A2 Edexcel History Unit 3 discussion thread

It really doesn't matter, as long as you keep your argument balanced on both sides. It's quality over quantity!

I think that a 60/40 or a 65/30 split is better than a 50/50 balance because with the former two ratios your argument is clear and gives you a more authoritative tone.

Reply 181

mellie220

12

Original post by Cast.Iron

I think that a 60/40 or a 65/30 split is better than a 50/50 balance because with the former two ratios your argument is clear and gives you a more authoritative tone.

Actually, that's probably better. I tend to favour one side over the other so I think 60/40 would be about right.

Reply 182

W.H.T

15

Original post by mellie220

Well, no it's not necessary to know but it does help pick up some marks when arguing the validility of sources, for example if there is a source which is traditionalist you can put in your argument that the tradtionalist view isn't completely reliable because of it's tendency to ignore the fact Stalin had defensive needs and needed to create a buffer zone (if the question is something like that). Traditionalists ignore the fact Stalin had a foreign policy to stick by and just assume he is aggressive therefore blaming him for the Cold War, therefore these sources are usually quite unreliable and are heavily biased towards US foreign policy, despite it playing it's part too. I think that's a far stronger analysis of the source than just saying that they show bias towards the USA.
I'm not saying you have to use the schools of thought, it's just how I would personally structure it.

In the evaluation of the sources I'd take the basic jist of each of them and give an evaluation of how far they agree with the question - usually they match up quite well. Usually my evaluations are just a collection of my final ideas in the rush to finish :tongue:

I get your point, but I have a feeling the sources we get won't necessarily fit well into any particular 'school of thought'. So it'll be more difficult to judge....

But I guess you can make a general point that the content of the source has traditionalist tendency, and then go on to discuss the relative merits and faults of that school of thought. :confused:

Reply 183

Samus2

17

Why am I acting like this exam isn't two days away o_0

Reply 184

W.H.T

15

Original post by Cast.Iron

They're quite useful to slot into your introductions:

"The debate over the prime causes of the Cold War has been running for many decades. Whilst many orthodox historians present the argument that the Cold War was a largely ideological conflict and by that nature was triggered by opposing ideologies, those belonging to the post-revisionist school of thought, such as this historians in source 8, would argue that the emergence of the Cold War and indeed the Cold War itself owe much to a number of relevant factors, not simply ideology as source 7 would have one ostensibly believe."

Ah yes, putting them into introduction can work quite neatly :smile:

Btw do you have time to get back to me on the query I had yesterday:

How far do you agree that the cold war came to an end because the Soviet hold over Eastern Europe had weakened?

The cold war was about tensions between the soviets and the U.S, so its seems thats the 'weakening/collapse of soviet powers' isn't necessarily the same as the 'end of tensions between them the two superpowers'. So how would you explain the connection between the weakening of soviet powers in europe, and the end the cold war?

I'm also slightly confused by the ambiguity surrounding the exact point that the cold war ended; is at the end of 1989 when all the Eastern European states rejected their respective communist government, OR 1991 when the USSR ceased to exist?

It could even be argued that the Cold war ended soon after Gorbechev was made general secretary of the USSR in 1985 (announcement of new political thinking) and the huge concessions made at the Reykjavik and Washington summit, which all effectively signalled the end of rivalry and tensions.

Reply 185

mellie220

12

Original post by W.H.T

I get your point, but I have a feeling the sources we get won't necessarily fit well into any particular 'school of thought'. So it'll be more difficult to judge....

But I guess you can make a general point that the content of the source has traditionalist tendency, and then go on to discuss the relative merits and faults of that school of thought. :confused:

The sources generally conflict so the schools of thought will be very clear probably.

If you don't feel confident enough on them don't let them weigh you down, as long as you are good at source questions you probably won't lose any marks.

Reply 186

charcharchar

14

whats your topic?

im doing cold war..

we've been told the sources to 'build' the argument and then use our own knowledge to finish/aid the argument :smile:

Reply 187

tillytots

19

Been getting so stressed about this exam toady, to the point that when I went and saw my teacher for exam technique I broke down in tears haha.

This thread is so conflicting with the historiography, I just don't see how you can gain marks by stating whether a source is orthodox/post revisionist etc, sounds fancy but just doesn't seem beneficial...

