Edexcel AS History Unit 2 Wednesday 22nd May 2013

Yeah I have a sneaky feeling it will be Attlee and Heath, not sure why!




Posted from TSR Mobile

For Unit 1, I did this with American Indians, Hispanics and Feminism (which was 1/4) of Equality in the USA for the same reasons as you state here.

However, I'm going to do Home Front for Unit 2 because if Home Front does come up in part A questions, you don't have a choice. Plus if it comes up on Part B where you do, that means you get no choice and will have to do the other option - which you might not be confident about.

There is also, in my opinion, less dates, facts etc. with Unit 2 as half of it is own knowledge, and the other based on sources, in comparison with Unit 1 where it was pure own knowledge.

It means less work yes, but I'm not taking that risk.

Hey Guys,

I've screwed up, and missed the revising Boer War topic (totally by accident). I know bits and pieces of it - what do you think the likely hood of any WWI 40 mark question coming up is?

....

Here are all my notes on The Experience of Warfare, including the Crimean War, Second Boer War, the Western Front and the Home Front!

Crimean War: http://getrevising.co.uk/resources/the_experience_of_warfare_the_crimean_war
Second Boer War: http://getrevising.co.uk/resources/the_experience_of_warfare_the_second_boer_war
Western Front: http://getrevising.co.uk/resources/the_experience_of_warfare_the_western_front
Home Front: http://getrevising.co.uk/resources/the_experience_of_warfare_the_home_front

Enjoy!

Here's my essay I hope it's not too long lol


Do you agree with the view that changes in schooling in the second half of the 19th century significantly improved the role and opportunities of British Women?

I do not agree with the view that changes in schooling in the second half of the 19th century significantly improved the role and opportunities of British Women, as the impact was severely limited, due mainly the limited scope of provision, where only a few Camden schools such as NLCS were opened and the curriculum which only offered traditional subjects such as housewifery, continually encouraged high levels of domestic service and unemployment for women as stated in source 13, 14 and 15. However, there were some improvements such as new secondary and higher education institutes opening doors to women, new schools like the CLC designed to propel women into higher education and the opening of public examinations as stated in sources 13 and 14.

There were some changes that improved the role and opportunities of British Women in the second half of the nineteenth century. Source 13 itself was from the National Society in 1862 which provided elementary education in Church Schools for working class women. This meant that women were being propelled into new forms of education, whilst previously usually stayed at home or cared for the children, far more doors opened. Seen mainly through the NLCS providing new educational opportunities for middle class women who could not afford private fees, its founding by Frances Mary Buss in 1850 was immediately successful, the school itself offered a wide and varying curriculum with classes such as Arithmetic, French and some Political Economy. These changes itself meant that rather than the typical housewifery and needlework endorsed for all British Women, there was instead a more skilful orientated curriculum that aimed to equip British girls with varying skills to then apply for more complex job roles such as becoming typists and breaching into the medical profession with more academically accepted subjects. The everlasting impact on girl’s education by the NLCS was distinctly shown when 15 girls from the NLCS passed public examinations without any sign of nervous exhaustion, this led to the greatest change for which in 1867 all exams were officially opened to girls. Hence, the opening of examinations to girls across the country gave some girls the chance to receive scholarships and then pursue higher education, in fact this directly ties in with source 14 which states ‘’They sent a first wave of women into higher education’’, indeed they did, in 1853 very early on there was slight progression in higher education institutions admitting women, Queen’s College this year became the first girls school to be granted a royal charter for furtherance of women’s education, and shortly following the successful public examinations, in 1878 the University of London opened its degrees to women, this provided a substantial record of improvement, new higher educational opportunities were rapidly opening to British Women and their role was becoming far more intellectual and involved. Though, the scope of higher education was extremely limited in some respects, top institutes Oxford and Cambridge did not fully admit women until 1920 and 1947 respectively, it was these universities that set the example for many other British universities to follow, and so if they did not admit women, many other universities would also be extremely reluctant to further British women’s education. This representative was broadly seen, only around 10 institutes opened its degrees to women, these were often in fierce competition with the male population who were usually picked first amongst the crowd. But generally there were some changes acknowledged that did improve the role and opportunities of British Women

