The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

I sat one ages back, I didn't do very well but I got to interview.
It's important on 1c) to be specific in the examples you use, i.e. relate them specifically rather than vaguely back to the issues explored in the first extract, and comment on this relation in your answer. I just picked my topic and wrote my answer by itself without much mentioning why it was relevant to the first extract....
1a and 1b are basic comprehension and explaining, evaluating etc etc, 2 you just need lots of "historical imagination". The mark schemes from all years will help obvs.
Sorry I have no idea where you can get papers earlier than 2006, but there's probably some dusty corner of the internet with them.
Peace
So I haven't seen a thread for this yet...

The HAT is coming up in less than two weeks (!) How's everyone preparing?

I've been doing practice tests and revising the events we learned about last year. I've been scoring around a 70, but I'm wondering if my marks are really accurate :s-smilie:
Reply 3
if you could score 70 then thats great. The pass rate is around 50. I personally think in order to get good mark you need to know about historiography and historical objectivity. I recommend you to read some books like Evans In defence of History or What is history. Im going to write some sample answers. We can share them. Just inbox me if you are interested.
Reply 4
Please can you upload the sample answers?
Reply 5
Original post by arminb
if you could score 70 then thats great. The pass rate is around 50. I personally think in order to get good mark you need to know about historiography and historical objectivity. I recommend you to read some books like Evans In defence of History or What is history. Im going to write some sample answers. We can share them. Just inbox me if you are interested.


The interview cut-off score is almost certainly going to be rather higher than 50 tbh. It varies each year and has been heading steadily upwards for a number of reasons. My guess would be something like 57 or 58 (excluding unusual mitigating circumstances), maybe even 60.
How lenient are the markers? Because I don't want to be marking myself less harshly and end up having more confidence than merited :s-smilie: Then again, I'm sure to be as nervous regardless
Original post by arminb
if you could score 70 then thats great. The pass rate is around 50. I personally think in order to get good mark you need to know about historiography and historical objectivity. I recommend you to read some books like Evans In defence of History or What is history. Im going to write some sample answers. We can share them. Just inbox me if you are interested.


Original post by OEM
Please can you upload the sample answers?


I'm going to be writing the 2010 paper tomorrow- I can post my answers and my rough scores on here if you'd like :smile:
Reply 8
Thanks a lot. Does anyone have the official Oxford sample answers. I think they used to be on the Oxford HAT website but for some reason they were removed recently. I remember once reading official Oxford sample answers though.
Reply 9
Original post by OEM
Thanks a lot. Does anyone have the official Oxford sample answers. I think they used to be on the Oxford HAT website but for some reason they were removed recently. I remember once reading official Oxford sample answers though.


I don't recall there ever being any sample answers officially written up by Oxford, but when the test first came out in 2004 they did get 'a group of students from two comprehensive schools and an independent school' to sit a specimen test and then published a selection of marked answers. They were removed from the website a year or two ago but I've still got the paper and answers if it's of any interest; PM me an email address if you want 'em.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 10
Sorry if this has already been done..

Who else is sitting the Oxford HAT on Wednesday 6th? How are you preparing seeing as they changed the paper format from 2012 onwards?

:smile:
Original post by ambonkers
Sorry if this has already been done..

Who else is sitting the Oxford HAT on Wednesday 6th? How are you preparing seeing as they changed the paper format from 2012 onwards?

