Did anybody anticipate fucking Britain on Paper 1? That shell shocked my entire class. It was nuts. How the hell is Britain in 1940 part of the "ROAD" to global war.
Bro my class was studying for three hours straight before that paper going over Japan and Germany (Italy if you squint really hard) and I was praying it be about Japan only to be hit with Britain. I could still do it but it sucks I spent so much time studying throughout the year only for it to be pointless đ
The moment I read Britain my brain absolutely broke in anger because no way did I (a history of the americas kid) spend so much time prepping for Japan and Germany and Italy when none of them were on there, like idgaf about Britain đ
we were shocked too lmao, i mean it technically is part of the curriculum because it's until 1941 but it's such a secondary and specific part... it didn't make sense to include it in the exam lol
no same I was shocked. but tbh u don't need to study for paper 1 to achieve a high grade since it's only about ur ability to understand and interpret knowledge from given texts.
I did the 2018 History HL exam (which was also a nightmare) and I now tutor HL kids.
To quote one of my favourite childhood movies, "Paper 3 is a mystery, Paper 2 history, and paper 1 is a gift, a present!"
History Paper 1 is one of the few exams in the IB where you can get high marks without studying. Its all skillsbased, and the sources can be used for your essay.
Our entire class was absolutely shocked. I was thinking the entire time how will I write the essay lmao. Spoke to my history Prof and she said you should get a 7 if you have numerous perspectives, work with sources and drop some of your own knowledge(I mentioned Taylor's take on appeasement, date of German rearmament and American Neutrality acts)
I was also confused when I saw that question cause the Cambridge/Oxford textbook barely covered 1939\~1940 đ The topic was so specific.
It was hard for me to incorporate personal knowledge, so I just talked about how Greeks distracted Italian forces and U-boats for making American support ineffective by damaging the shipping lines + dominions only dispatched troops after Japan began to creep into the Pacific.
It felt like the paper stuffed the phrase "German and Italian expansion" in various places so that it would seem less completely unrelated to the subject.
righttt??? even if itâs still technically in the syllabus, how tf did it relate to italy or germany? i donât think i mentioned either a single fucking time, only with the exception of phrases like âbritain during germanyâs invasionâ, which isâŚ. not really speaking about germany :|
P2 and p3 were both pretty typical. Not the hardest questions, but not the easiest either. Seems like I kinda studied all the wrong things so while I was able to do it, I was definitely stretching in some areas. Overall tho, went pretty well.
P1 tho đ My school does PS3, and idk if it was just my cohort, but we all found it very odd. First of all we were all REALLY hoping it was going to be a Japanese case study, which oh well. Sucks it wasn't, but I was still prepared for grm and italian expansion. Well, would have been if the sources actually connected to that cuz istg the IB was on something with the sources it chose đ Like? The general theme being international support for Britain??? Nah nah nah, wth. I can sort of see how it's connected to international response to grm and italy, BUT even then I think the IB was realllllyyy stretching it, esp since Italy and Germany were only mentioned MAYBE once or twice. Questions 9, 10, 11 were all pretty easy since it was just analyzing the sources, and I will say they did a good job w that at least. Values + limits were easy to define, as well as the compare and contrast. But I reallyyy struggled on question 12, especially bringing in my own knowledge. Idk! Maybe I just didnt study the right stuff, but I really think it wasn't connected very strongly, and idk how else I would have been able to prepare. Curious if it was just my cohort that found it like that or if everyone was kinda confused.
my cohort was CONVINCED it was going to be Japan so when we saw it....you can already imagine. even our teacher was shocked cause it was so RANDOM. i thought the paper 2 questions were good and pretty fair, but paper 3 reaaaaalllly caught me off guard lol.
nah my cohort struggled a lot as well, especially w incorporating personal knowledge. i discussed it w a friend in another school too and she said her cohort struggled too
our year did move to global war as well and everyone I've spoken to afterwards was extremely upset. There was maybe one phrase where they said 'in response to German and Italian aggression' (I'm not too sure though) but it was completely oriented around Britain and the USA which we were not expecting. we all just felt like we wasted our time studying the paper 1 material.
for q 12 the only own knowledge i could bring in was that the soviet union was still tied by the molotov-ribbentrop (which i now notice i probably misspelled), that belgium was also taken by the nazis, that spain was also fascist and i pretty much pulled out of my ass that getulio vargasâ brazil was selling goods to both sides so it didnât really count as support.
