Edexcel History Unit 2 6H102 20/05/15

Most of the people I know did the first one on the Married Women's Acts - Essentially if you chose that, apart from having to do the boring cross referencing and source quoting you have all the marks for own knowledge on a plate.

Same for the second B question - 70% of the own knowledge was given in the sources. This wasn't such a bad paper, I was expecting the worst!

That's fine also, as long as you mentioned how likely their responses and views were and whether they were 'valid' or 'questionable' you will be fine, considering the author and provenance.

Yes Punch was in favour of womens suffrage, the liverpool newspaper had trade union connections so were upset with women taking mens jobs

The question was, "How far do you agree the the fear of cholera was the key reason for improvements in public health provision?" You're answer is fine.

I was surprised at how easy the paper was, but at the same time with the craziness thrown at us in unit 1 it's not unexpected.



*Tears of joy and relief unexpectedly start leaking from my face.*




Most newspapers, even those who weren't located in industrial towns were disapproving of suffragists (with the exception of Manchester as far as I remember.) They normally reflected the mass population's opinion, rather than those who were progressive.

Yeah, I fleshed out my answer with details on Eleanor Rathbone and Susan Lawrence, but I just hope its enough.

Hey guys, if i was to redo this units paper (I did Henry Viii, crown nation authority) would i have to redo the first Units paper as well (Russia in Revolution+ Stalins Russia)?

Or can i just redo this one paper?

I was surprised at how easy the paper was, but at the same time with the craziness thrown at us in unit 1 it's not unexpected.



*Tears of joy and relief unexpectedly start leaking from my face.*




Most newspapers, even those who weren't located in industrial towns were disapproving of suffragists (with the exception of Manchester as far as I remember.) They normally reflected the mass population's opinion, rather than those who were progressive.

Yeah, as long as you included 1 piece of own knowledge for each point you made it should be fine, it matters about detail and depth, so it's not too big of an issue even if you did miss out stuff

Also what was the question again for 2bii, I forgot?

Cheers - Gunnarsunn.

The Daily Herald, Manchester Guardian and Punch heavily supported women's suffrage, they won't cut marks for your comments on Punch as a source however History is about facts and they can not award marks for something that is incorrect, saying something questionable without giving a factual reason is a baseless allegation.

"Do you agree with the view that women's involvement in public life played a key role in advancing their political role?"

For qs a) (for which I had only left 20 minutes, so was rushing), do you think it's okay that I dealt with opportunity and status together?Also, although I did pick up on the fact that the final source as a passage from a regional newspaper was not necessarily representative of the views of the rest of Britain, I failed to recognise that its view, considering the time of publication, was also affected by men's return from fighting in WWI, meaning women were no longer needed. For the Margaret Bondfield source I said that it was more a statement of intent, but not the fact that it demonstrated that women needed to actively campaign for better opportunities, meaning their status had not been elevated.

From what's been said I understand that these were two quite crucial points - it would be a shame if a poor mark for a) undermined my performance in b)!

Oh thanks, when I linked my paragraphs back to my point I said "Therefore women's role in public life did further their political role" - I didn't say advancing instead I used furthered, that'd be okay right? One boy told me that it'd be incorrect and I was like... What? Lol

Well dealing with opportunity and status is the right way to go, I also mentioned from Source 11 (M. Bondfield) that women wanted their own trade unions as a clause and therefore unionization supported their status during the war-work period. Opportunities were provided also in Source 10 with a vast range of jobs provided that required fulfillment.

The last source was a newspaper and it is likely that such views would be expressed as newspaper normally opposed female emancipation. In 1918 the publication date, it's important to consider that demobilization occurred and many men were coming back, therefore its usefulness is questionable.

For Margaret Bondfield I would've focused on her role and the extract given, so again it was likely such views and emphasis would be expressed by her and she was pro-female emancipation and attempted to further the feminine cause. Again it's usefulness is questionable.

Your performance in A would not undermine your performance in B, unless your examiners a bit of a d***, then perhaps Lol!

But, what you've said is also good as long as its on the same lines as what I've mentioned above, full marks for you in terms of evaluation of provenances!

LOL why on earth did that boy say that? Saying 'furthered their political role' is perfectly fine since it's just a synonym for advanced and the examiners definitely have that degree of leniency.

Looking at what you've mentioned above, I realize that in the limited I had I wasn't able to give as comprehensive an analysis as I would have liked...yours sounds like it was in greater depth, therefore much more likely to get full marks!

In all honesty, I'm expecting a 12-13 because my structure was also disorganized and the examiner will turn into a d*** when he/she sees the atrocity that is my handwriting!

Ah well, when I get my overall C/D on results day, at least I'll know my work got the TSR stamp of approval....lol.

There were sources in the edexcel textbook with punch cartoons clearly making fun of suffragists by portraying them as old ugly spinsters. I also remember the punch source admitting themselves for teasing english women at times. There is a backing behind my argument.

We'll have to see when when the mark scheme and examiner report get published I guess.

He's a bit of a idiot that boy. You will still get marks because you have attempted to evaluate and you get credited upon that, someone saying "Source 12 is bias and not reliable and it was written in 1914" is useless, whereas you did attempt to and it does seem correct, so you will be credited.

Structure isn't too big of a deal, as long as you mentioned both sides you'll still be credited, so don't worry about that. You won't get a D because you need 14/20 for an A on a 20 marker and 30/40 for an A on a 40 marker! You'll do great!

"Do you agree with the view that women's involvement in public life played a key role in advancing their political role?"

For qs a) (for which I had only left 20 minutes, so was rushing), do you think it's okay that I dealt with opportunity and status together?Also, although I did pick up on the fact that the final source as a passage from a regional newspaper was not necessarily representative of the views of the rest of Britain, I failed to recognise that its view, considering the time of publication, was also affected by men's return from fighting in WWI, meaning women were no longer needed. For the Margaret Bondfield source I said that it was more a statement of intent, but not the fact that it demonstrated that women needed to actively campaign for better opportunities, meaning their status had not been elevated.

From what's been said I understand that these were two quite crucial points - it would be a shame if a poor mark for a) undermined my performance in b)!

Your performance in one question will never affect how your examiner markas the next question, better answers would have clearly differentiated between Status (Pay and respect by men) and Opportunities (In the tertiary section and more choice) however this might set you back to about level 3 but no to the point of a C or D.

I understand that but I meant undermining my performance in the sense of bringing down my unit 2 grade below an A e.g. a 35+ on qs b) would effectively be of no use if I were to receive say 10 or below in qs a); of course, unit 1 is weighted 50% too, so there's that to consider in terms of the overall grade.