Reply 188

1Unit1

Would we have to remember the name of the different viewpoints? Like what the Orthodox and Revisionists think, or is it ok if we know the different arguments, but don't include whether it's the Orthodox view or someone else's. The same for mentioning historians' names?

Reply 189

username430180

12

My topic is the Great Depression, we were told to write it the same as the 30 mark essays but to incorporate the sources smoothly, rather than writing "Source A says..." etc.

Reply 190

Ifjg

does anyone have a clue as to how much time you're meant to allocate to each question??
I know its 2 hours all in all, i thought a good structure would be:

section A : 10 minutes planning, 40 minutes writing

section B: 10 minutes planning, 60 minutes writting

does this sound accurate?!

also, im doing the boom bust recovery, SO hard to revise for!? i need to scrape a B to get an A overall i think, 84/120 ums marks which is JUST 70 per cent. but im worried :frown:

Reply 191

c7.

Original post by Ifjg

does anyone have a clue as to how much time you're meant to allocate to each question??
I know its 2 hours all in all, i thought a good structure would be:

section A : 10 minutes planning, 40 minutes writing

section B: 10 minutes planning, 60 minutes writting

does this sound accurate?!

also, im doing the boom bust recovery, SO hard to revise for!? i need to scrape a B to get an A overall i think, 84/120 ums marks which is JUST 70 per cent. but im worried :frown:

Agreed, so much **** to learn ; hopefully the questions will be nice.

Reply 192

Ifjg

Original post by c7.

Agreed, so much **** to learn ; hopefully the questions will be nice.

literally praying theres a question on opposition of roosevelt, would make my life, supreme court huey long afl, would be pretty simple.

if its on mccarthyism i may walk out...

do you think the timing i put is right?

Reply 193

monkeyonthelake

Original post by Ifjg

does anyone have a clue as to how much time you're meant to allocate to each question??
I know its 2 hours all in all, i thought a good structure would be:

section A : 10 minutes planning, 40 minutes writing

section B: 10 minutes planning, 60 minutes writting

does this sound accurate?!

I think that's about right timing wise. I'm not doing the same topic as you but the timings we've been given are the same. :smile:

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 194

Cast.Iron

14

Original post by Ifjg

does anyone have a clue as to how much time you're meant to allocate to each question??
I know its 2 hours all in all, i thought a good structure would be:

section A : 10 minutes planning, 40 minutes writing

section B: 10 minutes planning, 60 minutes writting

does this sound accurate?!

also, im doing the boom bust recovery, SO hard to revise for!? i need to scrape a B to get an A overall i think, 84/120 ums marks which is JUST 70 per cent. but im worried :frown:

You're on the money with the timing.

Reply 195

Cast.Iron

14

Original post by tillytots

Been getting so stressed about this exam toady, to the point that when I went and saw my teacher for exam technique I broke down in tears haha.

This thread is so conflicting with the historiography, I just don't see how you can gain marks by stating whether a source is orthodox/post revisionist etc, sounds fancy but just doesn't seem beneficial...

Precisely. If you can fit them into your introduction somehow then it will give off the impression of intelligence and knowledge.

Examiners are only human and with subjects such as History, their perception of the competency and fluency of your style is important.

However, do not waste time revising and getting worked up about it because there are other ways to do this. I am just saying that if you know them then they are useful to put in.

Reply 196

Talib-Lawli

Is revising for only one of Depression and New Deal too risky?

Reply 197

SS.

Is anyone else doing Charles 1st/english civil war?Terrified for side taking...

Reply 198

Samus2

17

I just need to cram this tonight and tomorrow >.< I've covered all of WW2 bar the home front... would it be risky to not cover post war...

Reply 199

Clumsy_Chemist

10

Original post by Ifjg

does anyone have a clue as to how much time you're meant to allocate to each question??
I know its 2 hours all in all, i thought a good structure would be:

section A : 10 minutes planning, 40 minutes writing

section B: 10 minutes planning, 60 minutes writting

does this sound accurate?!

also, im doing the boom bust recovery, SO hard to revise for!? i need to scrape a B to get an A overall i think, 84/120 ums marks which is JUST 70 per cent. but im worried :frown:

I think for section A that's about right, but section B should be more like 20 minutes planning and 50 writing :smile:

Also, I intend to do section B first, so that I get the harder and bigger part done first. Section A is easier to rush

A2 Edexcel History Unit 3 discussion thread

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you