Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 12:26:23 pm

Author Topic: History Extension Question Thread!  (Read 130422 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

damecj

  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • Respect: +11
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2017, 08:05:17 am »
0
Hey,
I'm struggling with my practice essay on the construction of history. It has to do with how sources contribute to new forms of history. I'm not sure how to structure and what my main points should be

sudodds

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1753
  • "Seize the means of the HSC" ~ Vladimir Lenin
  • Respect: +931
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2017, 08:40:13 am »
0
Hey,
I'm struggling with my practice essay on the construction of history. It has to do with how sources contribute to new forms of history. I'm not sure how to structure and what my main points should be

Hi damecj!

It's a bit tricky for me to give a definitive answer to this without seeing the source (and as ext is such an individualist subject). I'd say the best way to go about it is to carefully read through the source and work out  what are the key reasons that it is putting forward in regards to the issue. You should do this even if you're not struggling to think of topics, because your essay must be consistently intergrating the source no matter what.

Then take these issues addressed in the source and make this the focus of each of your paragraphs. So for eg lets say the source discusses the role of new research and archival technology, that would be the focus of one of your paragraphs.

In the end, as long as you are consistently intergrating the source (and your two related sources!) and NOT writing a chronology, your structure is up to you :) (a blessing and a curse haha)

Hope this helps! Good luck 😊

(just a suggestion though on something you could mention - social history. As new perspectives are explored and uncovered, by looking at sources not typically explored, new forms of history are similarly uncovered - feminist/race/class/lgbt history. 😊 this was the focus of one of my paragraphs in my major work and it is super interesting!)
« Last Edit: March 17, 2017, 08:41:56 am by sudodds »
FREE HISTORY EXTENSION LECTURE - CLICK HERE FOR INFO!

2016 HSC: Modern History (18th in NSW) | History Extension (2nd place in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize) | Ancient History | Drama | English Advanced | Studies of Religion I | Economics

ATAR: 97.80

Studying a Bachelor of Communications: Media Arts and Production at UTS 😊

Looking for a history tutor? I'm ya girl! Feel free to send me a PM if you're interested!

jenna.ridgway

  • Adventurer
  • *
  • Posts: 11
  • Respect: 0
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2017, 08:39:07 am »
0
Hello,
For my history extension project, I am currently doing the 'history of the anti-vivisection movement in the UK'. My teacher is always telling us to "narrow down!!" so does anyone think that this topic is too broad? Should I narrow down on a particular set of dates rather than trying to cover it all? I thought I could cover everything, but obviously I'll do whatever gets me the best marks.
Thanks,
Jenna.  :)

sudodds

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1753
  • "Seize the means of the HSC" ~ Vladimir Lenin
  • Respect: +931
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2017, 09:29:12 am »
0
Hello,
For my history extension project, I am currently doing the 'history of the anti-vivisection movement in the UK'. My teacher is always telling us to "narrow down!!" so does anyone think that this topic is too broad? Should I narrow down on a particular set of dates rather than trying to cover it all? I thought I could cover everything, but obviously I'll do whatever gets me the best marks.
Thanks,
Jenna.  :)

Hey! I'm not going to pretend to know much about the anti-vivisection movement in the UK however I do think I can give you a few pointers in regards to narrowing down your thesis :)

So you say you're doing your major work on "the history of the anti-vivisection movement" however you should actually be doing it on the historiography of the anti-vivisection movement. Extension history isn't bothered by what the history is, but instead how and why it is constructed in a particular way and how/why constructions have changed. Thus, instead of trying to narrow down your thesis to particular dates - a section of the history - instead maybe narrow it down to the particular historiographical construct/concept/movement that have impacted the writings of the anti-vivisection movement.

So for example lets say someone was interested in looking at Pocahontas within their major work. Rather than doing their major work on the "history of Pocahontas," a better major work would look at something like the impact of post-colonial history/orientalism/disneyfication upon the representations of Pocahontas.

Hope this makes sense! Let me know if you need help with anything else :)

Susie
« Last Edit: April 08, 2017, 10:29:31 am by sudodds »
FREE HISTORY EXTENSION LECTURE - CLICK HERE FOR INFO!

