I talked about how the structure imposed by society upon nature - i.e. the canal thing - was a) demonstrative of a materialistic society determined to squeeze every last coin out of the earth and b) symbolic (hey, author did make this point!) of the stucture imposed upon the people themselves, so they didn't in anyway have the freedom commonly associated with the romanticised view of the time.
But i wrote practically the same thing for parts a and b, so ive given an incorrect answer to one of them at least Also, looking back, i didnt infer anything about the technological advancements made at the time
AAAHHHH im so not gonna get an interview! i wish i could just stop beating myself up over it though.
Edit: also also, for part 2 i didnt even CONSIDER provenance. im so gonna be a REJECT
You have a good answer for the second of the first two questions, don't worry about it. So i wrote that the frern canal (whatever it was called) reflected the indiviualistic nature of life in the american west (every man for himself, no sense of community), not the romantic view everyone has of the rural west, i dont actually think that i made sense.
Oh God, 1c was a bitch, all I could think about was the Nazis being driven out of Russia because of the cold weather, so I just went with that and then talked about the other factors (like the Western front, America, tenacity of Russians, underpreparedness of Germans etc)
And q2 everything I mentioned was really obvious, I don't think I scored well in Historical imagination But hopefully the rest was decent, wouldn't be surprised if I got a rejection
That's exactly what I chose for C I was very stuck as I have only ever studied Nazi Germany and British economic policy, so I was very confused. I really hope I get an interview but I feel like I let myself down a lot. Oh well, it was worth a try
That's exactly what I chose for C I was very stuck as I have only ever studied Nazi Germany and British economic policy, so I was very confused. I really hope I get an interview but I feel like I let myself down a lot. Oh well, it was worth a try
I felt really good after the test, but starting to doubt myself more and more as time goes on.
I found 1 all right for c) i wrote about Che Guevara's Bolivian campaign and about how the terrain and his camp location made it unsuitable for Guerilla Warfare and ultimately reulted in it's failure.
I thought the source questions were easier than on most of the practice papers. Just got to wait to hear about interviews now :s
meant post 1918 Germany. Sorry. but didn't even write about that in the end =[
I know you didn't, just thought you might have studied the same area as me. I studied up to 1925, but couldn't think of a strong enough example from 1918-1925.
I really can't believe no one has mentioned Napoleon's blundered invasion of Russia for 1c). It is very similar to the Operation Barbarossa example that everyone seems to have written about. I just wrote about how logistically it was a nightmare for Napoleon because of Russia's ridiculously vast landscape. (Because of this his supply lines were stretched thin, and could easily be harangued by partisans.) And that Russia's rainy season furthered his logistic nightmare by bogging down his wagon driven supply lines in mud. I also noted the scorched earth policy that Russia adopted -so that Napoleon had to rely on supplies from far away Prussia, and of course, the Russian winter. It all worked quite well; I was just disappointed that I didn't know more on the subject. (I hadn't studied that since 10th grade! but thank god I guessed the Tsar's name right!!!)
I really can't believe no one has mentioned Napoleon's blundered invasion of Russia for 1c). It is very similar to the Operation Barbarossa example that everyone seems to have written about. I just wrote about how logistically it was a nightmare for Napoleon because of Russia's ridiculously vast landscape. (Because of this his supply lines were stretched thin, and could easily be harangued by partisans.) And that Russia's rainy season furthered his logistic nightmare by bogging down his wagon driven supply lines in mud. I also noted the scorched earth policy that Russia adopted -so that Napoleon had to rely on supplies from far away Prussia, and of course, the Russian winter. It all worked quite well; I was just disappointed that I didn't know more on the subject. (I hadn't studied that since 10th grade! but thank god I guessed the Tsar's name right!!!)
I worte about Napoleon's failed campaign in Russia
I even said so on this very thread, I also made a parallel with the Germans failing in Russia in WWII.
I worte about Napoleon's failed campaign in Russia
I even said so on this very thread, I also made a parallel with the Germans failing in Russia in WWII.
Oh sorry, I didn't mean to be redundant. I even thought of apologizing in advance in my prior post in case I was being repetitive. I so saw this coming
I wrote about the Russian Civil War. I imagine if I've done well enough to get an interview, I'll have just scraped it. I'm not very confident on it at all. Not too bothered though as UCL made me an offer on Thursday.
How long was everyone's? Mine was only four sides in total. And I had about fifteen - twenty minutes left at the end. I've always been pretty quick and concise in exams but it seemed wrong to be finished that one early. Meh.
4 sides for the entire paper? I did 3 for Q 1c, 2 for Q2, 1a and 1b had limits so about a page between. With all the plans it came to 10 sheets!
Yeah. One for Q1a and Q1b. Two for Q1c and one for Q2. Q2 didn't have to be structured so I saw no point in essaying it up and just got to the point with it.
Why did you submit plans too? I just made my rough ones for those on the question paper itself.
surprisingly one of the more fun papers i've done (some of the practice ones were pretty horrible/yawnfests)
geography aspect threw me for a few minutes, but the source used for question 1 was pretty straightforward, making 1a and 1b not too bad!
as for 1c, after mini panic about what the heck to write about, settled on barbarossa.. but made sure i acknowledged in the other half of my essay that the weather could not be sourced as the soul reason factor in shaping the "character" of the event.. i.e. underestimating soviet potential / logistical flaws etc were similarly important.
I finished with around about 10 minutes to spare as well, which was worrying as I thought that i'd be tight on time, so I was flipping through making sure that i hadn't missed a question! My essay was rubbish, and the more I think about it, the more I don't think that i'm going to get an interview. But all of my friends keep on saying 'you're definitely going to get in' which is soooooo annoying! I only wrote 2 pages for 1c as well, but it said write 1.5-2 so at least we were in the limit.
Couldn't agree more. This infuriates me about my friends They don't seem to understand that getting in is actually rather hard because everyone who applies is a top student.
I thought it was ok. I could do 1a and 1b. For 1c an example immediately sprang to mind; the battle of Bosworth field and how the physical landscape (hills, marshes) affected the outcome.
I actually thought 2 was harder. I could get plenty of easy to see detail, but not really anything that was deeply buried below the surface.
I also had plenty of time, only spent an hour on Q1, then 40 mins on Q2 then had 20 minutes to go through it all.
Have no idea how I've done though, the more I think about it, the worse I think my 1c answer is!
Hello again
I thought 1a and 1b seemed deceptively easy, perhaps I was missing the central concepts. Can you remember what you wrote for 1a, just to check? For 1c I had to bend an example from Civil War history - I don't think it was very good. No idea what mark I got.
I was really annoyed because I went to see my history teacher afterwards and he said it was really easy, and was laughing at the bit where it says the paper is supposed to be 'challenging.' Grrrrr
Welcome to the University of Oxford forum: where prospective and current students can discuss anything about Oxford.
Useful Resources:
Re: The Official HAT 2009 Discussion Thread
Also, looking back, i didnt infer anything about the technological advancements made at the time 
They don't seem to understand that getting in is actually rather hard because everyone who applies is a top student.