:smile:


Haha yes it has... That's the point of this thread :wink:

I'm preparing by writing and marking practice papers- the format was just a change of marking, correct? I am really relieved about that, actually, because I like question two better :smile:

What course are you applying to? Straight History or a joint course? I'm applying to History and English.
Reply 12
i'm sitting it, and i have done a few past papers but to to be honest have looked at the mark scheme and looked at my AS notes before I sent them off, i have also been getting around 70 but i find the first 2 questions very hard and never understand exactly what's going on in the 1A) and 1B)

I am applying for history and german and also have to do the MLAT test
Reply 13
this is my sample attempt at the 2011 paper, i think i scored around 75 according to my teacher



1a)
I can deduce that the aims of the founders were create groups which protested against society and the materialistic interests of people, such as climbing social order and property.
1b)
From this text, we can see that this example does not strongly support the author’s view. Firstly, it is said that there is a very strong and ordered sense of hierarchy in the religious community, which can be said to oppose the author’s view as it says that the society was run by complicated networks of authority that were disunited. Moreover, it is stated that they were run only by the Rule of St Benedict, and therefore did not rely on society to change. However, it is said that clauses such as the controlling nature of the religious leaders on monks and abbots goes against the view that these communities were relied only on the Rule of St Benedict, and this therefore supports the author’s view. Moreover, the fact that military precision was necessary for ‘worldly success’ shows how religious communities were altered by society, as the military would have been an aspect of society. Overall, it is clear that religious communities were affected by society, they were not completely a mirror of the world in which they lived, however they were also not separate from society and were not only based on the Rule of St. Benedict.
1c)
Before 1938 it is clear that Anti-Semitism was not originally a Fascist principle nor was Mussolini inherently anti-Semitic. Mussolini condemned anti-Semitism in his speeches, writings and conversations. In 1933 and 1934 he was an open opponent of Germany's racial policies and instructed the Italian ambassador in Berlin to make personal representations to Hitler expressing Italy's concerns concerning those odious policies. Mussolini also chose and relied on Jewish friends, and two women who influenced him in those days were Jews; Angelica Balabanoff and Margherita Sarfatti. At the very beginnings, five Jews were at the founding meeting of Fascists in Milan, in 1919. Moreover, Mussolini’s long-standing mistress was Jewish and his fascist regime had even allowed 3000 German Jews to enter the country as refugees from Nazi persecution.

However, by the mid-1930s Mussolini’s foreign policy aims of making Italy ‘Great, respected and feared’ had brought the regime closer to the Nazi regime in Germany, and Nazi racial ideas began to circulate in Italy. Because of this, Mussolini persuaded himself that there was a Jewish influence behind resistance to Fascism in Italy and across Europe, and he saw significance in the fact the several members of the Italian anti-Fascist group ‘Justice and Liberty’ were Jews.

After 1938, Mussolini’s principle of Anti-Semitism was altered beyond recognition, and in July 1938, he gave official blessing to the claims of Italian anti-Semites by publishing a tract entitled the ‘Manifesto of Racial Scientists’, declaring that ‘the Jews do not belong in the Italian race’. After this, numerous anti-Semitic policies were introduced in Italy by Mussolini, for example in August 1938, foreign born Jews were banned from state schools and from teaching. By November 1938, it was forbidden for a Jew to marry a non-Jew. It wasn’t until 1943 until the regime collaborated with the Nazi plans to exterminate all Jews in Europe.

Despite the clear evidence of Mussolini’s changing view of the Jews, it is clear that persecution was not nearly as systematic as in Nazi Germany. For example, the anti-Semitic laws contained exemptions for those Italian Jews who had served in the First World and Farinacci, for example, kept his Jewish Secretary. Moreover, many governments and Fascist officials made little effort to enforce the laws, either because they shared the Church’s view the persecution was wrong, or because they had personal or family connections with Jewish Italians. Mussolini’s own sons for example protected their Jewish friends from harassment.

Overall, it is clear that the Mussolini’s principle of ‘Anti-Semitism’ was hugely altered in society. From Mussolini respecting and co-operating with the Jews, he then went out of his way to persecute them after 1938, and the fact that only 700 Italian Jews survived out of the 7500 sent to Nazi death camps in 1943 cannot be argued with. However, it is also clear that many exceptions were made and that far fewer Jews were killed in Italy than in Nazi Germany, and we must take this into account when examining the change of his principle.