2016 HSC: Modern History (18th in NSW) | History Extension (2nd place in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize) | Ancient History | Drama | English Advanced | Studies of Religion I | Economics

ATAR: 97.80

Studying a Bachelor of Communications: Media Arts and Production at UTS 😊

Looking for a history tutor? I'm ya girl! Feel free to send me a PM if you're interested!

av-angie-er

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Respect: +6
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #19 on: April 12, 2017, 07:40:27 pm »
0
Hi there! I've been really struggling to develop a clear and sophisticated question for my major work. I'm interested in investigating the role of imaginative reenactment in historical works, reflecting a lot of the ideas of Hayden White and Simon Schama about how the sort of 'novelisation' of history is inevitable, but doesn't necessarily compromise historicity and can even be beneficial for a greater understanding of the past. I'd like to use examples from historical novels and television shows, particularly about Anne Boleyn since she's one of the most 'characterised' historical figures of all time, that show how history can be told through narratives based on reliable evidence rather than just traditional empiricism, making it a kind of comparison between the works of academic historians and historical novelists. I feel like a topic like this has a lot of different aspects and I'm not sure how to condense it into a question. Any ideas? Sorry it's such a broad question, any advice would be super helpful! :)
HSC 2017: Advanced English | Mathematics | Biology | Society and Culture | Modern History | History Extension

sudodds

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1753
  • "Seize the means of the HSC" ~ Vladimir Lenin
  • Respect: +931
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2017, 08:14:06 pm »
0
Hi there! I've been really struggling to develop a clear and sophisticated question for my major work. I'm interested in investigating the role of imaginative reenactment in historical works, reflecting a lot of the ideas of Hayden White and Simon Schama about how the sort of 'novelisation' of history is inevitable, but doesn't necessarily compromise historicity and can even be beneficial for a greater understanding of the past. I'd like to use examples from historical novels and television shows, particularly about Anne Boleyn since she's one of the most 'characterised' historical figures of all time, that show how history can be told through narratives based on reliable evidence rather than just traditional empiricism, making it a kind of comparison between the works of academic historians and historical novelists. I feel like a topic like this has a lot of different aspects and I'm not sure how to condense it into a question. Any ideas? Sorry it's such a broad question, any advice would be super helpful! :)

Hey Angie!

First of all, coming up with a question is really really hard, so you're definitely not alone there! Your idea though is really really interesting! And I love how you are focusing on a historiographical concept rather than an event, as that will make it so much easier from the get go to write historiography rather than history (not to say that focusing on an event is bad - just within this aspect it can be tricker). Are you doing Western Imperialism for your case study? Just wondering cos you mentioned Simon Schama :) If you are, I'd recommend having a look at some of Niall Ferguson's works, as they would relate well to both this topic and the Wstern Imperialism case study. Some other things that I suggest having a look at (if you haven't already!) to further your research/could act as examples include;

- Social History (and how it legitimises the role of imagination - if you're unsure what I mean by this feel free to ask! This was a key component of my major work :) )
- Disneyfication of History (re. Pocahontas in particular, could link back to 'orientalism' to!)
- Schindler's List as an example of historical fiction that attempts to play by the rules of history (Spielburg said that the movie is historically accurate because for each event depicted they analysed the account of two sources. Does that really make the film historically accurate? Can films be historically accurate when by its very nature - imagined script, sets, actors, camera angles etc - it can be no more than a depiction?)
- Horrible Histories (I don't know much about the historiography of this, but a girl in my class focused her entire major work on this series when discussing popular history!)
- Bill O'Reilly (He was my case study for my major work :) An example of a "historian" who is in many ways even less credible than a lot of historical fiction writers.)

Okay now that I've got that out of the way (sorry I know that wasn't part of your question - I just like your topic so much and got a bit carried away haha), in terms of developing your question - is there a particular angle that you wish to approach? Do you want to focus on televised historical fiction? Do you want to use Anne Boleyn's representation as a case study, or just a frequent example?

