Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

General A level History help (OLD SPEC)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40

username202682

letsdothetimewarpagain

These books are 101% better :eek3:

I may stand a chance of getting above a c this time :laugh:

Huh what? Your (Access to History) Unit 2 book arrived? :p:

Reply 41

letsdothetimewarpagain

Stricof

Huh what? Your (Access to History) Unit 2 book arrived? :p:

Yeah

So good

Reply 42

username202682

letsdothetimewarpagain

Yeah

So good

Oh awesomecake :coma:

Now all you need to do is practice exam technique?

Reply 43

Thelastbubble

Think I'll get this started for the coming year. Tsars to Communism anyone?!

Reply 44

Achexi

Doing tsars to communism too. Think you could PM me some writing technique tips or something? My exams far off in january however it seems my analysis isnt getting me marks and im currently grading C's in class tests, compared to an easy A* at GCSE. Thanks. Im pretty glad i found this thread, keep the good work up.

Reply 45

username202682

Original post by Achexi

Have a read of this. Especially mine and jjarvis's posts. Tell me what you think. If you still need more advice - Give me a shout :h:

Reply 46

Kaskade

could anyone help me with this question? or at least know anywhere I can get resources for it: "Why do you think that in spite of all these problems the republic survived 1918-1923?"
Thanks!

Reply 47

adam_zed

Stricof I want to rape you. I have spent the last few days procrastinating like crazy, trying to work out a decent revision format for Unit 1 and 2. I mean it got so bad I have even started to relearn German as a distraction!?!?! Thank you very much indeed for your help!

Reply 48

davidcampbell

Hi i am doing higher history this year,
my teacher gave us a source question that i am really struggling to cope with.

How fully does this source explain why men answered the call to arms in 1914.... ( worth 10 marks) and the source is a picture of a dad and his son and daughter.
i know facts about the call to arms but i do not know how to structure this sort of question and desperately need help fast can anyone help by letting me know how to structure out a full answer as i need to pass this question or be moved from the class
i appreciate any help, thankyou

Reply 49

LFChrispy

Hey, I'm just going to have a stab at a 20 mark question, and I was just wondering if you guys (especially the legend that is stricof) could have a look and give me a bit of feedback?

Here's the links to 1. Question paper 2. Source booklet and 3. Mark scheme

1.https://eiewebvip.edexcel.org.uk/Reports/Confidential%20Documents/0801/6521_1D_que_20080111.pdf
2. Click on little paperclip icon under title on above link
3.https://eiewebvip.edexcel.org.uk/Reports/Confidential%20Documents/0801/6521_1D_rms_20080306.pdf 1D page 14

Here goes...

Sources 1 and 3 appear to agree with the view that Emmeline Pankhurst was a good leader of the WSPU, in terms of being a ‘hero’ for the movement, whilst source 2 portrays a negative view of Pankhurst, claiming she became a liability for the group, costing them support and political influence. However, all the sources agree to view her as a strong personality with an almost dictatorial approach.

Stocks (source 1) describes Pankhurst as an excellent orator, saying those who heard her speak would ‘recall a thrill of excitement’, and this ability would lead Stocks to refer to her as a ‘hero’, evidently believing her to be an inspiration for other women to follow. Furthermore, Stocks felt she had the capability to attract large amounts of support to the movement by speaking to a variety of crowds, from the ‘Albert Hall’ to ‘small groups’, as well as the in the ‘hurly-burly of a street scuffle’. Her abilities as a ‘spellbinder’ would have surely gained the movement more impetus in the view of Stocks. This is especially interesting to note, as Stocks, being a former member of the NUWSS, would have been expected to have a negative view of Pankhurst due to the NUWSS and the WSPU’s differing views and philosophies, and the resulting resentment between the groups. However, I feel in the 60 or so years between the events and the publication of the work, Stocks may have mellowed and taken a more pragmatic and non-partisan view of Pankhurst, believing her to have made genuine contributions to the movement. There are many areas of cross-census with Pankhurst herself (source 3). It too portrays Pankhurst as an inspirational leader who had assembled a powerful organisation which ‘any woman’ could join, whilst not being ‘hampered by a complexity of rules’. She managed to successfully ensure the loyalty of her party members as well, by forcing a ‘declaration of loyalty’ and a ‘pledge not to work for other parties’. However, this source is most likely to be overly in favour of Pankhurst and her actions, as she wrote it herself and would have wanted to display herself in a positive light, thus decreasing the reliability of the source, especially as the vote can been achieved by its publication.

