[MissMuffin95]

(Original post by 15nico360)
That would be an A like me same score as well and you would be 2 marks off an A*

(Original post by momo26396)
Actually one mark of an a*!!!!!!!!!!!- According to the grade boundaries the last few years

(Original post by brendonbackflip)
I got that - an A

Thats great -thank you everyone! For some reason the school couldn't quite manage to work out the grade boundaries

[Sugarcandy]

I am soo screwed for this exam next week. Am doing America for my depth study but can't stand the International Relations- it is soo boring and I haven;t even looked at it yet. I really want to get an a* over all (got an a* in the CA) but have no idea how to revise; any tips?????

[Sukura]

I thought that an 85% was an a star as stated by my History teacher?

[Michael's]

I got 49/50 in the coursework my girlfriend got 50/50 though!!!!!

[Rose393]

(Original post by ChestnutHero)
For analysing sources in paper 2, our history teacher told us to *PANDA* or refer to the:

P -urpose (what was it used for? To inform people/amusement/persuade people etc.)

A -uthor (who wrote it and why? Would they be subjective?)

N -ature (what was it- was it an article/cartoon/government propaganda poster etc.?)

D -ate (when was it written and did this have any significance?)

A -udience (who would/was meant to see this at the time? What impact would it have on them?)

It depends on the actual question but those are some general things to look out for

Oh and you should *PEE* (Point Evidence Explain) when answering all questions hope that helps!


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

do you know how to structure a 10 marker if its says "how far was ...." would u do 1st para on how it was, 2nd on how it wasn't, and then a judgment ?

[ChestnutHero]

(Original post by Rose393)
do you know how to structure a 10 marker if its says "how far was ...." would u do 1st para on how it was, 2nd on how it wasn't, and then a judgment ?

That's what I would do we've been told to start our answer by directly answering the question and keep referring to this throughout- and make sure you come to a judgement at the end because apparently examiners hate it when people are on the fence! Also make sure you refer to both sources if it mentions two sources in the question

[Michael's]

When it gives a statement and says how far do you agree, i would give 2 points to my opinion and 1 point to the opposing argument with a conclusion. I've been getting full marks in the practices in class so hopefully that's correct.

[GwuanGwuan]

gotta a* wat topics did you guys do for the coursework?

[GreatArtist2012]

Hey can somebody pretty please look at this 9 mark question on Why did the league fail in Abyssinia? And what mark it would be looking at?

"The league of nations failed in Abyssinia mainly due to their lack of army, slow decisions, structure and generally being weak. Economic sanctions would only work if imposed quickly and effectively which were two things that the League couldn't do, sanctions were pointless without the USA as the League lacked the authority to impose them. Although, they did impose a ban on coal exports to Italy but this backfired on them and 30,000 mimers lost their jobs. Also, whilst Britain and France were taking long to make their decisions, Italy were shipping vasts amounts of troops to Africa, taking the Leagues weakness to their advantage".

The League were also desperate to keep a good relationship with Mussolini who they saw as a potential ally against Hitler. They also didn't have an army so they had no chance of defending Abyssinia as much as the public wanted them to, this was maybe due to the fact that USA wasn't in the league. The USA could provide the League with the resources that they needed such as food, troops and money. Structure was possibly another reason why the League failed in this case, each Council member had a veto which meant they could prevent a decision from occuring, this made decisions quite hard to make. Also, the League failed to make an appropriate decision by not closing the Suez Canal which was an important pathway for the Italians to take to reach Abyssinia. The League of nations were too weak to deal with such major disputes. The Hoare Laval pact also ruined the Leagues reputation and was an act of treachery which involved Hoare and Laval giving Italy two thirds of Abyssinia without informing the League, they were eventually sacked which severely affected the Leagues momentum."

What grade would that be looking at, somebody please

[Kim07]

"Apartheid; Who contributed more to the ending of the Apartheid? Mandela or DeKlerk?"
I hated that topic...it was quite stupid of our history teacher though, because we started our course work as the same term we started the actualy topic!

[Michael's]

(Original post by GreatArtist2012)
Hey can somebody pretty please look at this 9 mark question on Why did the league fail in Abyssinia? And what mark it would be looking at?

"The league of nations failed in Abyssinia mainly due to their lack of army, slow decisions, structure and generally being weak. Economic sanctions would only work if imposed quickly and effectively which were two things that the League couldn't do, sanctions were pointless without the USA as the League lacked the authority to impose them. Although, they did impose a ban on coal exports to Italy but this backfired on them and 30,000 mimers lost their jobs. Also, whilst Britain and France were taking long to make their decisions, Italy were shipping vasts amounts of troops to Africa, taking the Leagues weakness to their advantage".