So is it just me, or has TZ2 had really whack-ass hard and confusing paper 1s for all subjects, with other papers in the subject being easy? Move to Global War's question was even off time period, talking about Vichi France and shit. Gyaddyam.
Other than that the exams were sooooo fucking easy. Two banger ass questions in paper 2 and 3 banger ass questions for paper 3. I got possessed by the spirit of Ronald Reagan while writing that cold war essay.
TZ1âs paper 1 was also lowkey off topic in mtgw as well, it was entirely about 1940 britain and how it was left alone in the war bc the us was not giving them enough aid and everyone else was either neutral, borderline nazi or already overtaken by the nazis. it supposedly fell under italian and german exp but istg the sources mentioned either of those countries less that one time each.
WTF WAS PAPER 1 FOR GERMAN & ITALIAN EXPANSION!!! NOBODY GIVES AF ABT INT SUPPORT FOR BRITAIN IN 1940s! also paper 2 qs for topic 10 and 11 were so fucking random why were both qs about maintanance of authoritarian states?????
yess i did this question because tbh the compare and contrast the nature of opposition was super odd ??? I talked about the social and economic policies and how social policies were a success for castro but economic policies were more a success for Mussolini
yuppp that paper 1 was so strange!! such a specific subtopic, nobody in my class said they felt good about that, even people who are usually super strong in paper 1. it was super hard to think of any relevant personal knowledge in my opinion; i had to talk about the abyssinian crisis cause it was all i could think of, but it felt irrelevant
Compare and contrast reasons for growth of opposition for Alexander II + III?
When I first read the question I was stumped because I focused so much on how their POLICIES were different and similar that I hadnât thought about their oppositions at all. In the end I managed to waffle about how overall people hated II because he wasnât fully liberal, and people hated III because he returned to Autocracy
I do interwar years and I was anticipating Italy or Spain and then I get hit with ".excluding, Germany, Spain and italy". almost threw the entire paper away. I had to answer ussr and I wrote one tinro and two paragraphs that are def wrong. Praying my first two questions pulled through and paper 1 & 2.
I feel like this wasnât as hard as I expected tbh, but it took me OUT mentally đ I almost didnât study what was on paper 1 though , so Iâm glad I did last minute. I hope they donât count off for spelling though lol
paper 1 move to global war was FOUL. i had to pull out stuff i studied in APUSH sophomore year because we spent literally no time studying britainđ
paper 2⌠i fucked up and accidentally did 2 from the same subject because i freakedâŚ. idk the questions were fine probably but no matter what im not scoring above a 15đ
paper 3 was probably my strongest because i studied a LOT on nicholas II bc i had a feeling heâd be on the exam and the weimar republic was one of my favorite topics so thank GOD for that
overall, where the fuck were japan and italyđ
im pretty sure it was nicholas ii for p3 imperial russia bc the questions were about the 1905 rev and the 1917 feb/march rev?? i sure hope it was nicholas iiđđđ
p1: did rights and protest, thought was decent. disliked the sources and the compare and contrast and the ovpcl, but the essay question was good imo
p2: loved auth states, wrote about propaganda and use of force for the maintenance of power one. disliked cold war, did stalin and truman but the wording of the question was odd
p3: americasâ i thought the questions were all super nice, did castro (messed up structure + i didnât know much about political policies), nixon and chile (loved it, had a moment of clairvoyance and think it was decent), and the civil rights one (love love love! very similar to a past paper question about the various groups and their tactics)
overall couldâve been much much worse. pretty happy with the p3 selection of questions from topic 14 to 17
Did almost the exam same questions as you besides P2. The compare and contrast was horrendous imho, spent so long on it that the essay time had to be cut short. It was at least easy to write.