However the changes in the second half of the nineteenth century were extremely limited in improving the role and opportunities of British women. Combined with a low scope of education, the attitude of males and females alike led to very limited change. Source 13 states ‘’the importance of teaching them to make and mend shirts’’, this links with the fact that very much so even by 1878 domestic economy which included needlework and housewifery became compulsory for girls but not for boys. The sex discrimination exclaimed by these changes links with source 14 which states that schools such as the Girls Public Day School Company were ‘’not founded by feminists, and they do not tell a story of steady progress towards sex equality’’ which further links with source 15 which states the importance of ‘’ladylike behaviour’’ back then, it involved an ‘’abundance of rules about appropriate dress and being accompanied when going out. All 3 of these sources suggest that changes in education were extremely limited in breaking the separate sphere and Angel in the house ideology, due to this special expectation of women, professions such as engineering did not open at all, although some progress in medicine, this was faltered further by most doctors general opinion on women integrating into the profession. In particular when Elizabeth Garrett Anderson received a reason, it entailed ‘’It is not necessary that fair ladies should be brought into contact with foul scenes’’, many doctors held this viewpoint and so generally the medicine profession was not fully opened to girls until the doors of Oxford and Cambridge opened, this exclusive femininity expressed by the Doctors managed to place girls into a category of applicable jobs and tasks, construction work, or anything of the sort that would destroy the feminine charm of a woman was rigorously opposed by males and females alike. Indeed Frances Mary Buss herself in NLCS often adhered to gender stereotypes, during her weekly assemblies she praised the virtues of the ‘’dutiful good daughter’’, the school in general was partially designed for girls to make intelligent conversation with her husband across the dinner table, although it provided intellectual opportunities for British Women, the main underline issue was that women such as Frances Mary Buss along with her school encouraged women to be respectful to their husbands, to attend to their every need and most importantly never ruin their feminine charm, these words echoed throughout schools, many women did not further campaign or receive new work opportunities as they believed, that from the school they were designed to be good, earnest and occupied the separate sphere domestically. This is further supported by source 15 which states that ‘’pupils who wore no gloves to school gave ‘our enemies’ reason to say the High School makes girls ‘rough and unfeminine’ ‘’. By explicitly stating this, it meant that political persons and male school advisors were consistently checking education to see whether or not the provision was too open and offered too many opportunities. Schools such as Cheltenham Ladies College often fell into this trap as well, the curriculum at CLC was varied from dancing, music and painting to appease worried parents, early on in its beginning, the CLC exercised traditional subjects and values..In turn this emphasised femininity led to higher levels of domestic service by 1900, 1,740,800 domestic servants were employed, compared to a mere 2 architects and only 124,000 teachers and so at the end of the century, domestic service was very much so the main opportunity working and middle class girls had, the scope of education (being only a few institutes accepting women) was far too limited to allow women to enter banking/law/politics, they simply weren’t equipped with all the essential skills required. Therefore in essence the role and opportunities of British Women did not improve due to changes in schooling in the second half of the nineteenth century.

To sum up, I strongly disagree with the view that changes in schooling in the second half of the nineteenth century since the provision of higher education was limited as Oxford and Cambridge the role-model universities had not opened their degrees to women, combined with the exclusive femininity and separate spheres emphasised by many professional doctors, teachers, school curriculum choices such as the CLC’s exclusive curriculum to please worried parents, and symbolic measures all aimed to ensure that a woman’s femininity was preserved as supported by sources 13,14 and 15 which therefore meant that women were frowned upon for trying to find work other than domestic service and traditionally feminine roles in work and therefore provided limited change in the role and opportunities of British Women. However there were some minor changes that did improve as small institutes did manage to provide new education to girls, Queen’s college, NLCS and CLC did offer public examinations and teaching for post secondary level education. Though overall the changes in schooling in the second half of nineteenth century did not improve the role and opportunities of British Women.

Okay, so obviously I'm not a teacher or an examiner so take what I say with a pinch of salt! But basically, you demonstrate an impressive amount of own knowledge! HOWEVER probably too much.. I would say that although it is clear that you understand this time period very well, you are not actually 'ticking all the boxes' as my teacher says. I Although your knowledge is in depth and varied it can only get you a C if it's not evaluated properly. You do show evidence of some evaluation that I would say tips it into a B. But your first paragraph especially, if you read it back, is very descriptive and doesn't really explain to what extent this changed the role and opportunities of women.
For example, when you say 'there was instead a more skilful orientated curriculum that aimed to equip British girls with varying skills to then apply for more complex job roles such as becoming typists and breaching into the medical profession with more academically accepted subjects.' you could say how far this was significant. Eg. 'This shows the significance of the changes made in education was great because women were being prepared for jobs that previously would have remained closed to them' or something along those lines.

