[Bulbasaur]

(Original post by PudPud)
For the Stalin Power Struggle question I split it into:
Triumvirate vs Left Opposition
Dummvirate vs New/United Opposition
Stalin vs Bukharin
and talked about how Stalin beat all of them using various factors e.g ability to manipulate the party etc.
Is this wrong?

Sounds good, I usually would structure it something like that. But I didn't in the exam because I didn't feel like I would be able to link it to the question effectively and might become too descriptive, because the question wasn't why Stalin rose to power; it was why his opponents couldn't prevent it. Pretty annoying but I had to make that adjustment. Instead I alluded to the ways in which the contenders were unable to stop Stalin from destroying him (i.e. due to his role of General Secretary etc. which meant they were voted out at party congresses, was able to make the party pro-stalin, etc.) As long as you could link it back to the question and it was all relevant; actually stating how the opponents were unable to stop him rather than simply stating why he came to power, you could be in for a level 5.

If you answered it simply as how Stalin rose to power but were still analytical about it you'd probably get a level 4, which is still A-B grade territory depending on where in the level it is (somewhere between 19-24 marks).

[Saima12345]

Doing Britain and Ireland for the next part of History, sources paper! :'(! Unlike Russia, a lot more confusing. Can anyone give any tips on content and structure...?

[TheDonOfUKNo1]

I done the Nicholas II question and the vietnam question in the exam, can anyone tell me what i was supposed to mention for full marks on both

[cesca42]

(Original post by IndiaCaitlinn)
I did Russia 1881-1953
I did the question on the fall of the Romanovs and collectivisation.
Not feeling too confident really :/
I'm dreading the next exam, anyone else doing British political history option? ;(

I did those questions too.
I feel the same way about those questions too.
:/

I'm feeling kind of confident about sources though- but I think I'm going to need some stupidly high mark (we're talking 59/60 here) to have a shot of getting a decent grade overall.

[Bulbasaur]

(Original post by TheDonOfUKNo1)
I done the Nicholas II question and the vietnam question in the exam, can anyone tell me what i was supposed to mention for full marks on both

There really wasn't anything in particular that would stop you getting full marks, because you get the majority of your marks from the way you argue, the amount of evidence you use, if youre linking back to the question and being analytical etc. But for the Nicholas II question, you probably would've needed to mention his role as Commander-in-chief and all those failings, the fact he left the incompetent Tsarina to rule over the home front (which can actually be blamed on the Tsar himself), you could also mention how organisations such as 'ZEMGOR' undermined Tsarism and you could blame that on Nicholas II as he had absolute political power in Russia and therefore was able to do something about the poor war effort by the government to help troops. You could've also mentioned a lack of munitions etc. (I forgot about this, damnit!)

You've also got to argue the other direction for a small part of your essay too, you could say that actually Russia was ripe for revolution before the war in 1914, and use various facts to back this up, and so his loss of power was inevitable regardless of his actions. You could've also said that the war was responsible, and that a lot of the negative factors resulting from it were inevitable... though this was probably my poorest argued paragraph of about 5 lines (rushing towards the end). I'd like to add though, that what I've said here is just my opinion (it's mostly what I wrote), so there is probably more, obviously you can't write about everything in enough detail with such time restraints. What I'm about to say, however, is pretty much factual in terms of how the examiner will mark your essay.

It should be noted though that to get full marks, as in 30/30, is incredibly difficult and if you got 27+ on both questions you would probably have full UMS anyway. But what I mentioned earlier is crucial; your knowledge alone wouldn't be what gets you to full marks, it would be your analytical skills, knowing specific details and using them effectively and ensuring they're relevant as well as actually answering the question. These are what make up a level 5 answer.

[MirrorPixie]

(Original post by Energy_Purple)
Haha, I took one look at that question for Henry VII and decided to avoid it completely, so I did the other question about how far the main aims of Henry's foreign policy were to secure his own position. I just talked about the various treaties - Etaples, Medina del Campo, Ayrton and the two Intercursus' - and how they either secured Henry, England or the dynasty. I did the same thing though, I'm not sure about the level of detail, but I'm hoping it was enough to get the grade I want

I'm so worried about it!! I just need to do really well in the Henry VIII paper just in case...! I kind of wish I'd done the foreign policy question. Oh well - it's over now! I really want to find out if I wrote the right things in the essay...