When it comes to formulating a question for history extension - simplicity is key. The sophistication comes from your analysis, not the convoluted and complex nature of your starting question. For example, my question was "To what extent is the discipline of History experiencing a dialectical dilemma?" Within this I discussed social history, marixsm, hegelianism, linguistics, the role of imagination, legitimised Bill O'Reilly as a historian (the latter of which was not easy!) - but my overall question was broad, clear and simple. It also wasn't limiting or confining - but had direction.

From what you have said about your topic, perhaps something like these could work?
- To what extent can historical fiction be "historical"?
- To what extent is the novelisation of history legitimised by current historiographical practices?
- To what extent is the novelisation of history "inevitable"?
- To what extent can historical fiction reveal historical truth?
- To what extent can fiction be utilised as a legitimate historiographical tool?

Hope this helps! Looking forward to hearing more about your topic, please keep us updated  ;D

Susie


« Last Edit: April 12, 2017, 08:16:51 pm by sudodds »
FREE HISTORY EXTENSION LECTURE - CLICK HERE FOR INFO!

2016 HSC: Modern History (18th in NSW) | History Extension (2nd place in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize) | Ancient History | Drama | English Advanced | Studies of Religion I | Economics

ATAR: 97.80

Studying a Bachelor of Communications: Media Arts and Production at UTS 😊

Looking for a history tutor? I'm ya girl! Feel free to send me a PM if you're interested!

av-angie-er

  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Respect: +6
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #21 on: April 15, 2017, 09:37:31 pm »
+1
Hi Susie! Thanks so much for your quick reply, easily some of the most helpful advice I've gotten for my major work so far :D
I'm definitely interested in using a question along the lines of "To what extent can fiction be utilised as a legitimate historiographical tool?", showing how Simon Schama adopts it effectively in his book 'Dead Certainties' as well as how some historical novels about Anne Boleyn aren't necessarily less valid than historians' works and have even provided useful insights. I suppose that would make it two case studies, would you consider this to be too much? Also, could you explain what social history is and how it would relate to my topic, it sounds really interesting :)
HSC 2017: Advanced English | Mathematics | Biology | Society and Culture | Modern History | History Extension

sudodds

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1753
  • "Seize the means of the HSC" ~ Vladimir Lenin
  • Respect: +931
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2017, 12:54:28 am »
0
Hey hey! So glad you found it helpful :D
And awesome! I don't know much about that Schama book in particular (when I studied Western Imperialism we more so focused on his documentaries) or Anne Boleyn, however I think that question would definitely be a strong one if I do say so myself. In terms of it being "too much," hmmm. I can't really say for sure, however I would be more so inclined to focus on only one of them. You can still mention the other, but if you are going to used them as case studies it is better to just have the one, and then bring in other situations as supporting evidence. For eg. I mentioned a tonne of other historians and events in my major work, but my case study was Bill O'Reilly. Focusing on only one looks less like you are cherry picking as well - if you can relate your idea holistically to one text it looks stronger, than if you can link only parts of your idea to different texts (if that makes any sense haha).

However, I can definitely give you some insight into how social history relates to the role of imagination in history, because well... that was literally a whole paragraph of my major work haha! Basically my thesis was that social history is impossible to write without sociological imagination, due to the fact that there will always be significant gaps in our knowledge due to a significant lack of sources. As John Vincent discusses within an Intelligent Persons Guide to History (pretty long quote but it is SOOO good - used it a lot in my 'What is History' essays as well!);

"History is deeply male. History is essentially non‑young. History is about the rich and famous, not the poor. History favours the articulate, not the silent. History is about winners (including those losers who were eventual winners), not about losers. History is about assessing distortions, not copying out truths... History is about evidence, and evidence flagrantly distorts. There is a bias in the creation of evidence, and a bias in the survival of evidence. There may be a bias in access to what survives, too. There is a bias towards the important (and self‑important), a political bias to winners against losers, a bias towards the stable and against the unstable, and perhaps a deliberate censorship of the past by the past on top of that. Before we even get to modern historians, distortion is built into the very nature of history.

