i had my stuart britan exam today
not sure how well the first part went as i felt like i was repeating myself.
for my section B i did the question on Charles's action led to mistrust, which i think went okay
i was wondering how anyone found it and what they predict the grade boundaries will be ?
I thought it went well! I also answered the question on Charles included the arrest of 5 MP's in Parliament, deliberately delaying negotiations after the 1 civil war and the engagement with the Scots in 1647 to invade England. Wasn't sure on how Charles could be trusted though?!
I think the grade boundaries for this paper will be lower, well at least they should be, purely because it's a brand new spec and there are new skills involved and applied into this exam. However, I think because the exam board were particularly easy with us and gave us some easy questions (particularly with James and Finance in the extract question) that may give them reason to heighten the grade boundaries.
I, personally, found I was repeating myself in the extract question and I answered the question on why Charles couldn't be trusted. I found that while all the decisions he made led to conflict and mistrust, like the imposition of the Laudian Prayer Book which lead to Scottish Rebellion and inevitably, the beginning of a British Civil War, I also found that you could argue against the question and argue that his great belief in the Divine Right of Kings and how he believed that anything he says goes, which directly lead him to refuse any propositions (Like the 19 propositions) and lead him to refuse any settlements that Parliament intended on attempting to agree with Charles on. This stubborn and strong-willingness of Charles definitely played a part in his eventual execution.
How did you find the exam overall? I think it was particularly easy!
I found the paper quite decent, I chose the essay question on 'The early Stuarts had effectively dealt with the religious problems from 1603-29'. Did anyone else choose this question?
I though it went quite well.
The source question was friendly but I feel like I rushed it a little. What did you write as counter arguments for the two extracts? I couldn't think of any particularly obvious flaws cos it seemed both Extracts were pretty well argued.
For the essay question I chose the first option which looked much easier than the second one. I don't know how on earth you were meant to write a balanced argument for that one tbh... What evidence is there that Charles could be trusted??? That's why I did the first option, I wrote that initially from 1603 to 1614 the stuarts managed religious issues well with James' response to the Hampton Court Conference, and I argued in later years from 1614 to 1629 the shift towards arminianism, the marriage to henrietta maria and James' pro-Spanish foreign policy created religious problems by breaking the Jacobethan balance rather than solving any issues.
I think the grade boundaries will be low because new spec and the questions weren't "x event led to y, do you agree" but the source question was nice so I reckon 19/25 in each essay might scrape an A
AQAs new spec for Stuart's (2E) paper is on Wednesday 25th?!?!