[Bulbasaur]

(Original post by cesca42)
I did those questions too.
I feel the same way about those questions too.
:/

I'm feeling kind of confident about sources though- but I think I'm going to need some stupidly high mark (we're talking 59/60 here) to have a shot of getting a decent grade overall.

55/60 is your UMS cap, that gets you 100/100. So any higher has no effect anyawy. Thats the highest it will ever be, so relax! I'm sure you did fine. To get an A overall, if you got 100 in the sources exam you'd only need 60 (scraping a C) in the one you took, so I'm sure you'll be fine, since I bet you got far more than 60 anyway. Plus, a B is still a decent grade anyway.

[IndiaCaitlinn]

(Original post by cesca42)
I did those questions too.
I feel the same way about those questions too.
:/

I'm feeling kind of confident about sources though- but I think I'm going to need some stupidly high mark (we're talking 59/60 here) to have a shot of getting a decent grade overall.

I got 37/60 in my mock for the British History :/ I just don't know the content enough for the 40 mark question. The 20 mark is okay because I've practised source analysis but I'm just not feeling overly confident at all.

[cesca42]

(Original post by Bulbasaur)
55/60 is your UMS cap, that gets you 100/100. So any higher has no effect anyawy. Thats the highest it will ever be, so relax! I'm sure you did fine. To get an A overall, if you got 100 in the sources exam you'd only need 60 (scraping a C) in the one you took, so I'm sure you'll be fine, since I bet you got far more than 60 anyway. Plus, a B is still a decent grade anyway.

Why's that? Why do you know so much!? D:

Thanks, but I honestly think this is the one exam I have properly screwed up on. Brill, because I want to do history at uni. And I was planning on applying to Oxbridge.
And I know a B is still a decent grade, but unfortunately I'm one of those stupid high-achieving (or I want to be high-achieving) people :/

(Original post by IndiaCaitlinn)
I got 37/60 in my mock for the British History :/ I just don't know the content enough for the 40 mark question. The 20 mark is okay because I've practised source analysis but I'm just not feeling overly confident at all.

Honestly, I think you'll be fine. I did a timed essay in class and had not even looked over the notes and still got 22/24 for own knowledge. Is it that you don't know course content in general or there are certain areas where your knowledge feels really patchy?
Just try and learn Acts and names really, those are the important bits

[PudPud]

(Original post by Bulbasaur)
Sounds good, I usually would structure it something like that. But I didn't in the exam because I didn't feel like I would be able to link it to the question effectively and might become too descriptive, because the question wasn't why Stalin rose to power; it was why his opponents couldn't prevent it. Pretty annoying but I had to make that adjustment. Instead I alluded to the ways in which the contenders were unable to stop Stalin from destroying him (i.e. due to his role of General Secretary etc. which meant they were voted out at party congresses, was able to make the party pro-stalin, etc.) As long as you could link it back to the question and it was all relevant; actually stating how the opponents were unable to stop him rather than simply stating why he came to power, you could be in for a level 5.

If you answered it simply as how Stalin rose to power but were still analytical about it you'd probably get a level 4, which is still A-B grade territory depending on where in the level it is (somewhere between 19-24 marks).

To give you an example, when taking about Stalin vs Right Opposition I talked about Stalin being able to move to the left against NEP, the fact that he knew when to retreat e.g 1928 campaign that drew Bukharin's supporters and the fact that he was devious e.g delaying Bukharin's flights in order to stop him from attending meetings.
There is some other other stuff but I can't remember what!
Do you think this is ok? I mean, I thought the question looked very open-ended.

[helenacharlotte]

Out of interest did anyone do the Norman conquest and it's effect on England or the Angevin empire? If anyone did, I picked "why was Harold godwinson able to win the battle of Stamford bridge but unable to win at the battle of Hastings?" and "why did King John face growing bitterness and opposition during his reign?"
It'd be nice to know what other medieval historians put!!

