas? i think i summarised it but i can't remember whoops
What are the grade boundaries usually like for paper 2 OCR?
i think i messed up on the disagree question as i argued for disagree and how both sources agree too, my friends said they only did disagree so rip 9 marks :frown:
It is necessary to talk about how views changed on the 16 marker for top mark??:s-smilie: (hoping for a*)
Original post by woodypecker-99
It is necessary to talk about how views changed on the 16 marker for top mark??:s-smilie: (hoping for a*)


I think so, my teacher told me for full marks on that question you need to argue to agree with the interpretation and to argue against it and a little conclusion to sum it up at the end, but definitely argue both sides, if u argue one side you will still get a decent amount of marks for the side u have argued so don't worry xxxx :smile:
Original post by Hiorns158
For the caveman question I interpreated it something like this:
men and women have separte spheres and as they are cavemen it has always been around.
Is this right do you think? If not will I still get some marks? 😧😖
I've heard people that it was FOR the vote as its saying the idea of separate spheres is outdated.


I said in terms of religion, they believed God put women in the private sphere eg.house and men in the public sphere, outdoors?? :/
Original post by hiorns158
what are the grade boundaries usually like for paper 2 ocr?


a* 34/53
a 30/53
b 26/53
c 23/53
d 20/53
e 18/53
f 16/53
g 14/53
Original post by JamieGre
a* 34/53
a 30/53
b 26/53
c 23/53
d 20/53
e 18/53
f 16/53
g 14/53


Brilliant- thanks :-)
Reply 13
Original post by sanju.0802
Hey guys so I just did my history exam and I thought it went well overall but I think I've made a few mistakes.
- I interpreted the last source wrong because I thought it was anti-feminist instead of feminist. How many marks could I possibly lose? I thought my answer was good but I understood the source wrong.
- Also, I was really pushed for time and I forgot to talk about reliability in the 16 marker. How many marks would I lose?
What do you guys predict for the grade boundaries?? Hopefully they're low because I'm not really sure whether the exam went well anymore!! ahh
How did the exam go for you?


Question 5 requires no evaluation of reliability as they wanted to get rid of stock evaluation like discrediting authors because of bias. Student last year got 15/16 with no reliability so it should be fine. last year it was 34 for an A* but typical is around 43-5. An also lots of people misinterpreted that at my school to so don't worry :smile:
Question 3 with the caveman source, I said that this didn't support women's suffrage as they belong in the house, is this right?
Original post by jamiedwight
Question 3 with the caveman source, I said that this didn't support women's suffrage as they belong in the house, is this right?


no , it was emphasising the archaic way in which women are treated
Original post by JamieGre
a* 34/53
a 30/53
b 26/53
c 23/53
d 20/53
e 18/53
f 16/53
g 14/53


Actually, they may be a bit more like this:
A* 42/53
A 39/53
B 36/53
C 33/53
D 29/53
E 25/53
F 22/53
G 19/53

This is because the 2015 grade boundaries that Jamie has presented were lower because of the new format of 16 marker on the test. I personally believe that they will go back to normal again, which is mostly around these marks (taken from 2013 grade boundaries and compared with 2014). You can't really predict however, it depends on how the entire country does.
Original post by CharlesJH
Actually, they may be a bit more like this:
A* 42/53
A 39/53
B 36/53
C 33/53
D 29/53
E 25/53
F 22/53
G 19/53

This is because the 2015 grade boundaries that Jamie has presented were lower because of the new format of 16 marker on the test. I personally believe that they will go back to normal again, which is mostly around these marks (taken from 2013 grade boundaries and compared with 2014). You can't really predict however, it depends on how the entire country does.


Ahhhh- that makes sense, thank you :-)
Original post by Katy0984
What did you guys speak about in the equal pay act source question what was the message I think

The chancellor of of exchequer and Government of finance in general didn't care about the women and their rights in regards to equal pay and made up excuses. Evidence to back this up is where it said "etc. etc." suggesting they said similar things to "the government agrees but the time doesn't opportune".

Also, the cartoonist was criticising them the government for their indifference shown and suggested that things would remain like this for 40 years to come (a long time) as the caption read "Things to come, - March 9, 1994) and it was published 40 years before exactly. Similarly, there was a picture of the exchequer on the war and next to it was him in 40 years time or the next exchequer which suggests they'd keep on making the same excuse.

Those were my main points. What did you write?
Reply 19
Original post by blessingmariee
The chancellor of of exchequer and Government of finance in general didn't care about the women and their rights in regards to equal pay and made up excuses. Evidence to back this up is where it said "etc. etc." suggesting they said similar things to "the government agrees but the time doesn't opportune".

Also, the cartoonist was criticising them the government for their indifference shown and suggested that things would remain like this for 40 years to come (a long time) as the caption read "Things to come, - March 9, 1994) and it was published 40 years before exactly. Similarly, there was a picture of the exchequer on the war and next to it was him in 40 years time or the next exchequer which suggests they'd keep on making the same excuse.

Those were my main points. What did you write?

Yeah I spoke about how the chancellor did not care too and how the women's demand for equal pay was not taken seriously and that this campaign would go on for the next 40 years which links to the idea that nothing was being done and this was not being taken seriously and linked it to how women were paid much less than men for doing the same job during this period of time

Quick Reply

Latest