The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Historical thought. You only need it if you have everything else, i.e. don't force it 4 (however many) days before the exam. You really need to have read widely during the course.

Btw im going to LSE nxt year as well for law.
Reply 2
The different schools of thoughts by the various historians. However, merely stating them isn't enough anymore you have to explain the relevance i think...

Can't you still get a grade 6 without mentioning it though?
Reply 3
Just mention a couple of historians' names and you'll be fine. It's not that important, in my experience. I think you can get 16 marks without mentioning a single historian by name if the essay is otherwise good. I'm not sure, but you can possibly get full marks without historians' names if your essay is otherwise brilliant.

I wouldn't worry too much about the historians. Just try to learn a few names from each of the possible viewpoints to the topics you are studying. AJP Taylor's a good one - he's always saying the opposite to everyone else.
Reply 4
Well our teacher told us that merely mentioning them is just superflous.
there's no reason why you can't get 20 without mentioning historians' names. the thing is, kind of to understand "history" you need to have read historians' books. if you get me! therefore in a 20 essay it would be implicit.

where it is explicitly essential though is the cold war in p2, in particular, origins.
Reply 6
Does that mean I should, in each essay, include a sentence like: according to AJP Taylor, these are the main factors of...?

aah this is my most dreaded exam :argh:
Reply 7
erm i think it would be better to say that...

With relation to the origins of the Cold War i will be takign the stance that..... however this is an often discussed topic as can be seen by the differing views by several historians such as; AJP Taylor who believes....


I have never used histiography so maybe all that is the worst thing to write...


*shrugs*
Reply 8
Ok thanks
good luck to everyone taking the exam on Wed...!
Reply 9
JMoore
kind of to understand "history" you need to have read historians' books.


or just have a really good teacher who gives you a balanced view and tells you what this and that historian says of it. :wink: :wink:

also videos with historians in them do work just the same as books...
Basically it means you have to be able to present varying schools of thoughts and different interpretations.

Ok, AJP Taylor said a hell of a lot of things, but if you can't remember what exaclty, don't throw his name in, because it's worst if you get it wrong. If you can provide different sides and interpretations to the essay you should score well.
Reply 11
One can definitely get 20 marks without including historiography. still, historiography is always a plus.
its not very important to know the exact names, its more important to know that there is a historical discussion concerning something.
Example:
1. AJP Taylor claims that Hitler did not want war (ww2), while almost every other historian claim that Hitler was responsible for causing it.
2. Many historians claim that Germany did not cause ww1, but Fischer claims so.

If you are doing the Stalin section in paper 1 it is good to know Low, because almost every cartoon in paper 1 is made by him, and you can see his signature in the corner.

Another way to gain higher marks is to do name-dropping. it is actually possible to make something up, like make up a name, or take an old uncle's name or something, and say "the famous historian blablabla said that...". the examiners have no time to check, especially if you mention one from a non-english country, sweden in my case. maybe one should not use this technique too many times, because examiners could become a bit suspicious if you do it recurrently.

also notable in the markbands is that you need to challenge the question to gain high marks between 16-20. this is probably not appropriate in all questions, but when the question starts with a quote or something, you can talk against it. and when a question asks "to what extent..." one can also challenge it a bit. to challenge questions is maybe easier done in languages, but it works in history too.
Bookends

If you are doing the Stalin section in paper 1 it is good to know Low, because almost every cartoon in paper 1 is made by him, and you can see his signature in the corner.
Many of the cartoon sources in P1 are by Low (not just in the Stalin section).

Bookends

Another way to gain higher marks is to do name-dropping. it is actually possible to make something up, like make up a name, or take an old uncle's name or something, and say "the famous historian blablabla said that...". the examiners have no time to check, especially if you mention one from a non-english country, sweden in my case. maybe one should not use this technique too many times, because examiners could become a bit suspicious if you do it recurrently.

:rofl: sneaky but true. Once should do the trick.
Reply 13
sob.
history terrifies me.
Reply 14
ditto :smile:
**** this is scary!

Historiography is extremely important for a 7, i think. BUT not need for precise names, more like viewpoints
metaphysical
**** this is scary!

Historiography is extremely important for a 7, i think. BUT not need for precise names, more like viewpoints

I'd underline that 5 times. :wink:
Reply 17
for example, orthodox viewpoint, revisionist, post-revisionist etc.....
stick in a neo-something as well. :biggrin:
traditionalist revisionist structuralist intentionalist..