[stressing]

(Original post by Bulbasaur)
There really wasn't anything in particular that would stop you getting full marks, because you get the majority of your marks from the way you argue, the amount of evidence you use, if youre linking back to the question and being analytical etc. But for the Nicholas II question, you probably would've needed to mention his role as Commander-in-chief and all those failings, the fact he left the incompetent Tsarina to rule over the home front (which can actually be blamed on the Tsar himself), you could also mention how organisations such as 'ZEMGOR' undermined Tsarism and you could blame that on Nicholas II as he had absolute political power in Russia and therefore was able to do something about the poor war effort by the government to help troops. You could've also mentioned a lack of munitions etc. (I forgot about this, damnit!)

You've also got to argue the other direction for a small part of your essay too, you could say that actually Russia was ripe for revolution before the war in 1914, and use various facts to back this up, and so his loss of power was inevitable regardless of his actions. You could've also said that the war was responsible, and that a lot of the negative factors resulting from it were inevitable... though this was probably my poorest argued paragraph of about 5 lines (rushing towards the end). I'd like to add though, that what I've said here is just my opinion (it's mostly what I wrote), so there is probably more, obviously you can't write about everything in enough detail with such time restraints. What I'm about to say, however, is pretty much factual in terms of how the examiner will mark your essay.

It should be noted though that to get full marks, as in 30/30, is incredibly difficult and if you got 27+ on both questions you would probably have full UMS anyway. But what I mentioned earlier is crucial; your knowledge alone wouldn't be what gets you to full marks, it would be your analytical skills, knowing specific details and using them effectively and ensuring they're relevant as well as actually answering the question. These are what make up a level 5 answer.

Sorry to be a bother, but you seem to know your stuff :P
I also did the romanov question as well as the collectivisation question for stalin's russia. However, a couple of days before the exam we were shown a past example of 30 mark question, and they had barely seemed to link back to the 'main factor' included in the question at all, you know all that sustained argument yadayada. so.. I didn't either, i did it once near the end of my first essay and ever so slightly in my conclusion, and not at all in my second. I realise now this was a bad mistake, what do you reckon the highest grade I can hope for is? my knowledge other than that was fine on both questions, although my second was kinda rushed towards the end. thanks for any help I was hoping for an A or B grade overall but I'm not at all hopeful now. my teacher would shoot me if he saw my paper lol.
Also don't worry about not mentioning the lack of munitions, as this was actually down to the poor transport system - so if you mentioned that you're fine (:

[iamthestig]

(Original post by Distractions)
Can you tutor me?

Haha

I have a love for the quirkiness of the politicians from '45 to '90

Biggest advice, bit late now though as its a chunky book and I haven't read it all, would be to read Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain, gives you all the stuff for the course and funny anecdotes.

Basically just write down each PM and their successes and failures, as you don't need to have massive knowledge of each one's government.

[BulletproofHeart]

I did the Russia ones and did the Bolshevik question for the first section and the power struggle for the second.

I'm feeling positive about the power struggle question, I did weakness of opponents, ideological disputes and Stalin's skill as paragraphs and with into lots of examples etc.

Rather worried about the first question though. I answered it more as if it was a question asking why they won the civil war.
I did paragraphs on Trotsky's leadership of the red army (obv) disunity of opponents, geographical location and war communism and the cheka together.

I also get 4% special consideration on my exam as my father was having a major operation to remove one of his kidneys while i was sitting my exam so i wonder how this will effect if I have truly balled up the question.

[Bulbasaur]

(Original post by PudPud)
To give you an example, when taking about Stalin vs Right Opposition I talked about Stalin being able to move to the left against NEP, the fact that he knew when to retreat e.g 1928 campaign that drew Bukharin's supporters and the fact that he was devious e.g delaying Bukharin's flights in order to stop him from attending meetings.
There is some other other stuff but I can't remember what!
Do you think this is ok? I mean, I thought the question looked very open-ended.

That sounds fine, I'm not an examiner but it sounds like you've got an A grade answer if you did it as well as it sounds.

(Original post by cesca42)
Why's that? Why do you know so much!? D:

Thanks, but I honestly think this is the one exam I have properly screwed up on. Brill, because I want to do history at uni. And I was planning on applying to Oxbridge.
And I know a B is still a decent grade, but unfortunately I'm one of those stupid high-achieving (or I want to be high-achieving) people :/

Well, I'm similar to you, I'm hoping to apply for cambridge (but for geography). So when I found out they ask for UMS I got really paranoid, especially when the stalking page showed that below 90% very few got in so I've pretty much worked out what I need in all of my exams so I can get that, making me probably more paranoid than Stalin in process And then I got all obsessive and... yeah.