The League were also desperate to keep a good relationship with Mussolini who they saw as a potential ally against Hitler. They also didn't have an army so they had no chance of defending Abyssinia as much as the public wanted them to, this was maybe due to the fact that USA wasn't in the league. The USA could provide the League with the resources that they needed such as food, troops and money. Structure was possibly another reason why the League failed in this case, each Council member had a veto which meant they could prevent a decision from occuring, this made decisions quite hard to make. Also, the League failed to make an appropriate decision by not closing the Suez Canal which was an important pathway for the Italians to take to reach Abyssinia. The League of nations were too weak to deal with such major disputes. The Hoare Laval pact also ruined the Leagues reputation and was an act of treachery which involved Hoare and Laval giving Italy two thirds of Abyssinia without informing the League, they were eventually sacked which severely affected the Leagues momentum."

What grade would that be looking at, somebody please

Hey, i'd estimate it at a 9. I think the main criticism is that you aren't going into enough detail with the points, you are "skipping stoning" them. My advice would be to take 3 points and rally go in depth for them. I would have done the Structure, how they couldn't enforce things like sanctions and I also would have done how the secret arrangements made by the league for Italy to take Abyssinia became publicized which caused them to appear weak to almost everybody and therefore failed.

[suis-je bovvered?]

Hi Guys, I'm doing the British Depth Study next week (Liberals, suffragettes, home front) and wondered if anyone had an educated guess of which topic was going to come up? My history teacher said one of them hadn't come up in the past 3 exams, but I can't remember which.. :/

Thanks!

[Catching22]

(Original post by GwuanGwuan)
gotta a* wat topics did you guys do for the coursework?

"The Cold War: Why was there so much tension between the USA and the USSR between 1945 and 1962?"

Was alright enough. Could have gotten a worse topic.

[BAZ1NGA]

(Original post by suis-je bovvered?)
Hi Guys, I'm doing the British Depth Study next week (Liberals, suffragettes, home front) and wondered if anyone had an educated guess of which topic was going to come up? My history teacher said one of them hadn't come up in the past 3 exams, but I can't remember which.. :/

Thanks!

I think that Liberals seems most likely. I did the paper in January and our teacher reckoned that it would be Liberals then (the past two papers had been Suffrage and Home Front apparently) but instead the paper was on Suffrage.

(Original post by Michael's)
For the 4 Markers you need to briefly tell the examiner exactly what the question is asking. Please let me stress that you do not bullet point the answers but in a way list them with a small amount of explanation.

I was told that you CAN do them in bullet-points do you get penalised if you do? Our school got told that you do at least 4 bullet points, but you can add more in which would be used if a previous bullet point was not relevant...or something like that

[Thegirlandherhair]

Hey everyone, I thought I would share a tip that became REALLY useful for when I took paper 2 in January. You probably might've been told it already, but if by the time you get to the ten-marker and you are cuttting it fine on the time, a grid separating the two sides (agree/disagree) with each source(!!) briefly explained as to why they agree/disagree. From here, you could then write fully the conclusion if you have the time or bullet point if you don't. I did lose marks for not writing in prose (reason being why I only achieved 7/10 marks), but the marker treated my answer as if it was written in full prose. I knew going into the exam that I would do this as I am a fairly slow writer and I will continue with this in next week's retake of the exam. Good luck in all your exams and I hope you get the grades you want in August

[Michael's]

I was told that you CAN do them in bullet-points do you get penalised if you do? Our school got told that you do at least 4 bullet points, but you can add more in which would be used if a previous bullet point was not relevant...or something like that[/QUOTE]

When our school contacted the exam board, they told us that bullet pointing doesn't meet the exam marking criteria, you need to put the answer in a sentence to show good English and coherence I believe.

[GreatArtist2012]

(Original post by Michael's)
Hey, i'd estimate it at a 9. I think the main criticism is that you aren't going into enough detail with the points, you are "skipping stoning" them. My advice would be to take 3 points and rally go in depth for them. I would have done the Structure, how they couldn't enforce things like sanctions and I also would have done how the secret arrangements made by the league for Italy to take Abyssinia became publicized which caused them to appear weak to almost everybody and therefore failed.

Thank you very much

[Michael's]

(Original post by GreatArtist2012)
Thank you very much

No problem ;D good luck for Tuesday if you are doing it with me

[Michael's]

Guys, do you know the question underneath the first source question which is usually around 9 marks, would you just treat it like a part C question?

[BAZ1NGA]

In the mark scheme it says either three explained points OR two developed points (i.e. so an explained point + development, about a medium to large paragraph)