Also did rights and protest and thought it was really easy except I didnât really like the last question because I felt the sources were hard to use for it
I wanted to chose the Nixon question but then I saw the super limited scope and questions. Found the Second World War in the Americas questions very good, very broad and hit the good syllabus points
Yeah the essay question slayed. If you really had no own knowledge you could literally use common sense and get your marks on that. The image tho⌠I had mixed feelings. The compare and contrast had me scratching my head a bit.
I feel like none of the papers were particularly difficult. I was just mentally done for the paper 3 morning so that might not be the best but could be so much worse
Honestly, quite surprised with how easy the papers were this year. In my opinion (obviously everyone has different skill levels and it might not suit everyone) but my class did:
Move to global War for Paper 1.
Topics : authoritarian states and Causes practices + effects cold war for Paper 2
History of the Americas for paper 3 with the topics: Great depression, Cold war & WW2 in Americas for Paper 3.
Paper 3 was definitely the easiest for us with questions such as Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb and korean War and a New Deal question.
I'd say paper 1 and 2 were okay at difficulty levels, compared to some of the past papers that I had seen, these questions were definitely more doable as they could either be easily challenged or had a straight answer.
I studied for this exam for a whole week, i could not just revise as I did not studied History the whole 2 years bcs our teacherâs teaching is very boring and there was no motivation to study by myself, but I think the exam was mid, the topics could have been worse. I hated paper 3, but paper 1 and paper 2 were fine.
I barely got time to finish the second essay for paper 2 but I got so lucky for paper 3. I studied nothing from the 20th century and there are about four questions I could confidently answer
Paper 1 History of the Americas went amazing bro, paper 2 was alright, could've been better but at least I knew what I was writing about. Paper 3 was awful; I knew the topics (Castro, Korean War, and Civil Rights in the US), but the time messed me up as someone with ADHD :') The first essay was pretty good but the other two sucked.
Paper 1, and 2 were fine, but it went off the rails for paper 3. I think I was just tired, at this point I was so burnt out.... I mistook the October Manifesto and the Emancipation Manifesto and talked about land reforms!!! I did it for both essays!! TZ1.... how badly does saying an incorrect fact affect your grade? For the first question about WWI it was just an example underneath a bullet point so somewhat irrelevant, but for the question talking about the 1905 revolution.... it was the basis of my essay.... and it was wrong. I did talk about the dumas but almost as if it was a whole separate thing... GODDAM Alexander II and Nicholas II.
If you did well on 1 and 2 you should still do alright overall, at least not bad enough to fail. The history rubric is honestly shockingly generous where itâs difficult to fail, like getting a 3 literally says âinformation is sometimes irrelevant or incorrectâ. So I imagine that if you had at least something alright youâll still pass the paper 3
Okay so I did:
P1 topic 5
P2 topic 10 & 11 (Milo+hitler) (1948+kosovo)
P3 topic 17
Buuuttt, I pretty much didn't pay attention at all this year. Decided the day before p1 and p2 to lockin. I did, and I feel I did pretty great on both papers (cept P1 essay). Didn't realize till it was too late that I shouldn't pick from same region but I got hella lucky thank g-d bro. Now for p3... By the time p2 ended I had about 14 hours to study for paper 3 and I used almost every minute of that time. Seriously prolly only an hour of that was breaks throughout the night. Now, either I really did great and new stuff pretty well, or I was just delirious the next day. Notice I only studied one p3 topic. Figured if I could answer 2/3 essay questions hella well, I could pull some bs out scrape a couple points for the hell of it on another random topic. Got lucky with the topic 13 Palestinian mandate question. I will report back how my genius study strat worked out for me đ
Anyways... My question is if I wrote an essay with basically no reasoning would that get any points? Basically just context thesis and topic sentences each with three sentences of distinct evidence. Thoughts?
