[flying_ifan]

(Original post by WH1892)
how are people revising for this exam? I've written out some notes and planning some essays are people doing much else?

Similar stuff, I write out my notes time and time again until they're stuck in my head. I'm also reading a short revision book by Cambridge which is quite good, as well as going over timelines (and writing out the timelines off by heart just so I get the chronology right). Apart from that, a few generic essay plans per section, and a sheet listing all the facts from my notes.

If you want to do some "lazy" studying, the CNN documentary on youtube is truly excellent, although it's 24 episodes long so I don't think I'll have time to watch them all. An episode a day (before going to sleep in my case) is quite nice

[partickler]

(Original post by flying_ifan)
Similar stuff, I write out my notes time and time again until they're stuck in my head. I'm also reading a short revision book by Cambridge which is quite good, as well as going over timelines (and writing out the timelines off by heart just so I get the chronology right). Apart from that, a few generic essay plans per section, and a sheet listing all the facts from my notes.

If you want to do some "lazy" studying, the CNN documentary on youtube is truly excellent, although it's 24 episodes long so I don't think I'll have time to watch them all. An episode a day (before going to sleep in my case) is quite nice

I've written out my notes and I plan to just sort of memorize them, and I'm planning to write practice essays too. Doing a bit of additional reading just to jog my interest/enthusiasm a little before the exam.

Could you perhaps link us to these excellent documentaries?

[flying_ifan]

(Original post by partickler)
I've written out my notes and I plan to just sort of memorize them, and I'm planning to write practice essays too. Doing a bit of additional reading just to jog my interest/enthusiasm a little before the exam.

Could you perhaps link us to these excellent documentaries?

Here you go :
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=mh_lolz

[WH1892]

(Original post by flying_ifan)
Similar stuff, I write out my notes time and time again until they're stuck in my head. I'm also reading a short revision book by Cambridge which is quite good, as well as going over timelines (and writing out the timelines off by heart just so I get the chronology right). Apart from that, a few generic essay plans per section, and a sheet listing all the facts from my notes.

If you want to do some "lazy" studying, the CNN documentary on youtube is truly excellent, although it's 24 episodes long so I don't think I'll have time to watch them all. An episode a day (before going to sleep in my case) is quite nice

fair enough and ah yeah we watched those documentary's in class, pretty good

[Alxndra]

Cold War, need around 98 UMS for an A, which I neeed to get >.<

So far I've struggled getting above a C in this year's mock essays :/ any tips?

[Retro.spex]

For French Revolution people, you might have seen them already but Vlogbrothers did a series on it

http://www.youtube.com/user/vlogbrot...ery=revolution

[Brand New Eyes]

(Original post by Retro.spex)
For French Revolution people, you might have seen them already but Vlogbrothers did a series on it

http://www.youtube.com/user/vlogbrot...ery=revolution

Thank you! I find I learn better through videos!

Oh and in case you/others didn't know about this

[Retro.spex]

(Original post by Brand New Eyes)
Thank you! I find I learn better through videos!

Oh and in case you/others didn't know about this

Cheers! These are what I'll be watching the day before... right now I need to finish my actual revision

[fishfan01]

Ummm, so this might not be a good question to be asking a week before the exam, but what on earth is this histiography everybody's talking about? Is it just groups of historical thought? As in left-/right-wing views etc? Or from military perspectives? Or what????

We've only been taught that we have to know quotes from historians and be able to say what kind of historian they are if it's relevant, such as if they focus in on statistics too much or something....

Somebody please enlighten me??

[Brand New Eyes]

(Original post by fishfan01)
Ummm, so this might not be a good question to be asking a week before the exam, but what on earth is this histiography everybody's talking about? Is it just groups of historical thought? As in left-/right-wing views etc? Or from military perspectives? Or what????

We've only been taught that we have to know quotes from historians and be able to say what kind of historian they are if it's relevant, such as if they focus in on statistics too much or something....

Somebody please enlighten me??

It really depends on what topic you're doing. So for French Revolution say Marxist historians are quite prominent so erm. It's really "where appropriate" really so I wouldn't worry about it if it's not emphasized in your course. It just gives you an extra boost in Level 5 of say 2-3 marks

[fishfan01]

(Original post by Brand New Eyes)
It really depends on what topic you're doing. So for French Revolution say Marxist historians are quite prominent so erm. It's really "where appropriate" really so I wouldn't worry about it if it's not emphasized in your course. It just gives you an extra boost in Level 5 of say 2-3 marks

Ohhhhkay, so if you say so and so is a military historian, for example, that is referencing histiography? I assume that you can just imply it with that, not point out that it is histiography?

So say I were talking about the time after WW2 and said that 'so and so says this: blah blah blah. But he probs thinks this because as a historian he focuses on the economy/military/whatever and therefore the view could be seen as biased or skewed', therefore you have to put it into the context of other historians and your own knowledge, using it as part of an argument??

