Oxford History Students and Applicants

Could someone who is currently sutdying history at oxford please explain the structure of the essay question on the H.A.T. Everything else is easy enough (he says) but I think many prospective students (me included) will fail the admissions test and our chance of securing a place at Oxford if we don't know how to do it! If not I will change my university choice to Cambridge. (stark warning)

Could someone who is currently sutdying history at oxford please explain the structure of the essay question on the H.A.T. Everything else is easy enough (he says) but I think many prospective students (me included) will fail the admissions test and our chance of securing a place at Oxford if we don't know how to do it! If not I will change my university choice to Cambridge. (stark warning)

It's simple enough - most of what you need to know is here: http://www.history.ox.ac.uk/prosundergrad/applying/hat_introduction.htm. Basically, in the first section, you get given an extract from some secondary literature and are asked to a) summarise the author's view on some topic and b)write a short essay linking that topic to a period of time that you've studied. In my case, the literature was about canals in the American West, I had to summarise what the author thought about the role of the natural world in this period, and then I wrote an essay on how the physical environment of Russia influenced the Revolution and the civil war that followed. This is testing your ability to pick out arguments in a text, and then identify themes and apply them to a period. They will always pick something broad enough that it can be applied to any period you happen to have studied - then it's just a case of remembering what you've studied

That sounds like what you were talking about, but I'll go through the second section anyways. Here you get given a primary source - I got a text on the construction of a crucifix by some 14th century monks - and you have to work out what it says about a theme in the society in question - in my case religious ideas, gender relations and how they informed social structure. The themes can seem totally bizarre and look like they have nothing to do with the source in question, but they always do, and the test is about picking up on inferences that link them. You are not expected to know anything about the period, and in fact bringing in eveidence from outside the text is a no-no. It is just testing your ability to analyse something without knowing anything about the context, and do so to a good level of depth.

It's really tough, but it's meant to be, and you should see it as a challenge The best thing to do is look over and practice past papers in the link I gave you; that should give you a good idea of the structure so you won't be surprised when it comes to the exam. Really, practice practice practice, that's all you can do - you can't even really revise apart from that one essay question, because so much of what you do comes from the individual sources. So just sharpen up your argumentative/analysis skills, and you should be alright.

Thanks Incarnadine1 and Shosin for replying with such celerity. So for the essay, it's just about applying themes in the source to your period is it? So basically it could be laid out like this:

Intro

Para 1 (Theme 1)

Para 2 (Theme 2)

Para 3 (Theme 3)

Para 4 (Tie everything in together)

Conclusion

The theme comes from the question. What you will be aiming to do is to use your knowledge of a completely different set of historical circumstances to show off the fact that you thoroughly understood the issues raised in the set passage in so far as they relate to the essay question. The best essays may present some original or interesting point of view arising from the fact that the same theme is being explored from a different perspective.

Taking the specimen paper for example, the theme is legitimation of rule and the author of the passage has already outlined his/her three main 'inner justifications': tradition, charisma and the law. So the essays on Roosevelt and Hitler should probably be trying to work through which of these apply (if any - are there others?). Note that the author of the set passage seems to feel that in practice you rarely come across a rule that is based purely on one of these three motives. So there's your foot in the door to consider this viewpoint in relation to a ruler or regime of your own choosing.

Might be a useful exercise to try to work out why the Hitler essay was preferred by the markers to the Roosevelt one (albeit that the Roosevelt one also got a good mark). The markers have put their views in the comments.