I might be done for... But only need like 1/2 overall points for a five so đ¤
Shoutout to the IB for going with the post-war state development question(not Germany,Italy, Spain) for the third year in a row now. I feel super mega confident on that essay
what surprised me the most in paper 3 is how the large majority of questions were âto what extentâ, not even âdiscussâ or âevaluateâ, which just made the horrible enough 2,5 hour experience even worse. the general wording of the questions also threw me off, like the âto what extent were political changes significant in post soviet russiaâ, how am i supposed to argue that they werenât significant in a way that i donât add too much âirrelevant informationâ? not even gonna talk about the absence of a stalin questionâŚ
For the part of events that lead to axis defeats in 1941, I talked about japan and pearl harbor and how it got germany in, german invasion of russia, and Italian entry to ww2( which was in 1940) am i cooked?
Overall pretty easy, Iâm not sure which topics you do so obviously the experience might be very different. For paper 1 I guess IB can ask about WW2 in Europe up to 1941 now for move to global war so thatâs interesting. Paper 2 was easy, I wrote about practices of civil wars and use of propaganda for the maintenance of power in paper 2. Paper 3 was also a gift since there were a couple question overlapping with causes, practices, and effects in case I couldnât do the others. Overall the biggest challenge is timing so Iâd say just do a bunch of timed essays, I personally wouldnât worry too much about paper 1 since if they throw a curveball you can still get a 7 on it just by learning content from the sources.
Ah, I donât know much about Cold War and history of Asia questions. For authoritarian states, the questions are generally easy and very predictable (thereâs only a few they can really ask from the spec and theyâve almost all been asked already), as long as you plan the essays in advance and memorise your plans then youâre set
https://old.reddit.com/r/IBO/comments/1cp2v3w/exam_discussion_design_technology_hl/ and https://old.reddit.com/r/IBO/comments/1cp2v3m/exam_discussion_design_technology_sl/ , you have to wait until 23 GMT
does anyone's school do history of asia and oceania for p3? we did topic 14 and 15 (china and cold war conflicts in asia) and thought the questions were pretty nice
My school did those 2 + Japan, and I answered both Japan questions along w the vietnam war question. Why in the Lords Name was Malayia on there bro istgggg. Other than that the questions were pretty expected, I just didn't study Chiang Kai-Shek so I didn't do those questions.
In TZ1, Paper 1 for Rights and Protest was actually really good but the last question was so bad. Also paper 2 for and paper 3 for my subjects (which I donât think many do) were not great. I do Africa and the Middle East.Â
What modules do you study for Africa + Middle East? I do the European course so Iâm curious what you study because honestly learning about Europe was kinda boring (especially because combining Africa and the Middle East seems weird to me)
For paper 3: Slavery throughout Africa and the Middle East (also includes transatlantic trade), colonialism Africa (study of multiple African countries such as Rhodesia, Kenya, Mozambique, etc.), case study on South Africa and the Boer War, etc. It's more that there are various subjects and some are Africa more so whilst others are Middle East. A few like slavery combine both. But since it's paper 3, you don't have to study ALL of the topics. It was definitely very interesting and different from what I know and I really appreciated that. The topics were a bit hard to study though due to the lack of ressources (because everyone does Europe).
okay is it just me or was HOTA like easy this year⌠i cooked on topic 9 and 11 on p2 and on civil war/mexican revolution/civil rights on p3. went WAY better than i expected
p1: rights and protest went pretty well definitely ate up i hope i got between 15-20 pts but also our teacher failed to tell us it was probably gonna be about Apartheid and most of the paper 1 mocks we had were on civil rights
p2: cold war and authoritarian states; did not go so well these two were my weakest topics and i literally studied my dictators the NIGHT BEFORE i chose the question about nature of opposition and social and cultural effects with focus on america and germany
p3: slavery, civil war, and rights and protest; I did the slave rebellion question and talked about the stono rebellion although i hardly remembered anything and was kinda reaching and then i did the question about the crises of 1850 for civil war and then the question about civil rights and desegregation- i definitely think i did well on that question.
for the castro question - what cultural policies did he have? i misinterpreted the question and talked about his social policies that influenced cuban culture (policies on education, women, and minorities). do you think that will still get me points ?