This suggests a simple rule. No evidence, no history; imperfect evidence, imperfect history. Against such stark considerations, purity of motive on the part of historians today faces an uphill task. The distortions in evidence that are already there, cannot be brushed away with a broom called objectivity."

Put simply, as history till the dawn of social history had only ever really been bothered with the achievements of "great white men", sources pertaining to other facets of society were rarely every recorded or survived. This means that social historians have to used imagination to "fill in the gaps" so to speak - but does that make the history any less "historical" or important? Thats for you to decide  8) Along with this, there is a clear agenda of social history and the bottom-up approach to affect social change, so many social historians, such as E.P. Thompson employ "melodramatic imagination" within their retelling and analysis of events in order to further promote this political/philosophical movement.

Does this make sense? Let me know if you are confused by anything :)

Susie
« Last Edit: April 16, 2017, 12:59:58 am by sudodds »
FREE HISTORY EXTENSION LECTURE - CLICK HERE FOR INFO!

2016 HSC: Modern History (18th in NSW) | History Extension (2nd place in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize) | Ancient History | Drama | English Advanced | Studies of Religion I | Economics

ATAR: 97.80

Studying a Bachelor of Communications: Media Arts and Production at UTS 😊

Looking for a history tutor? I'm ya girl! Feel free to send me a PM if you're interested!

Maraos

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 146
  • Atar Notes = Productive procrastination.... right?
  • Respect: +27
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #23 on: April 29, 2017, 01:26:29 am »
0
Hi!
Just a question regarding historians.
Would you consider Henry Reynolds a Relativist and Keith Windshuttle an empiricist?

To me it appears that Windshuttle is more concerned with the archives and in a sense follows the Rankean tradition of history whereas Reynolds is more of a political activist who believes that the historians perspective on a particular event is the defining factor.

Any advice or guidance would be greatly appreciated
Thanks!  ;D
2016 HSC:
Mathematics
(1 down 6 to go... :D)

2017 HSC:
Physics
Extension 1 Mathematics
Design and Technology
Ancient History
History Extension
English Advanced

sudodds

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1753
  • "Seize the means of the HSC" ~ Vladimir Lenin
  • Respect: +931
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #24 on: April 29, 2017, 10:07:16 am »
+2
Hi!
Just a question regarding historians.
Would you consider Henry Reynolds a Relativist and Keith Windshuttle an empiricist?

To me it appears that Windshuttle is more concerned with the archives and in a sense follows the Rankean tradition of history whereas Reynolds is more of a political activist who believes that the historians perspective on a particular event is the defining factor.

Any advice or guidance would be greatly appreciated
Thanks!  ;D

Hey! Okay so I only studied these two very briefly, so take my opinion with a grain of salt (take every opinion with a grain of salt! This is extension!  8))

From what I remember they are probably the most accurate labels to use for both historians. However, remember that labels leave little room for nuance. In my opinion, rather than saying that Keith Windschuttle is an empiricist, say that he follows an empiricist methodology :) In the same way, say that Henry Reynolds adopts a relativist position, rather than just say he is a relativist, because though he does believe (from memory) that the historian's perspective is critical, almost all historians, even relativist historians, use empirical methods to research and create their own works :) This is just a teeny weeny thing, and like, you probably wouldn't be marked down. But its just an extra precaution in case you get a particularly pedantic marker :)

Hope this helps! I'd double check this with your teacher, as again we didn't really cover them extensively last year, but I'm pretty sure this is right :)

For some further readings on their position (other than their books of course!) I found these reviews that may help :)
- Henry Reynolds
- Keith Windschuttle

Susie
« Last Edit: April 29, 2017, 10:11:58 am by sudodds »
FREE HISTORY EXTENSION LECTURE - CLICK HERE FOR INFO!

2016 HSC: Modern History (18th in NSW) | History Extension (2nd place in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize) | Ancient History | Drama | English Advanced | Studies of Religion I | Economics

ATAR: 97.80

Studying a Bachelor of Communications: Media Arts and Production at UTS 😊

Looking for a history tutor? I'm ya girl! Feel free to send me a PM if you're interested!