It is Marsden (source 2) who is most opposed to the view that Pankhurst was a good leader of the organisation. Marsden felt she had became obsessed with the campaign, having ‘given too much of herself to this agitation’, leading to her being ‘destroyed’ by the ‘wild passion’ of the movement, ultimately leading to a loss of support. She claims that Pankhurst has lost sight of the group’s initial aims, in that she ‘abandoned her judgement and original ambition’, namely taking a ‘responsible part in politics and government’. This was also alluded to in source 3, in which Pankhurst instructed members ‘not to work for any political party’. Ultimately this suggests that Pankhurst was aloof and unpopular with her own support, as evidenced by Marsden’s own departure from the organisation, which may have made her bitter and resentful of Pankhurst and thus leading her to write an overly critical piece. Despite this, there are further areas of consensus with the other sources. Source 3 could be interpreted as Pankhurst possessing a dictatorial style of leadership, as shown by her reference to the ‘autocracy’ of the party, ‘inflexible customs’ and the absence of ‘elections of officers’. It may have been this ignorance of the members and undemocratic format that led to the departure of those would have brought about change (source 2).

To conclude, the sources all portray Pankhurst as a strong-willed individual, who forceful personality won or cost support, depending on allegiance. Her allies describe her as a ‘hero’, whilst her rivals cast her as an ‘invalid’ whose life has been consuming by the movement to the extent that she damaged it. However, I feel that the sources 1 and 3 are almost totally in favour of her role in the WSPU, as her autocratic is portrayed as a positive by Pankhurst herself in source 3. Despite this, the timings of both sources have allowed time for reflection; it is likely that more negative views were commonplace prior to the granting of the vote, whilst the retrospective views were more favourable due to the ultimate success of the moment.

Reply 50

LFChrispy

Original post by Stricof

Have a read of this. Especially mine and jjarvis's posts. Tell me what you think. If you still need more advice - Give me a shout :h:

Just realised you probably won't see it unless I quote you :biggrin:

Reply 51

lanabanana

Thank You so much for this! You're kind of amazing for putting all the effort and time to produce this concise thread! Especially considering that Edexcel is NOT AT ALL helpful with the new curriculum that's come out :frown:

But you're a life saver! thanks again! :smile:

Reply 52

whisperings

This thread is super helpful!
Even though it's far off in the summer, I'm quite worried about this exam... I'm retaking Unit 3 (A World Divided: Superpower Relations 1944-1990) in my gap year and I'm absolutely fine with knowledge of the topic, but worried about exam technique. As it's a new spec even my teacher wasn't 100% sure what Edexcel wanted of us and none of us got higher than a B last June. I got 88/120 in Unit 3, and 316/400 overall. I just missed out on an A (hence the gap year), so I need to improve by at least 4 marks.
I'm having to retake without any lessons so help/advice from anybody would be really appreciated! <3

Reply 53

karema66

hello

im doing unit 4 challenge of facism..
can any one offer any advice of how to write the essays...and what books i need to read...point me in some right directions...website/programmes e.t.c

my teacher for history is rubbish...mind you all of them are...so help much needed

Reply 54

molthemoo

Hey

I'm doing edexcel unit 2 and was wondering how many words the part b question should be as I have one set for hwk and my teacher hates it when we don't write enough :smile:

Thanks

Reply 55

username202682

Original post by molthemoo

Hey

I'm doing edexcel unit 2 and was wondering how many words the part b question should be as I have one set for hwk and my teacher hates it when we don't write enough :smile:

Thanks

Aim for at least four -six sides handwritten (depending on the size of your handwriting). But more than that is a bonus.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 56

Alex-jc123

Anyone here doing AQA A2 'The Triumph of Elizabeth', 1547-1603?

Reply 57

StatusRed

Stricof

Thanks for this Stricof really useful :biggrin:

Reply 58

whisperings

I have my exam paper from when I sat Unit 3 last summer - if anyone would like to read it and give me feedback on how to improve, that would be hugelyyyyyy appreciated!

Reply 59

username202682

Original post by whisperings

I have my exam paper from when I sat Unit 3 last summer - if anyone would like to read it and give me feedback on how to improve, that would be hugelyyyyyy appreciated!

What topic?