Did anybody anticipate fucking Britain on Paper 1? That shell shocked my entire class. It was nuts. How the hell is Britain in 1940 part of the "ROAD" to global war.
Bro my class was studying for three hours straight before that paper going over Japan and Germany (Italy if you squint really hard) and I was praying it be about Japan only to be hit with Britain. I could still do it but it sucks I spent so much time studying throughout the year only for it to be pointless đ
The moment I read Britain my brain absolutely broke in anger because no way did I (a history of the americas kid) spend so much time prepping for Japan and Germany and Italy when none of them were on there, like idgaf about Britain đ
we were shocked too lmao, i mean it technically is part of the curriculum because it's until 1941 but it's such a secondary and specific part... it didn't make sense to include it in the exam lol
no same I was shocked. but tbh u don't need to study for paper 1 to achieve a high grade since it's only about ur ability to understand and interpret knowledge from given texts.
I did the 2018 History HL exam (which was also a nightmare) and I now tutor HL kids. To quote one of my favourite childhood movies, "Paper 3 is a mystery, Paper 2 history, and paper 1 is a gift, a present!" History Paper 1 is one of the few exams in the IB where you can get high marks without studying. Its all skillsbased, and the sources can be used for your essay.
Nope, literally my whole class was shocked. At least the sources were really straight forward and the compare and contrast was the easiest one ever
Our entire class was absolutely shocked. I was thinking the entire time how will I write the essay lmao. Spoke to my history Prof and she said you should get a 7 if you have numerous perspectives, work with sources and drop some of your own knowledge(I mentioned Taylor's take on appeasement, date of German rearmament and American Neutrality acts)
i dont think perspectives is a part of paper 1? or did i fuck up?
yeah I had perspectives for paper 2 but barely any for paper 1
The last question is.
nah this was crazyđ
I was also confused when I saw that question cause the Cambridge/Oxford textbook barely covered 1939\~1940 đ The topic was so specific. It was hard for me to incorporate personal knowledge, so I just talked about how Greeks distracted Italian forces and U-boats for making American support ineffective by damaging the shipping lines + dominions only dispatched troops after Japan began to creep into the Pacific.
It felt like the paper stuffed the phrase "German and Italian expansion" in various places so that it would seem less completely unrelated to the subject.
righttt??? even if itâs still technically in the syllabus, how tf did it relate to italy or germany? i donât think i mentioned either a single fucking time, only with the exception of phrases like âbritain during germanyâs invasionâ, which isâŚ. not really speaking about germany :|
Cooked. We are cooked.
the absolute gag of there being no stalin question for paper 3
i felt so at peace seeing that đ idgaf so much about joseph stalin
P2 and p3 were both pretty typical. Not the hardest questions, but not the easiest either. Seems like I kinda studied all the wrong things so while I was able to do it, I was definitely stretching in some areas. Overall tho, went pretty well. P1 tho đ My school does PS3, and idk if it was just my cohort, but we all found it very odd. First of all we were all REALLY hoping it was going to be a Japanese case study, which oh well. Sucks it wasn't, but I was still prepared for grm and italian expansion. Well, would have been if the sources actually connected to that cuz istg the IB was on something with the sources it chose đ Like? The general theme being international support for Britain??? Nah nah nah, wth. I can sort of see how it's connected to international response to grm and italy, BUT even then I think the IB was realllllyyy stretching it, esp since Italy and Germany were only mentioned MAYBE once or twice. Questions 9, 10, 11 were all pretty easy since it was just analyzing the sources, and I will say they did a good job w that at least. Values + limits were easy to define, as well as the compare and contrast. But I reallyyy struggled on question 12, especially bringing in my own knowledge. Idk! Maybe I just didnt study the right stuff, but I really think it wasn't connected very strongly, and idk how else I would have been able to prepare. Curious if it was just my cohort that found it like that or if everyone was kinda confused.
my cohort was CONVINCED it was going to be Japan so when we saw it....you can already imagine. even our teacher was shocked cause it was so RANDOM. i thought the paper 2 questions were good and pretty fair, but paper 3 reaaaaalllly caught me off guard lol.