2)

From this extract, it is clear that British Society in 1945 after the end of the Second World War was bleak, and this passage implies that many things about the effect of the war on Britain and the general opinions at the time. Firstly, I can infer that there was clearly low morale amongst the British population, despite the “eager looking forward to the end of the war”. This view is presented throughout the passage, and it is said by the housewife that she had “never had such a sour attitude on life in general” and that “there is so little brightness in life”. This clearly implies that the middle-class British housewife was miserable after the end of the war, and she could be seen as an archetypal figure who represents the many other housewives during the war. This low-morale is also presented as the housewife implies that she was even happier during the war, as she says that there used to be “fun and laughter” at the Centre, “even in the darkest days of war”. The fact that she was happier during the war epitomises the sense of low-morale after the war, as even when there was relentless bombing and loss of lives, she still had more fun. However, to me this housewife seems to have depression, and therefore it is hard to see how she can be seen to represent the whole of the British population, as surely there would have been people celebrating the end of the war.

A further aspect of British Society in 1945 presented by the extract is the fatigue and exhaustion after the war. The author mentions this tiredness throughout the passage, for example she explains how she was “tired out” and how “people’s heads are so tired”. Moreover, she comments on the fact that “husbands are coming home so tired” and that “this tiredness must be magnified to the highest degree amongst the homeless”. This shows how British Society was affected by fatigue after the war, which is understandable considering soldiers would have been fighting continuously and citizens would have been kept up by the German bombing. However, once again this passage has restrictions, as it can only tell us about the fatigue of the housewife, who clearly is not in a positive frame of mind while writing the letter.

A further characteristic of Britain after the war portrayed by the extract is the suffering economy. The author write in great detail about the harsh rations due to the war, such as the fact that “meat is scarcer” and “milk is down to two pints of milk a week”, clearly portraying the effects of the rationing on the British society. This would have exacerbated the low morale and fatigue after the war. Moreover, the lack of employment after the war is presented, caused by women losing the jobs they possessed during the war and the demobilised soldiers returning to the country after the war. The author states that “women are leaving their wartime jobs” and that “it’s not as easy to pick up threads as lay them down”. This also presents inequality between men and women, as it was evidently expected of women to quit their jobs in order to be there for their husbands and so that the men could work. Finally, the level of unemployment is also presented as she says that the fatigue must be at the highest “amongst the homeless”, implying that homelessness was a significant problem after the war.

Overall, this extract can tell us that there was low-morale amongst the British population after the war, most likely caused by the tiredness and economic problems. However, this extract cannot represent the whole population, and most of all it can tell us about the opinions and effects on the housewives, rather than soldiers or children for example. Moreover, it cannot accurately depict the effects on social classes other than the middle-class, as it was written by a middle-class housewife experiencing problems which may have been confined to the middle-class, which in itself is very difficult to define. However, in my opinion, this extract is very useful and reliable as evidence for the harsh characteristics of British Society in 1945, as it is a diary conveying the true feelings of a middle-class British housewife, who would have supposedly have had no reason to lie or create a subjective account of the war and its effects.
Reply 14
I've read the papers and planned answers but haven't given anything to teachers so I don't know how this will work out...
good luck everyone
Reply 15
Guys, I don't think I'm going to do very well on this test. :unsure:
Reply 16
Original post by Rowena96
Guys, I don't think I'm going to do very well on this test. :unsure:


:console: What's worrying you in particular? May be worth taking a quick look at the 2012 HAT thread cos the queries and responses were more specific in terms of practical advice:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=40026282&postcount=1
Reply 17
Original post by shoshin
:console: What's worrying you in particular? May be worth taking a quick look at the 2012 HAT thread cos the queries and responses were more specific in terms of practical advice:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=40026282&postcount=1

I really appreciated that consoling emoji thank you! I think just generally not knowing if my writing style is up to HAT standards, I tend to ramble in pressured settings and I've had little experience writing without an essay structure memorised, is what's worrying me. Also just not understanding the extract in Q1.
You're right though the 2012 thread is very helpful, I often find other people ask questions that are more helpful to me than any I come up with myself.

