Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Unknown

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Exams
    Nov 2014
  • Country
  1. Hey! You're right - if you want to use it in section D, it has to be in section B. So include historiography in section B, but state it as "Historian _____ asserts that _____" (or words to that effect). By writing it that way, what you're saying in section B is still factual because the historian did say that. Then you can still use it as historiography/interpretation in section D! Hope this helped.
  2. That's not to say it wasn't hard - most of our class (including me) barely finished the thing... and yeah it was worse than the May papers, but a little more achievable than the specimen I think. At least it's over
  3. If my time zone conversions are correct, we're all good to start talking about paper 1... we'll have to wait a day or so to talk about paper 2 and 3 though. Paper 1 was brilliant in my opinion! Section A was pretty straightforward, and Section B was clever - loved the last question on complex numbers, and the one on vectors. Overall it was a good paper! Thoughts?
  4. Just saying - there were people at my school who were failing maths HL, so they switched to SL, and ended up barely getting a 4. Moving down a level won't guarantee a better result, but if the difficulty of the content itself is the problem, then switching to SL would be the best choice. That being said, HL is a lot of fun if you're willing to put in the effort to understand it Do you absolutely need a 7 in maths to get into uni?
  5. If I can just jim in... anyone going to the one at UQ in Brisbane? It'd be cool to talk to you before the week! And if you haven't decided whether or not you're going to one - I recommend you do go. Speaking from experience, they're so worth it.
  6. jessiebee


    I can only speak for paper 2 (did SL history, got a 7)... the emphasis is on discussing and comparing historians' perspectives, not memorising their exact words. I got through with paraphrasing but if you can remember any note-worthy or emotive words they used, try and quote those word for word - e.g. Howarth referring to Hitler's policies as 'half-baked racist clap trap'. You should only be using historiography in addition to your own argument, and theoretically you can still get top marks in paper 2 without using any (pretty sure you need to for paper 3). Having a few quotes is good though
  7. It said "analyse the significance of the crisis between 1931 and 1933" so I did what you did because it made sense... most of my classmates interpreted it the same way as you and me and I don't see why they'd penalise us for doing so. I guess we'll find out in a couple of months.
  8. Overall, both papers were awesome! I skipped out of the exam hall after each paper Paper 1 was brilliant even though Manchuria was literally the only thing I hadn't revised (that's how exams always work though, right?). Thought Q2 was super easy in comparison to all the past papers I've ever done, Q3 on the cartoon was weird but straightforward, and Q4 was annoying with the time scope of the question (1931-33). As for paper 2, I did the aggressive expansionism question for topic 1 (the only question from topic 1 that I could answer well...) and nature, extent and treatment of opposition in Hi
  9. Hey! My exams are tomorrow too It's not important to know quotes as such - just know what the historian's/school of thought's general interpretation of events was. Depending what mark you usually get on paper 2 essays, not having much historiography won't bring you down too much because what the IB calls "historical processes" also include skills like setting context (what dates did things happen on? what events were immediately before and after?) and comparing and contrasting ("much like in the Second World War, the Spanish Civil War was a war of ideology"). I couldn't tell you about paper 3
  10. So for my EE, I'm comparing the spoken and written/typed language used by teenage Tumblr users. I plan to conduct spoken interviews with people, then analyse their spoken language in comparison with the language they use online. I'm just not sure whether to analyse the language within a literary framework (in terms of literary techniques - like anaphora, idioms etc.) or a linguistic one (through semantics and syntax) - my supervisor said a linguistic framework would be more appropriate to that kind of investigation but didn't know if that would still meet the criteria for an English EE. Soooo,
  11. You can state them in section B, by saying something along the lines of "Historian __________ stated that '__________'." (it still counts as evidence because it's a fact that a historian said it). Then, analyse/evaluate those interpretations in section D
  12. It's the same at our school but with German - our exams are always in the May exam session. I do German ab initio + History SL, so I'll only have four subjects left in November next year By the way, you wouldn't want to do Maths SL anticipated - there's two classes of it at my school and they're dying at the moment. They just finished integration which the HL maths class doesn't touch until the end of year 11.
  13. Apparently this is uncommon, but in my school's IB program (Queensland Academies, Australia), every student is required to study an anticipated subject - an SL course completed in one year instead of two. For instance, I'm studying History SL (route 2), with final exams in November 2013, but I'm sitting my other 5 exams next year. So I was wondering... how many people on here study/have studied an anticipated subject? And if you do/did, what subject is/was it and how have you found it?
  • Create New...