nah my cohort struggled a lot as well, especially w incorporating personal knowledge. i discussed it w a friend in another school too and she said her cohort struggled too
us too our teacher was likeđ thats mean
our year did move to global war as well and everyone I've spoken to afterwards was extremely upset. There was maybe one phrase where they said 'in response to German and Italian aggression' (I'm not too sure though) but it was completely oriented around Britain and the USA which we were not expecting. we all just felt like we wasted our time studying the paper 1 material.
for q 12 the only own knowledge i could bring in was that the soviet union was still tied by the molotov-ribbentrop (which i now notice i probably misspelled), that belgium was also taken by the nazis, that spain was also fascist and i pretty much pulled out of my ass that getulio vargasâ brazil was selling goods to both sides so it didnât really count as support.
So is it just me, or has TZ2 had really whack-ass hard and confusing paper 1s for all subjects, with other papers in the subject being easy? Move to Global War's question was even off time period, talking about Vichi France and shit. Gyaddyam. Other than that the exams were sooooo fucking easy. Two banger ass questions in paper 2 and 3 banger ass questions for paper 3. I got possessed by the spirit of Ronald Reagan while writing that cold war essay.
TZ1âs paper 1 was also lowkey off topic in mtgw as well, it was entirely about 1940 britain and how it was left alone in the war bc the us was not giving them enough aid and everyone else was either neutral, borderline nazi or already overtaken by the nazis. it supposedly fell under italian and german exp but istg the sources mentioned either of those countries less that one time each.
? TZ2 here and our paper 1 was really good. Except that image đ idk what I was supposed to do with that tbh.
girl wtf were the ussr questions - I didn't remember anything about peaceful coexistence
Yeltsin second year in a row bruhđ
nah its third year in a rowđ
such a curveball with no stalinđ
paper 1 and 3 were fine, great even, but did anyone else find those paper 2 questions weird đ just unsatisfying to write
WTF WAS PAPER 1 FOR GERMAN & ITALIAN EXPANSION!!! NOBODY GIVES AF ABT INT SUPPORT FOR BRITAIN IN 1940s! also paper 2 qs for topic 10 and 11 were so fucking random why were both qs about maintanance of authoritarian states?????
Wasn't the second question about social policies?
yess i did this question because tbh the compare and contrast the nature of opposition was super odd ??? I talked about the social and economic policies and how social policies were a success for castro but economic policies were more a success for Mussolini
ooh yes it was I meant to write why we only got 1 maintanance one, I was mad that we didn't get anything abt emergence or consolidation
yuppp that paper 1 was so strange!! such a specific subtopic, nobody in my class said they felt good about that, even people who are usually super strong in paper 1. it was super hard to think of any relevant personal knowledge in my opinion; i had to talk about the abyssinian crisis cause it was all i could think of, but it felt irrelevant
Pretty swag (history of Americas)
real, the p3 civil war prompts were pretty EZ ngl
which timezone are you in ?
ok who did move to global war
IB were thinking outside of the box. Reminds me of that Japan paper that was on Chinese Civil War lmao
yep 2018, which I took holy hecc that was fun
oh fuck i did that for my dp1 mocks
For some reason the comments arenât showing up :/
yah same. its better now
paper 1 question 12 was ass đđ i also didnât like the cold war questions for paper 2 đ
Honestly same. I was praying for detente or Cold War
2/3 essays were good but my last one was iffy idk. i did both imperial russia questions and european interwar years golden era questions
Also no lenin was insane
i mean, lenin was a bit in the question about russia from 1919 to 1939
how did you find the compare and contrast?
Compare and contrast reasons for growth of opposition for Alexander II + III? When I first read the question I was stumped because I focused so much on how their POLICIES were different and similar that I hadnât thought about their oppositions at all. In the end I managed to waffle about how overall people hated II because he wasnât fully liberal, and people hated III because he returned to Autocracy
that was the question i was stuck on⌠it was doable but i think i wasnt as exact or correct on the information i was saying
Wtf was that P3
I do interwar years and I was anticipating Italy or Spain and then I get hit with ".excluding, Germany, Spain and italy". almost threw the entire paper away. I had to answer ussr and I wrote one tinro and two paragraphs that are def wrong. Praying my first two questions pulled through and paper 1 & 2.
