I thought it was a good day. I didn't really learn anything new but it was good to just have someone give an overview of the topics. Plus the man who gave the Leni lecture was awesome.
Yeah I agree with what Anton said. Most of the stuff they taught us, we already know. But I guess they went into more depth for topics like housing and Environmental Archeology :)
Sir, the Saturday ones were not very helpful. Probably if I had to pick, the 'What is History? Historiography' lecture was probably the best one. Everything else you have already taught us well :)
Lol at the Lenin cat. And I found them pretty useful. I think Saturday's lectures were less helpful, but it's good to be clear on things, so I'm happy. Just good to know that I'm on the same page as everyone else in the state. Now all I have to do is beat them :D
Call me a nerd, but I found Thursday's lectures were completely worth it, mainly because some of the people were practicing archaeologists and it was nice to get an update on their work through a person who actually does some of the stuff we're learning about, rather than getting it all from a textbook. The environmental archaeology was surprisingly interesting, I never thought something like charcoal could reveal so much information about an ancient society.
As for Modern, I found that some of the lectures verged on being a bit dry, but I can't blame the lecturers because they must have had to repeat the same content over and over again. The seats at Wesley conference center were like 1000 times more comfortable as well as having twice as much leg room. :P Other than that, it was interesting getting the same content from a different perspective, and I think I learn much better via listening than reading a textbook or a set of notes.
Something that I found interesting was that the lecturer for Nazi Germany (I forget his name) said that it is not necessary for us to include historians in our essays in order to get full marks, and if we do include them, only include 3-4 historians, and don't quote them, only paraphrase.
How does this equate to what your experience has been as a marker, sir?
yeah sir, what's the deal with using historians in essays?
i found the introductory section in the ancient day, which was basically about the difference between "evaluate" and "describe" more useful than the lectures themselves, although i had to leave after the first one so my opinion probably isn't very valid :)
i found the modern day quite useful, though. the core exam skills one was most useful to me, because i think i tend to not understand exactly what is needed for that part of the exam and he made it very clear what was needed and showed what we'd need in our answers. the other lectures were still quite good. lol at the riefenstahl lecturer! except, then i had to sit in a lecture by myself and i felt threatened. and then i couldn't find anyone to go to lunch with afterwards for like ten minutes! :( ah well :)
I thought it was a good day. I didn't really learn anything new but it was good to just have someone give an overview of the topics. Plus the man who gave the Leni lecture was awesome.
ReplyDeleteYeah I agree with what Anton said. Most of the stuff they taught us, we already know. But I guess they went into more depth for topics like housing and Environmental Archeology :)
ReplyDeleteSir, the Saturday ones were not very helpful. Probably if I had to pick, the 'What is History? Historiography' lecture was probably the best one. Everything else you have already taught us well :)
ReplyDeleteLol at the Lenin cat. And I found them pretty useful. I think Saturday's lectures were less helpful, but it's good to be clear on things, so I'm happy. Just good to know that I'm on the same page as everyone else in the state. Now all I have to do is beat them :D
ReplyDelete*sigh* if only Lenin kot was a ginger.
ReplyDeleteCall me a nerd, but I found Thursday's lectures were completely worth it, mainly because some of the people were practicing archaeologists and it was nice to get an update on their work through a person who actually does some of the stuff we're learning about, rather than getting it all from a textbook. The environmental archaeology was surprisingly interesting, I never thought something like charcoal could reveal so much information about an ancient society.
As for Modern, I found that some of the lectures verged on being a bit dry, but I can't blame the lecturers because they must have had to repeat the same content over and over again. The seats at Wesley conference center were like 1000 times more comfortable as well as having twice as much leg room. :P Other than that, it was interesting getting the same content from a different perspective, and I think I learn much better via listening than reading a textbook or a set of notes.
Something that I found interesting was that the lecturer for Nazi Germany (I forget his name) said that it is not necessary for us to include historians in our essays in order to get full marks, and if we do include them, only include 3-4 historians, and don't quote them, only paraphrase.
ReplyDeleteHow does this equate to what your experience has been as a marker, sir?
yeah sir, what's the deal with using historians in essays?
ReplyDeletei found the introductory section in the ancient day, which was basically about the difference between "evaluate" and "describe" more useful than the lectures themselves, although i had to leave after the first one so my opinion probably isn't very valid :)
i found the modern day quite useful, though. the core exam skills one was most useful to me, because i think i tend to not understand exactly what is needed for that part of the exam and he made it very clear what was needed and showed what we'd need in our answers. the other lectures were still quite good. lol at the riefenstahl lecturer!
except, then i had to sit in a lecture by myself and i felt threatened. and then i couldn't find anyone to go to lunch with afterwards for like ten minutes! :( ah well :)