By the sounds of it you have very high expectations of yourself, so if you feel like you messed up you probably just feel like you perhaps didn't do as well as you feel you could. I thought I messed up in my january geography exam. Turns out I got 85%, and I can pull that up with other unit quite easily. I wouldn't be surprised if it were a similar story here! I'm a bit of a perfectionist so I feel your pain. In any case, no point stressing about it now, worst comes to the worst there's obviously retakes, admissions tutors know that people get bad days etc. As long as this isn't a regular occurance you'll be fine

(Original post by stressing)
Sorry to be a bother, but you seem to know your stuff :P
I also did the romanov question as well as the collectivisation question for stalin's russia. However, a couple of days before the exam we were shown a past example of 30 mark question, and they had barely seemed to link back to the 'main factor' included in the question at all, you know all that sustained argument yadayada. so.. I didn't either, i did it once near the end of my first essay and ever so slightly in my conclusion, and not at all in my second. I realise now this was a bad mistake, what do you reckon the highest grade I can hope for is? my knowledge other than that was fine on both questions, although my second was kinda rushed towards the end. thanks for any help I was hoping for an A or B grade overall but I'm not at all hopeful now. my teacher would shoot me if he saw my paper lol.
Also don't worry about not mentioning the lack of munitions, as this was actually down to the poor transport system - so if you mentioned that you're fine (:

No problem And damn, that was a bit silly to show you, do you know the mark this person achieved? Not exactly a good idea showing you a C grade essay... in any case, I think as long as you weren't telling a story and were being analytical, you could still get a low A if you did everything else really well, I'd say. Though I haven't seen your paper so it's hard to say, but a B seems likely if the rest was all good, I doubt it would be less than a high C because of how well you seemed to have done elsewhere. And don't worry, examiners know it tends to be rushed towards the end and I'm pretty sure thats the case with everybody.

About the munitions thing, well that's my point, it was quite meaty and so I could've explained quite a bit XD then again I dont think I would've had time.

[Distractions]

(Original post by iamthestig)
Haha

I have a love for the quirkiness of the politicians from '45 to '90

Biggest advice, bit late now though as its a chunky book and I haven't read it all, would be to read Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain, gives you all the stuff for the course and funny anecdotes.

Basically just write down each PM and their successes and failures, as you don't need to have massive knowledge of each one's government.

'Quirky' wouldn't be my choice of vocabulary!
Well I don't think I will have time for that now but thankyou anyway
One of my main problems is structure, in other words I can't seem to be able to bring in the sources without sounding like i'm going on some sort of rant.
Eg. 'Source one represents the opinion that ....... however it disagress with source 2 on that it ...... but it does agree with source 2 on .... but this has a vast contrast with source 3 ......' I haven't really learnt how to tackle sources

[pink pineapple]

dreading the next history exam, I really struggle with source evaluation.

[stressing]

(Original post by Bulbasaur)
No problem And damn, that was a bit silly to show you, do you know the mark this person achieved? Not exactly a good idea showing you a C grade essay... in any case, I think as long as you weren't telling a story and were being analytical, you could still get a low A if you did everything else really well, I'd say. Though I haven't seen your paper so it's hard to say, but a B seems likely if the rest was all good, I doubt it would be less than a high C because of how well you seemed to have done elsewhere. And don't worry, examiners know it tends to be rushed towards the end and I'm pretty sure thats the case with everybody.

About the munitions thing, well that's my point, it was quite meaty and so I could've explained quite a bit XD then again I dont think I would've had time.

That's the thing, the girl got 30/30. So I assumed I'd be fine but she wrote a LOT more than I managed, and everybody else said they stuck to the sustained argument whatsamajig. Ah well, just have to see on results day! And yeah, there was so much more I could have said on collectivisation but just ran out of time and had to bung together a hasty conclusion Thanks for the help and good luck

[GeorgeN11]

What did those who answered the Trotsky and the Red Army question write?

[Distractions]

Does anyone have any suggestion of what the 40 mark questions will be on the British History exam?
I'm hoping that one, at least, is based around the successes and failures of Macmillan! Other than that i'm hopelessly unprepared!