You seem to be very generous with giving clear and extensive answers so I would like to thank you on behalf of stressed History applicants everywhere :hat2:
Reply 18
Original post by Rowena96
Guys, I don't think I'm going to do very well on this test. :unsure:



Heyyyy don't worry, I don't think anyone feels too confident at all. All the people I have spoken to about it ensure me IT WILL BE DIFFICULT!!! It's Oxford lol, just bear in mind to ANALYSE ANALYSE ANALYSE and dig deeper than face value!!!!!!!!

Good luck!!!!!!
Reply 19
Original post by frog69
this is my sample attempt at the 2011 paper, i think i scored around 75 according to my teacher



1a)
I can deduce that the aims of the founders were create groups which protested against society and the materialistic interests of people, such as climbing social order and property.
1b)
From this text, we can see that this example does not strongly support the author’s view. Firstly, it is said that there is a very strong and ordered sense of hierarchy in the religious community, which can be said to oppose the author’s view as it says that the society was run by complicated networks of authority that were disunited. Moreover, it is stated that they were run only by the Rule of St Benedict, and therefore did not rely on society to change. However, it is said that clauses such as the controlling nature of the religious leaders on monks and abbots goes against the view that these communities were relied only on the Rule of St Benedict, and this therefore supports the author’s view. Moreover, the fact that military precision was necessary for ‘worldly success’ shows how religious communities were altered by society, as the military would have been an aspect of society. Overall, it is clear that religious communities were affected by society, they were not completely a mirror of the world in which they lived, however they were also not separate from society and were not only based on the Rule of St. Benedict.
1c)
Before 1938 it is clear that Anti-Semitism was not originally a Fascist principle nor was Mussolini inherently anti-Semitic. Mussolini condemned anti-Semitism in his speeches, writings and conversations. In 1933 and 1934 he was an open opponent of Germany's racial policies and instructed the Italian ambassador in Berlin to make personal representations to Hitler expressing Italy's concerns concerning those odious policies. Mussolini also chose and relied on Jewish friends, and two women who influenced him in those days were Jews; Angelica Balabanoff and Margherita Sarfatti. At the very beginnings, five Jews were at the founding meeting of Fascists in Milan, in 1919. Moreover, Mussolini’s long-standing mistress was Jewish and his fascist regime had even allowed 3000 German Jews to enter the country as refugees from Nazi persecution.

However, by the mid-1930s Mussolini’s foreign policy aims of making Italy ‘Great, respected and feared’ had brought the regime closer to the Nazi regime in Germany, and Nazi racial ideas began to circulate in Italy. Because of this, Mussolini persuaded himself that there was a Jewish influence behind resistance to Fascism in Italy and across Europe, and he saw significance in the fact the several members of the Italian anti-Fascist group ‘Justice and Liberty’ were Jews.

After 1938, Mussolini’s principle of Anti-Semitism was altered beyond recognition, and in July 1938, he gave official blessing to the claims of Italian anti-Semites by publishing a tract entitled the ‘Manifesto of Racial Scientists’, declaring that ‘the Jews do not belong in the Italian race’. After this, numerous anti-Semitic policies were introduced in Italy by Mussolini, for example in August 1938, foreign born Jews were banned from state schools and from teaching. By November 1938, it was forbidden for a Jew to marry a non-Jew. It wasn’t until 1943 until the regime collaborated with the Nazi plans to exterminate all Jews in Europe.

Despite the clear evidence of Mussolini’s changing view of the Jews, it is clear that persecution was not nearly as systematic as in Nazi Germany. For example, the anti-Semitic laws contained exemptions for those Italian Jews who had served in the First World and Farinacci, for example, kept his Jewish Secretary. Moreover, many governments and Fascist officials made little effort to enforce the laws, either because they shared the Church’s view the persecution was wrong, or because they had personal or family connections with Jewish Italians. Mussolini’s own sons for example protected their Jewish friends from harassment.