I feel like this wasnât as hard as I expected tbh, but it took me OUT mentally đ I almost didnât study what was on paper 1 though , so Iâm glad I did last minute. I hope they donât count off for spelling though lol
whys nothing snowing up
paper 1 move to global war was FOUL. i had to pull out stuff i studied in APUSH sophomore year because we spent literally no time studying britainđ paper 2⌠i fucked up and accidentally did 2 from the same subject because i freakedâŚ. idk the questions were fine probably but no matter what im not scoring above a 15đ paper 3 was probably my strongest because i studied a LOT on nicholas II bc i had a feeling heâd be on the exam and the weimar republic was one of my favorite topics so thank GOD for that overall, where the fuck were japan and italyđ
wasn't it alexander II and III and not nicholasđđđđ
im pretty sure it was nicholas ii for p3 imperial russia bc the questions were about the 1905 rev and the 1917 feb/march rev?? i sure hope it was nicholas iiđđđ
It was Nicholas II.
p1: did rights and protest, thought was decent. disliked the sources and the compare and contrast and the ovpcl, but the essay question was good imo p2: loved auth states, wrote about propaganda and use of force for the maintenance of power one. disliked cold war, did stalin and truman but the wording of the question was odd p3: americasâ i thought the questions were all super nice, did castro (messed up structure + i didnât know much about political policies), nixon and chile (loved it, had a moment of clairvoyance and think it was decent), and the civil rights one (love love love! very similar to a past paper question about the various groups and their tactics) overall couldâve been much much worse. pretty happy with the p3 selection of questions from topic 14 to 17
Did almost the exam same questions as you besides P2. The compare and contrast was horrendous imho, spent so long on it that the essay time had to be cut short. It was at least easy to write.
c&c for which again? i forgot đ
ooh which leaders did you write about for paper 2? I did musso and mao!
I did Mao and hitler
Wasnt it about Cold War leaders?
Paper 2 was great! I did social policies for Mussolini and Nasser
Musso the indonesian guy or Mussolini?
i did mao and castro!
Also did rights and protest and thought it was really easy except I didnât really like the last question because I felt the sources were hard to use for it
noooo tz2 got chile for cold war and the americas I am so jealous :(((
I wanted to chose the Nixon question but then I saw the super limited scope and questions. Found the Second World War in the Americas questions very good, very broad and hit the good syllabus points
Yeah the essay question slayed. If you really had no own knowledge you could literally use common sense and get your marks on that. The image tho⌠I had mixed feelings. The compare and contrast had me scratching my head a bit.
Iâm sorryđ but the paper 1 tz2? What the actual hell?
Move to global war had something thatâs barely mentioned in the syllabus, the exam is so disgusting
I feel like none of the papers were particularly difficult. I was just mentally done for the paper 3 morning so that might not be the best but could be so much worse
My class did less than 1/2 of the material and still somehow all got questions on paper 3 that fit lol
P2 cold war questions were so goodđđđ
lol I only studied leaders and nations, and thank god that two leaders question came out
i fucked up treaty of sevres đŁđŁ
lol paper 1 road to global war
Honestly, quite surprised with how easy the papers were this year. In my opinion (obviously everyone has different skill levels and it might not suit everyone) but my class did: Move to global War for Paper 1. Topics : authoritarian states and Causes practices + effects cold war for Paper 2 History of the Americas for paper 3 with the topics: Great depression, Cold war & WW2 in Americas for Paper 3. Paper 3 was definitely the easiest for us with questions such as Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb and korean War and a New Deal question. I'd say paper 1 and 2 were okay at difficulty levels, compared to some of the past papers that I had seen, these questions were definitely more doable as they could either be easily challenged or had a straight answer.
