Mocks

My first week back at school (which was, admittedly, three weeks ago), meant that I had the delight and pleasure of having to sit my mock exams.

 

This was really scary.

 

Admittedly, I only had three of them, and art doesn't really count, but this is the last chance I'm going to get to sit in that hall and practise exam conditions before the summer. Which is a little bit terrifying.

 

I've always found exams a little daunting, and I full out panicked on my history paper last year, and I have now learnt the hard way that that doesn't work. I'm retaking that paper in the summer, and then I have three others. One A2 History, two A2 Physics papers. Art will already have been completed.

 

And then it's over.

 

But that all doesn't really kick off until June-ish, so I've still got time to prepare. Now is the time when I will start bugging my art teachers for how to get extra marks. My History paper was the first time we've ever been given a full thematic question and I need to work on them. Physics, we need to just learn the stuff (yes, it didn't help that topics appeared on our exam that we haven't studied yet).

Before anyone asks, my grades were really good, I got an A in Physics, and was 2% off an A in History, which is fantastic! (Art didn't grade us...)

 

I can do this. I just need to calm down.

10

A History Essay Competition.

Back in March, I entered the Vellacott History Prize, with the title 'History is not an Art, it is a Science. Discuss'. I didn't win anything, but was congratulated on the high standard of my writing. Other people had higher standards, so mine was probably middling. But I feel proud having entered it, and having at least one of the Cambridge professors read my work.

The title also connected with me personally, as for my AS subjects,I study both Art and Physics, as well as with my History, so I felt that this essay and research was ideal to help me 'join-the dots'. I am proud of what I've done.

Here is an extract  of my Art section, as I think it will be more appreciated than me waffling about statistical nonsense.

"History, as with art, will also potentially be judged on its merits by the accepted values and beliefs of the time in which it is appreciated, and will go through cyclic fluctuations as to whether it is valued or, alternatively, disliked. History is unlike science in that it has always existed, and events of the past will not change, making it similar to art. Pieces exist and will be respected, much as with historical events, but that does not necessarily mean that they will be liked. It could then be argued that the main aim of the basic study of History is the appreciation of the past, and not necessarily the dissection nor the understanding of the causation. By appreciating the subject at its foundations, the subject entails the curiosity towards the past and to enjoy its discovery. Also, History is far easier to simplify in order to be understood by the general masses - such as with the television series Horrible Histories, which is targeted at younger audiences; than science is, and History can be made increasingly complex for those who wish. The same occurs with the understanding of art. At a basic level it can be valued for its aesthetics, but can be intricately uncovered into a far more complex work. Science is either intricately complex, or does not contain all of the facts. It is limited where History is not."

50 Things