This is an essay question I've done in preparation for the H.A.T. It was Qu. 1 (c) from the 2010 paper. Could one very kind person who knows what is expected in the H.A.T review quickly. It's not very good, but... here it is:

Write an essay of one and a half to three sides assessing the interaction between
government and the views of the governed that lay behind any major political event,
act or movement. You may answer with reference to any society (40 marks)

The Vietnam War is a strong example to cite when pursuing this assessment. Clearly in this event it is evident that the interplay between the electorate and the incumbent administration was crucial to the eventual termination of the war in Vietnam.
Firstly, Nixon won the two successive terms for the presidency on the idea of eventual peace in Vietnam. Clearly, the man was responding to the pressures of the public who, witnessing the rising death tolls and horrors of war for the first time in their living rooms and homes, were anxious to seek at end to war. This suggests that the active partner in this relationship was the view of the governed. Nixon was an instrument in the process of political change, reacting to the whims of the people. The best evidence to represent this idea is that he renewed diplomatic relations with China, in order to pacify Russia and reduce the risk of further escalation of the war in Vietnam. This contrasts with the aggressive pursuit of containment by previous presidents such as Lyndon B. Johnson, and John F. Kennedy, who indulged public hostility to communism following the Korean War and the McCarthy witch-hunt. However, this only serves to empower the idea that the dominant strain in the relationship that lay behind the termination of the Vietnam war, was the view of the governed. The bigger picture of the war highlights that the importance of the views of the governed was not simply confined to the termination of the war in isolation, but was also crucial to its escalation and continuation throughout the 1960s. This lends great weight to the argument.
However, whilst there is evidence to suggest that the interaction between the government and the views of the governed favour the latter as the driving force in the relationship which lies behind political change, this idea must not be studied in isolation. There is compelling proof to suggest that the Government often manipulates public opinion and moulds it to its own advantage, or ignores it completely. For instance, Nixon insisted that to end the war in Vietnam, there needed to be ‘peace with honour’. Yes, this was responding to public outcry for an end to the war in a sense; but inherent in Nixon’s message is a personal belief that the United States had to leave the war with its dignity intact. Nixon had therefore put his own personal slant on the pressures imposed upon him by the views of the governed, and manipulated it to serve his own interest. From this it is possible to see that whilst the views of the governed were certainly important in driving the government to political change, it was not a one way relationship. The government can also present a case to the public, creating a much more fluid interaction than previously suggested. This is possible to see in the fact that the last great popular demonstration against the war in Vietnam was in 1968, when nearly a million congregated in Washington D.C. This suggests that during Nixon’s years a more fluid exchange existed between the views of the governed and the government since discussion did not stagnate to the extent that the masses believed a mass demonstration was necessary. Therefore the interaction between the two parties in termination of the war was as much driven arguably, by the views of the governed as the government, or so the evidence suggests. Indeed perhaps the best evidence to suggest that the government also had a strong part in the two-way relationship with the views of the governed was that prior to terminating the war in Vietnam, Nixon executed the most intensive bombing campaigns hitherto experienced in the war – a complete antithesis to the views of the governed. This shows that whilst the views of the governed were certainly important in terminating the war, there existed a dynamic relationship, in which their ideas, and indeed the ideas or the governed could be moulded, adapted rejected by both parties according to their interests and motivations.
Therefore in conclusion, the interaction of the government and the views of the governed existed in an active, mutually responsive state, in which both parties acted and reacted according to their owns decisions and the decisions of the other party. This idea could be extended to suggest that indeed it was a dialectic that was the motor for political change in the early 1970s, producing a synthesis which was the close of the war in Vietnam.

Thanks Shoshin, the fog is lifting! Does anyone have example essays? (except for the one on the website of course) This is great stuff anyway but it may be wise to have a rubric to follow in case I get freeze during the test. Thankyou all.

This is an essay question I've done in preparation for the H.A.T. It was Qu. 1 (c) from the 2010 paper. Could one very kind person who knows what is expected in the H.A.T review quickly..

x

x

x

Hi everyone,

I'm writing an article for The Cherwell about the 'Treasures of the Bodleian' exhibition which opened to the public today, and wondered whether one or two of you would mind giving a really brief quote about the exhibition.

The exhibition is highlighting some of the most rare and unique documents in the library's collection.