Maraos

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 146
  • Atar Notes = Productive procrastination.... right?
  • Respect: +27
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #25 on: April 29, 2017, 10:47:37 am »
+1
Hey! Okay so I only studied these two very briefly, so take my opinion with a grain of salt (take every opinion with a grain of salt! This is extension!  8))

From what I remember they are probably the most accurate labels to use for both historians. However, remember that labels leave little room for nuance. In my opinion, rather than saying that Keith Windschuttle is an empiricist, say that he follows an empiricist methodology :) In the same way, say that Henry Reynolds adopts a relativist position, rather than just say he is a relativist, because though he does believe (from memory) that the historian's perspective is critical, almost all historians, even relativist historians, use empirical methods to research and create their own works :) This is just a teeny weeny thing, and like, you probably wouldn't be marked down. But its just an extra precaution in case you get a particularly pedantic marker :)

Hope this helps! I'd double check this with your teacher, as again we didn't really cover them extensively last year, but I'm pretty sure this is right :)

For some further readings on their position (other than their books of course!) I found these reviews that may help :)
- Henry Reynolds
- Keith Windschuttle

Susie
Thanks for the response! :)
And yeah you're right about labeling the historians. When I asked my teacher what each historian's methodology can be labelled as he did seem a bit hesitant to distinctively place them into a 'category'.
Also thanks for the readings! :)
2016 HSC:
Mathematics
(1 down 6 to go... :D)

2017 HSC:
Physics
Extension 1 Mathematics
Design and Technology
Ancient History
History Extension
English Advanced

sudodds

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1753
  • "Seize the means of the HSC" ~ Vladimir Lenin
  • Respect: +931
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #26 on: April 29, 2017, 12:09:05 pm »
+1
Thanks for the response! :)
And yeah you're right about labeling the historians. When I asked my teacher what each historian's methodology can be labelled as he did seem a bit hesitant to distinctively place them into a 'category'.
Also thanks for the readings! :)
No worries! Yeah your teacher has the right idea :) For example, even defining Von Ranke as an empiricist isn't entirely correct! His famous quote where he said his work would reflect history "as it actually was" was most likely a mistranslation of German  :o What many believe he actually said was "as it essentially was" - which means something entirely different!
FREE HISTORY EXTENSION LECTURE - CLICK HERE FOR INFO!

2016 HSC: Modern History (18th in NSW) | History Extension (2nd place in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize) | Ancient History | Drama | English Advanced | Studies of Religion I | Economics

ATAR: 97.80

Studying a Bachelor of Communications: Media Arts and Production at UTS 😊

Looking for a history tutor? I'm ya girl! Feel free to send me a PM if you're interested!

Maraos

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 146
  • Atar Notes = Productive procrastination.... right?
  • Respect: +27
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2017, 01:45:27 am »
0
Hello again
I've got a question regarding how to answer the 'what is history' question. My friend told me (who is in the other ext history class) that the best way to answer the question is to begin each paragraph/argument with a quote from the stimulus/source and then discuss historians/debates that are related to that section of the source.

I haven't done any past papers yet and I'm kind of worried about this exam (on Thursday). Would this be an okay way to approach the question?
Also I know this question has already being answered before and the info you provided was great  ;D However im just wondering if this would be an acceptable way also


Thanks!  ;D
2016 HSC:
Mathematics
(1 down 6 to go... :D)

2017 HSC:
Physics
Extension 1 Mathematics
Design and Technology
Ancient History
History Extension
English Advanced

sudodds

  • HSC Lecturer
  • Honorary Moderator
  • Part of the furniture
  • *******
  • Posts: 1753
  • "Seize the means of the HSC" ~ Vladimir Lenin
  • Respect: +931
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #28 on: May 01, 2017, 09:51:09 am »
+1
Hello again
I've got a question regarding how to answer the 'what is history' question. My friend told me (who is in the other ext history class) that the best way to answer the question is to begin each paragraph/argument with a quote from the stimulus/source and then discuss historians/debates that are related to that section of the source.