I'm not sure if that makes any sense, but we've been told to do that, but the term 'histiography' has just never been used. Tbh, knowing my teacher, that's probably because she disagrees with it in historical terms for some reason or another, so just hasn't used the term as part of her teaching. She's usually extremely thorough, which is partly why I'm a bit freaked out by the term

[Lula]

(Original post by 3ka_xo)
i'm doing the french revolution up to charles X and i was wondering if anyone knew if the coup of brumaire is part of the topic napoleon's domestic reforms? i don't think it is but my teacher said to revise it to be on the safe side...

Hello, Im doing the same...basically we broke all the topics into 6 headings and we put the Coup under the Terror and Thermidorian Reaction...
Hope this might help?..x

[Brand New Eyes]

(Original post by fishfan01)
Ohhhhkay, so if you say so and so is a military historian, for example, that is referencing histiography? I assume that you can just imply it with that, not point out that it is histiography?

So say I were talking about the time after WW2 and said that 'so and so says this: blah blah blah. But he probs thinks this because as a historian he focuses on the economy/military/whatever and therefore the view could be seen as biased or skewed', therefore you have to put it into the context of other historians and your own knowledge, using it as part of an argument??

I'm not sure if that makes any sense, but we've been told to do that, but the term 'histiography' has just never been used. Tbh, knowing my teacher, that's probably because she disagrees with it in historical terms for some reason or another, so just hasn't used the term as part of her teaching. She's usually extremely thorough, which is partly why I'm a bit freaked out by the term

It is partly similar to provenance/who wrote the source like in Unit 2 last year so I guess you would talk about him being a military historian in that case.

Is your unit WW1? I just googled and there doesn't seem to much on it so I wouldn't worry, if your teacher hasn't mentioned it then it probably isn't relevant for your topic. Historiography is just the different schools of thought whom all follow a similar interpretation of why such and such occurred

[Retro.spex]

I need a high A, is not mentioning historiography going to limit me? We've never actually touched on it in my class but I did see stuff in the Rees book (French Rev).

[Brand New Eyes]

(Original post by Retro.spex)
I need a high A, is not mentioning historiography going to limit me? We've never actually touched on it in my class but I did see stuff in the Rees book (French Rev).

Do you know about Marxist/Revisionist views?

[fishfan01]

(Original post by Brand New Eyes)
It is partly similar to provenance/who wrote the source like in Unit 2 last year so I guess you would talk about him being a military historian in that case.

Is your unit WW1? I just googled and there doesn't seem to much on it so I wouldn't worry, if your teacher hasn't mentioned it then it probably isn't relevant for your topic. Historiography is just the different schools of thought whom all follow a similar interpretation of why such and such occurred

Humm, okay.

Well I suppose that our teacher would have mentioned it if it were relevant - she's more prone to overkill than missing stuff out - so I think I'll just not worry and pretend I never heard about it :L

Thankyou, though Good luck with your exam

[Retro.spex]

(Original post by Brand New Eyes)
Do you know about Marxist/Revisionist views?

Not particularly :/ We might have gone over them without actually identifying the marxist/revisionist parts but it's never really come up as an actual lesson or anything. I have the stuff in the book which talks about this, I guess I could revise that a bit?

[Brand New Eyes]

(Original post by Retro.spex)
Not particularly :/ We might have gone over them without actually identifying the marxist/revisionist parts but it's never really come up as an actual lesson or anything. I have the stuff in the book which talks about this, I guess I could revise that a bit?

From the mark scheme:


For Part A:

25 - 30 marks

Candidates offer a sustained analysis which directly addresses the focus of the
question. They demonstrate explicit understanding of the key issues raised by the question, evaluating arguments and – as appropriate – interpretations. The analysis will be supported by an appropriate range and depth of accurate and well-selected
factual material.

Part B:
20-24 marks

Interprets the sources with confidence and discrimination, assimilating the
author’s arguments and displaying independence of thought in the ability to assess
the presented views in the light of own knowledge and reading. Treatment of
argument and discussion of evidence will show that the full demands of the
question have been appreciated and addressed. Presents a sustained evaluative
argument and reaches fully substantiated conclusions demonstrating an
understanding of the nature of historical debate.

It is mostly prominent in the Louis controversy but not so much Napoleon. You will see that for Louis the author of some sources will either be Marxist/Revisionist so try learning them. It'd only come to about 2-3 sentences in your essay anyway

[Retro.spex]

(Original post by Brand New Eyes)
From the mark scheme:


For Part A:

25 - 30 marks



Part B:
20-24 marks


It is mostly prominent in the Louis controversy but not so much Napoleon. You will see that for Louis the author of some sources will either be Marxist/Revisionist so try learning them. It'd only come to about 2-3 sentences in your essay anyway

Thank you for that Will do (as Louis is my controversy ).

[Cassius]

Is anyone doing the Tudor paper? And if so, any predictions on what the questions will be on?