2018 Cambridge History Applicants thread

I did too! I was fine with section 1, but I definitely found section 2 harder than the specimen - I feel like I didn't answer the question properly and had really random paragraphs, and I ran out of time! I found almost too much to talk about, it was just that very little of what I wanted to talk about was about duelling

I've just done the 2016 paper this morning and I wish I'd done it earlier because it has definitely panicked me, when I really wanted to just go in feeling as relaxed as possible.

Its reassuring to know that someone’s in the same boat! I also left the 2016 paper for this morning and regret it a lot now

How did you structure your response may I ask? Was it based on similarities vs differences paragraph bc I had that structure in mind before sitting the paper yet I failed to properly implement it for that particular response.. & what themes did you pick up on?

I can rlly feel the anxiety kicking in

I generally try to have paragraphs based on common themes, and then go through similarities and differences within them. I found this quite tricky for the duelling sources so I think my paragraphs are a bit dodgy, but I did a paragraph on the personal nature of politics (and then went into how duelling was seen as a way of solving political-->personal disputes in extract 1, but this was no longer acceptable in extract 2), changing attitudes towards violence (seems more acceptable in extract 1, much less in extract 2), and how publicly conducted politics (seems much more private in extract 1, you dont get the reasons for the dispute etc, whereas in extract the writer is making the disagreement public knowledge, discrediting the other guy etc). I tried to look at all these themes through the lens of the views on duelling, but that got worse and worse as I ran out of time

I also tried to look at provenance a bit, like how the press seems quite tightly controlled in extract 1, and in extract 2 it could be more the writers agenda against the guy that challenged him/trying to discredit him, than his views on duelling, but again it definitely got worse and worse throughout my answer!

Upon reading your response, it definitely seems like you've got this handled better than me! (if that's any consolation lol)

I picked up on your initial theme of duelling seen as a way to solve disputes (the obvious one ) but the rest was all a mess! I went on about irrelevant themes like 'democracy in Britain' wtf? (desperate times haha)

I definitely think the difficulty was trying to interpret the themes through the lens of duelling as you mentioned. Which explains why I delved into other themes without that link back to their views on duelling. Your points on provenance are good tho! Never hit me the time I was writing it

Honestly, I just really really hope the sources this Thursday are more decent to interpret, and that the similarities and differences are more discernible.

I applied to Oxford for straight History last year (I'm now applying to Cambridge for History and Modern Languages... I'll end up the ultimate oxbridge reject lmao), so I did the HAT, which means I've got a bit of experience! My History teacher did some really good lunchtime sessions on how to handle the source questions, and some of the stuff has been transferable haha.

Also the little bit of information above the first extract gave me the idea for the violence paragraph, and pushed me more towards writing about politics, so I can't take all the credit

Tbh I completely ignored that info even tho they likely put it there for a reason 😂

ooh, best of luck for this time round! Which college did you go for?

Thanks!! I went for Queens' in the end, although I nearly chose Christ's. What about you?

Great choice tbh. I did actually entertain Queens' but ultimately settled for the smaller kind, Sidney Sussex. :P I kinda liked the more intimate feel.

honestly tho they're all amazing and i'd be over the moon wherever

(We're not allowed to put specifically what the topics were right?)

Definitely, it wasn’t easy- but I thought the 2016 paper was tougher. I had no idea for the first and last bit of the first section, but luckily I knew about one of the section and the essay question in the second session so I think that went alright. (We're not allowed to put specifically what the topics were right?)

It might be a good thing you used your own knowledge though because at least it shows you've done extra reading. I don't think I used any own knowledge

guys i really messed up Section 1 i just blanked out and ran out of time, so ended up guessing most answers. - It was terrible imo Section 2 was marginally better (as in, I preferred it to last year's thing on Duelling) but don't think my response was any good.

Honestly, at this point, I don't think i'll even make it to interview stage...

guys i really messed up Section 1 i just blanked out and ran out of time, so ended up guessing most answers. - It was terrible imo Section 2 was marginally better (as in, I preferred it to last year's thing on Duelling) but don't think my response was any good.

Honestly, at this point, I don't think i'll even make it to interview stage...