Overall, it is clear that the Mussolini’s principle of ‘Anti-Semitism’ was hugely altered in society. From Mussolini respecting and co-operating with the Jews, he then went out of his way to persecute them after 1938, and the fact that only 700 Italian Jews survived out of the 7500 sent to Nazi death camps in 1943 cannot be argued with. However, it is also clear that many exceptions were made and that far fewer Jews were killed in Italy than in Nazi Germany, and we must take this into account when examining the change of his principle.

2)

From this extract, it is clear that British Society in 1945 after the end of the Second World War was bleak, and this passage implies that many things about the effect of the war on Britain and the general opinions at the time. Firstly, I can infer that there was clearly low morale amongst the British population, despite the “eager looking forward to the end of the war”. This view is presented throughout the passage, and it is said by the housewife that she had “never had such a sour attitude on life in general” and that “there is so little brightness in life”. This clearly implies that the middle-class British housewife was miserable after the end of the war, and she could be seen as an archetypal figure who represents the many other housewives during the war. This low-morale is also presented as the housewife implies that she was even happier during the war, as she says that there used to be “fun and laughter” at the Centre, “even in the darkest days of war”. The fact that she was happier during the war epitomises the sense of low-morale after the war, as even when there was relentless bombing and loss of lives, she still had more fun. However, to me this housewife seems to have depression, and therefore it is hard to see how she can be seen to represent the whole of the British population, as surely there would have been people celebrating the end of the war.

A further aspect of British Society in 1945 presented by the extract is the fatigue and exhaustion after the war. The author mentions this tiredness throughout the passage, for example she explains how she was “tired out” and how “people’s heads are so tired”. Moreover, she comments on the fact that “husbands are coming home so tired” and that “this tiredness must be magnified to the highest degree amongst the homeless”. This shows how British Society was affected by fatigue after the war, which is understandable considering soldiers would have been fighting continuously and citizens would have been kept up by the German bombing. However, once again this passage has restrictions, as it can only tell us about the fatigue of the housewife, who clearly is not in a positive frame of mind while writing the letter.

A further characteristic of Britain after the war portrayed by the extract is the suffering economy. The author write in great detail about the harsh rations due to the war, such as the fact that “meat is scarcer” and “milk is down to two pints of milk a week”, clearly portraying the effects of the rationing on the British society. This would have exacerbated the low morale and fatigue after the war. Moreover, the lack of employment after the war is presented, caused by women losing the jobs they possessed during the war and the demobilised soldiers returning to the country after the war. The author states that “women are leaving their wartime jobs” and that “it’s not as easy to pick up threads as lay them down”. This also presents inequality between men and women, as it was evidently expected of women to quit their jobs in order to be there for their husbands and so that the men could work. Finally, the level of unemployment is also presented as she says that the fatigue must be at the highest “amongst the homeless”, implying that homelessness was a significant problem after the war.

Overall, this extract can tell us that there was low-morale amongst the British population after the war, most likely caused by the tiredness and economic problems. However, this extract cannot represent the whole population, and most of all it can tell us about the opinions and effects on the housewives, rather than soldiers or children for example. Moreover, it cannot accurately depict the effects on social classes other than the middle-class, as it was written by a middle-class housewife experiencing problems which may have been confined to the middle-class, which in itself is very difficult to define. However, in my opinion, this extract is very useful and reliable as evidence for the harsh characteristics of British Society in 1945, as it is a diary conveying the true feelings of a middle-class British housewife, who would have supposedly have had no reason to lie or create a subjective account of the war and its effects.


Thanks for posting this. I am sure you'll do well, as you provide well-developed, well-supported answers which addresses the questions asked directly and thoughtfully, deploying pertinent historical examples. Wishing you the best of luck on the day.

Latest