Nov 2014 History HL/ SL Discussions - Paper 1 and 2

[ben322]

Sufficient time has elapsed for discussion of Paper 1 and 2 of History. How did you guys find it? Do mention your Route and Topics studied too!

 

For anyone curious, mine were : 

Paper 1 (Data Response paper) - Communism in Crisis -> Was totally thrown off-guard by the topic that came out IB finally tested China instead of USSR and i think they will continue to do so >< 

Paper 2 - Topic 3 SPS and Topic 5 The Cold War -> fairly doable paper i felt  

 

How did you guys feel about the paper?

[Wicquor]

K, so I'm a HL student and these were my topics/areas/whatever:

 Paper 1 > (route 2) > peacemaking: Except they decided to be really obscure this time and I (well a lot of my friends too, actually) were really thrown off by the fact that they tested us on the smaller treaties of Trianon, Neuilly and St. Germain made at the Paris Peace Conference instead of ... well the more obvious stuff, I guess.  That and we're generally used to seeing questions about collective security and it's eventual failure in past exams ... so yeah, that was an unpleasant surprise.

Paper 2 > Topics 1 (Causes, practices and effects of war) and Topic 3 (Single-party states) > Not a bad paper at all, I thought the questions were pretty reasonable although my second essay was pretty rushed and I couldn't properly wrap it up but at least I got all my points down. 

[eliflora2412]

Im in History SL in German and I found it very easy in fact!

[Moules Frites]

I thought Paper 3 was really quite generic with its questions (I did Inter-war diplomacy, Hitler's policies, and Tsar Alexander II). From my class' point of view, the paper wasn't anywhere near as hard as it could have been considering all of the questions we saw had been asked before in some form.

 

Did anyone else find the Paper 3 difficult or easy?

[Wicquor]

Paper 3 (Well, the aspects of Asia & Oceania paper 3) was pretty reasonable, I suppose, although the questions were far too specific and restrictive for my liking, I guess. It wasn't as bad as it could have been, but I felt like they concentrated all the questions around very specific time periods as opposed to spreading them out of the entire syllabus (there was nothing on the occupation of Japan for example) but the questions were alright. It wasn't near as hard as it could have been, I have to agree.

[Mathemagician]

Guys just a question-

 

I'm writing my HL History exam in May 2016, and I just wanted tips for Paper 1; I mean is it necessary to study the content for Paper 1? Of course it's necessary to study the timing and structure, but do I actually need to study the content (topics) covered? Some say that for Paper 1 it is not necessary to study the content (as most of the paper is based off the sources), while others say you should study the content. I'm just asking, because if it's not necessary to study the content for Paper 1, then studying it would be a waste of time; as that time could be spent studying Paper 2 and 3 (where the content actually matters).

 

What do you guys suggest?

[eliflora2412]

Guys just a question-

 

I'm writing my HL History exam in May 2016, and I just wanted tips for Paper 1; I mean is it necessary to study the content for Paper 1? Of course it's necessary to study the timing and structure, but do I actually need to study the content (topics) covered? Some say that for Paper 1 it is not necessary to study the content (as most of the paper is based off the sources), while others say you should study the content. I'm just asking, because if it's not necessary to study the content for Paper 1, then studying it would be a waste of time; as that time could be spent studying Paper 2 and 3 (where the content actually matters).

 

What do you guys suggest?

Actually you don't need to "study" for the first 3 questions, but in the 4th question you need to complete que Sources with all you have studied. (Im talking of Paper 1). Last week I had my test and all that I had studied wasn't very useful for Paper 1, just for the 4th question.

[Mathemagician]

Even for the 4th question it's based on both sources and your own knowledge. I heard that for the 4th question even if you include no knowledge of your own you can still get 5/8 marks, so that means more than half of the 4th question is based on the sources. But I mean the timing is such an issue that you probably won't get a lot of time to perfect question 4. So my teacher says it's best to focus on 1-3, and then do the best you can on 4. If you perfect numbers 1-3, you can get 17 marks, which in some years is actually equivalent to a 7 or at least a high 6. So it is possible to score a 7 without even doing the 4th question.

[ben322]

 

Guys just a question-

 

I'm writing my HL History exam in May 2016, and I just wanted tips for Paper 1; I mean is it necessary to study the content for Paper 1? Of course it's necessary to study the timing and structure, but do I actually need to study the content (topics) covered? Some say that for Paper 1 it is not necessary to study the content (as most of the paper is based off the sources), while others say you should study the content. I'm just asking, because if it's not necessary to study the content for Paper 1, then studying it would be a waste of time; as that time could be spent studying Paper 2 and 3 (where the content actually matters).

 

What do you guys suggest?

Actually you don't need to "study" for the first 3 questions, but in the 4th question you need to complete que Sources with all you have studied. (Im talking of Paper 1). Last week I had my test and all that I had studied wasn't very useful for Paper 1, just for the 4th question.

 

 

A friend and i have a strategy known as "dump part (d)" - that is, to maximise scores in the first 3 parts (a), (b) and © since IB and our teachers dont ever seem to give a score above 4/8 (at best 5/8). Not sure if anyone else finds this a sensible strategy? Just my two cents worth.