I haven't done any past papers yet and I'm kind of worried about this exam (on Thursday). Would this be an okay way to approach the question?
Also I know this question has already being answered before and the info you provided was great  ;D However im just wondering if this would be an acceptable way also


Thanks!  ;D

Hey hey!

I love that your school has enough students for TWO classes! We just scraped 4 students in my year haha  :P

That would be a great way to structure your response! Reason being it means that you are making sure that your arguments are constructed around the source, which is key in history extension - if you don't integrate the source enough then you are in serious trouble! I would probably shy away from making them your topic sentence - that should be your own judgement. However I almost always included a quote from the source in my explanation of judgement directly after! So for example lets say if I was doing a question on "to what extent can history be objective", the beginning of my paragraph could look like this:

Historical objectivity is unattainable, as due to the extensive brevity of historical archives it is impossible for a historical producer to have studied all relevant material. As suggested in Source A, "a historian can only know something about something," as in order to write history, historical producers must specialise, principally by forming a question of enquiry that denotes significance to one particular aspect of a chosen historical field.

In terms of moving on from there, its imperative that you are discussing historians (and historiographers!)/debates relevant to that section, however make sure that you go further than discussion and analyse. Why does that historian present a particular view? What are his/her methodologies when constructing history? How do historiographical concepts such as post modernism, social history, popular history, empiricism etc. fit in? It's not enough to just write a "he said, she said." You have to demonstrate that you understand the why's and how, and even more importantly that you develop your own voice! YOUR own opinion needs to be there somewhere (if you want to test out your own voice please try out this thread! Perfect study before your exam and also severely neglected  :( )

Hope this helps!

Susie
FREE HISTORY EXTENSION LECTURE - CLICK HERE FOR INFO!

2016 HSC: Modern History (18th in NSW) | History Extension (2nd place in the HTA Extension History Essay Prize) | Ancient History | Drama | English Advanced | Studies of Religion I | Economics

ATAR: 97.80

Studying a Bachelor of Communications: Media Arts and Production at UTS 😊

Looking for a history tutor? I'm ya girl! Feel free to send me a PM if you're interested!

Maraos

  • Trendsetter
  • **
  • Posts: 146
  • Atar Notes = Productive procrastination.... right?
  • Respect: +27
Re: History Extension Question Thread!
« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2017, 01:49:19 pm »
+1
Hey hey!

I love that your school has enough students for TWO classes! We just scraped 4 students in my year haha  :P

That would be a great way to structure your response! Reason being it means that you are making sure that your arguments are constructed around the source, which is key in history extension - if you don't integrate the source enough then you are in serious trouble! I would probably shy away from making them your topic sentence - that should be your own judgement. However I almost always included a quote from the source in my explanation of judgement directly after! So for example lets say if I was doing a question on "to what extent can history be objective", the beginning of my paragraph could look like this:

Historical objectivity is unattainable, as due to the extensive brevity of historical archives it is impossible for a historical producer to have studied all relevant material. As suggested in Source A, "a historian can only know something about something," as in order to write history, historical producers must specialise, principally by forming a question of enquiry that denotes significance to one particular aspect of a chosen historical field.

In terms of moving on from there, its imperative that you are discussing historians (and historiographers!)/debates relevant to that section, however make sure that you go further than discussion and analyse. Why does that historian present a particular view? What are his/her methodologies when constructing history? How do historiographical concepts such as post modernism, social history, popular history, empiricism etc. fit in? It's not enough to just write a "he said, she said." You have to demonstrate that you understand the why's and how, and even more importantly that you develop your own voice! YOUR own opinion needs to be there somewhere (if you want to test out your own voice please try out this thread! Perfect study before your exam and also severely neglected  :( )

Hope this helps!

Susie


Thanks so much! :D
That thread you made seems like a great idea! I'll post some of my opinions on there.

Also, we only have 2 classes with 3 people per class so 6 in total haha, sounds impressive though :)
2016 HSC:
Mathematics
(1 down 6 to go... :D)

2017 HSC:
Physics
Extension 1 Mathematics
Design and Technology
Ancient History
History Extension
English Advanced