You also need to discuss the weight of the sources at parts of the essay, for example, source 13 talks of the importance of darning etc.. but it is referring to working class women (middle/upper class women would likely have got servants to do these jobs for them) and thus it can be argue it is a less reliable source when looking at education of the middle/upper classes.

The difference between the significance of change amongst middle class and working class is also something that I think you needed to include. With this you can display the extent of your own knowledge whilst evaluating the difference in significance between the classes.

Your introduction and conclusion are strong although perhaps in your introduction I would cut it down a bit in terms of own knowledge and simply set up the argument. Eg. ending on a sentence like 'Therefore it is possible to dispute that there was evidence of some change even if the significance was not vast.'

So overall I would probably mark this as a B as it is a very intellectual essay but just lacks some evaluation.

I hope you find my response helpful and don't feel I have been too harsh! Obviously, I cannot guarantee it would have been a B but using my knowledge of the mark scheme and my teachers responses this year I would say that it would be.

Anyone have any predictions for

Consensus and Conflict 1945-90?

I'm thinking Heath as a strong contender and probably Thatcher due to it being topical.

The "topical" argument, people may think psshh, the exams are written about a year before HOWEVER,

For Unit 1 - Option D in January they said that candidates failed to distingiush clearly between the Supreme Court and Federal Government for Civil Rights, and so wasn't surprising they were very detailed in the setting of the May Question so they can change it around.

I'm thinking for Heath:

"Do you agree that Heath's Government was primarily a success/failure?"

Yeah I have a sneaky feeling it will be Attlee and Heath, not sure why!


Posted from TSR Mobile

That's the great thing on Heath and Wilson- that's the only thing they can really ask you.

i think Callaghan/Wilson in the 70s might be a possibility too, it's never been asked out of the context of the 1979 election. though Wilson came up in January so they might not want to ask about Heath/Callaghan or another 'small' topic again.

Plus it was the only paper thus far as far as I can see that didn't have Thatcher or Attlee. So one of them is a certainty I would say. I'd say Attlee, personally.

i just hope it's not a awkward paper like the infamous miners strike/ suez crisis one. The June of last year was a bit of a Nightmare as well... Introduction of the NHS and Thatcher up to 1983. No thanks.

I really don't think conservatives in the 50s (or Wilson in the 60s) will be up though- but knowing my luck it will be.

Yea exactly!

I do hope a topic from 70-79 comes up, it's the easiest period to talk about

And they've only asked two questions on it, about the 79 election and also about Heath, I'm praying Heath comes up!

Oh Attlee's an alright topic, but personally I think they've killed the period, I mean, what else can they ask on him?

Yea June seemed tough, but I thought the Thatcher one was alright tbh, there would be quite a lot to talk about no?

Haven't revised Conservative Dominance so I'm hedging my bets that there's two questions on other topics; hopefully Heath and Thatcher. I think they may do Thatcher due to it being topical because they don't plan the answers as far in advance as some people may think and they will change it!

Maybe something on:

"Do you agree that Thatcher's economic policies were the main reason for her downfall?"
"Do you agree that Edward Heath's Government was primarily a success/failure?"

Beautiful questions!

i agree they've killed Attlee and I think Thatcher as well. They've never really asked explicitly on What the spec says 'to what extent was it an age of austerity' and explicitly on economic problems and Attlee's economic policy. I'm not sure really. For thatcher they've never really asked about overall sucess or controversy or something like that.

Yeah I don't think it'll be topical, I hope they aren't leaving writing the questions till the middle of April if not o-o

I really don't think conservative 1950-64 will come up... They've asked about econmic policies for them so many times. They've done the 64 election. They did suez. :/

these notes are absolutely astonishing, but how am I going to absorbe all of it in 2 days?

Mr Faust, what kind of cramming of revision would you advice for me?
Going over essay structures? Reading examiners reports? Making notes on all content to get as much knowledge as possible.
I know i have started way to late, but now I cant whine about it. I have to get going...

If you misinterpret one of the sources (such as you say source x disagrees when it agrees with the question) how many marks would u lose for it, if this occurred in both a 20 and 40 mark

If you misinterpret but you say it agrees when it actually is supposed to agree, how many marks are like likely to lose for this occurring in a 20 and 40 mark

Do you recommend starting of the exam by answering the 40 mark or straight with the 20 mark?

I think you'll get the benefit of the doubt, but you wouldn't be expecting anything higher than a C or B depending on how bad your misinterpretations are. Best to just not think about that and make sure you read the sources and question correctly.

I don't think it matters either way, but for me doing a part a sets me up mentally to tackle a more in depth analysis.