It doesn't matter if you haven't yet seen the exhibition, or even if you don't intend to. Just a couple of lines about whether you're interested in the exhibition or completely indifferent about it would be fantastic. For example, are you excited about the possibility of seeing handwritten drafts of famous texts?

I will of course give lots of lovely rep to anyone kind enough to reply! Just your name, college and a couple of lines would be fantastic - by PM if you don't want to reveal your identity online.

Thanks v. much!

Hi everyone,

I'm writing an article for The Cherwell about the 'Treasures of the Bodleian' exhibition which opened to the public today, and wondered whether one or two of you would mind giving a really brief quote about the exhibition.

The exhibition is highlighting some of the most rare and unique documents in the library's collection.

It doesn't matter if you haven't yet seen the exhibition, or even if you don't intend to. Just a couple of lines about whether you're interested in the exhibition or completely indifferent about it would be fantastic. For example, are you excited about the possibility of seeing handwritten drafts of famous texts?

I will of course give lots of lovely rep to anyone kind enough to reply! Just your name, college and a couple of lines would be fantastic - by PM if you don't want to reveal your identity online.

Thanks v. much!

I'm definitely planning on going.
Some of the texts and manuscripts that are going to be displayed are incredible.
For me it's almost surprising that something like the Magna Carta or Shakespeare's first folio, which are so influential and important that they're almost legendary, actually exist. The possibility of actually seeing these things is incredible exciting.
It'd be similar to the feeling I got when I saw Napoleon's Tomb or the Rosetta Stone; articles that have affected the course of history right in front of your eyes. Certain people couldn't care less, but for somebody like me it's a dream come true!


Now I don't know it that's quotable, but feel free if there's anything in there you'd like to use!

Joe Rolleston and I'm at Corpus Christi College.

This is the first I've heard of the exhibition, but I'll definitely have a look in my first term, probably even in my first visit to the Bodleian. Just read a little paragraph on their website about it, it sounds fantastic.

The sheer diversity of the exhibits being shown is what strikes me. It really helps to cement Oxford's position not only in British history, but as a cornerstone of Western culture. I don't think you could see the original foundations of the British constitution, the first concept of zero, or handwritten originals of modernism together in any other place. This'll definitely be one of the first things I visit at Oxford.

Pick at your will, even juggle the words around to make a new sentence if you want.

Fred de Fossard, Magdalen.

I'd recommend you guys drop round to the Ashmolean at some point, if you get the time - it's got some really interesting displays, like the Alfred Jewel, a lot of Persian tapestries and a room full of antique violins (?). The Natural History museum also has some good stuff in, skeletons and stuffed animals and the like. And the Pitt Rivers display at the back has shrunken heads in it Basically Oxford is a haven for displays like that! This is the first I've heard of this one at the Bodliean, but it looks brilliant.

I love the Ashmolean. I've been there twice so far, I had a lovely time there during interviews. It was pretty much empty (aside from another history candidate), and I spent ages gazing at the rooms of Romantic and Pre-Raphaelite works there.

I'd recommend you guys drop round to the Ashmolean at some point, if you get the time - it's got some really interesting displays, like the Alfred Jewel, a lot of Persian tapestries and a room full of antique violins (?). The Natural History museum also has some good stuff in, skeletons and stuffed animals and the like. And the Pitt Rivers display at the back has shrunken heads in it Basically Oxford is a haven for displays like that! This is the first I've heard of this one at the Bodliean, but it looks brilliant.

Look at you being all helpful and wise again!

I visited the Ashmolean during interviews and really enjoyed myself, despite having just come out of an interview that I was convinced I'd failed, which dampened my mood.

I'd definitely like to spend a little more time there.

Look at you being all helpful and wise again!

I visited the Ashmolean during interviews and really enjoyed myself, despite having just come out of an interview that I was convinced I'd failed, which dampened my mood.

I'd definitely like to spend a little more time there.