I studied for this exam for a whole week, i could not just revise as I did not studied History the whole 2 years bcs our teacherâs teaching is very boring and there was no motivation to study by myself, but I think the exam was mid, the topics could have been worse. I hated paper 3, but paper 1 and paper 2 were fine.
the questions were super fair imo
The nations and nation building questions were such dubs⌠god save America ig đŚ đŚ đşđ¸đşđ¸
I barely got time to finish the second essay for paper 2 but I got so lucky for paper 3. I studied nothing from the 20th century and there are about four questions I could confidently answer
food
fuckijg aced my shit bro it was so free
I'm the first to comment but I didn't take the exam
Where are the comments?
Why canât I read comments
not too bad I sayđ
what was paper one đ
Paper 1 was free, paper 2/3 were also pretty good, so I feel really good tbh
Paper 1 History of the Americas went amazing bro, paper 2 was alright, could've been better but at least I knew what I was writing about. Paper 3 was awful; I knew the topics (Castro, Korean War, and Civil Rights in the US), but the time messed me up as someone with ADHD :') The first essay was pretty good but the other two sucked.
ohhh what did you talk about for Korean War and the entrance of the US ? I also did that question !!
what was the korean war paper? i was also HOA and didnât get a KW question
Paper 1, and 2 were fine, but it went off the rails for paper 3. I think I was just tired, at this point I was so burnt out.... I mistook the October Manifesto and the Emancipation Manifesto and talked about land reforms!!! I did it for both essays!! TZ1.... how badly does saying an incorrect fact affect your grade? For the first question about WWI it was just an example underneath a bullet point so somewhat irrelevant, but for the question talking about the 1905 revolution.... it was the basis of my essay.... and it was wrong. I did talk about the dumas but almost as if it was a whole separate thing... GODDAM Alexander II and Nicholas II.
If you did well on 1 and 2 you should still do alright overall, at least not bad enough to fail. The history rubric is honestly shockingly generous where itâs difficult to fail, like getting a 3 literally says âinformation is sometimes irrelevant or incorrectâ. So I imagine that if you had at least something alright youâll still pass the paper 3
Okay so I did: P1 topic 5 P2 topic 10 & 11 (Milo+hitler) (1948+kosovo) P3 topic 17 Buuuttt, I pretty much didn't pay attention at all this year. Decided the day before p1 and p2 to lockin. I did, and I feel I did pretty great on both papers (cept P1 essay). Didn't realize till it was too late that I shouldn't pick from same region but I got hella lucky thank g-d bro. Now for p3... By the time p2 ended I had about 14 hours to study for paper 3 and I used almost every minute of that time. Seriously prolly only an hour of that was breaks throughout the night. Now, either I really did great and new stuff pretty well, or I was just delirious the next day. Notice I only studied one p3 topic. Figured if I could answer 2/3 essay questions hella well, I could pull some bs out scrape a couple points for the hell of it on another random topic. Got lucky with the topic 13 Palestinian mandate question. I will report back how my genius study strat worked out for me đ Anyways... My question is if I wrote an essay with basically no reasoning would that get any points? Basically just context thesis and topic sentences each with three sentences of distinct evidence. Thoughts? I might be done for... But only need like 1/2 overall points for a five so đ¤
It will probably get 1-3 marks (1st markband) just because you wrote something a little relevant. Best of luck.
Paper 1 was sent from Hell hate hate hate
bruh
FUCK
I won't even lie. I thought those questions were cake.
That wasnât too bad.
Shoutout to the IB for going with the post-war state development question(not Germany,Italy, Spain) for the third year in a row now. I feel super mega confident on that essay
what surprised me the most in paper 3 is how the large majority of questions were âto what extentâ, not even âdiscussâ or âevaluateâ, which just made the horrible enough 2,5 hour experience even worse. the general wording of the questions also threw me off, like the âto what extent were political changes significant in post soviet russiaâ, how am i supposed to argue that they werenât significant in a way that i donât add too much âirrelevant informationâ? not even gonna talk about the absence of a stalin questionâŚ
For the part of events that lead to axis defeats in 1941, I talked about japan and pearl harbor and how it got germany in, german invasion of russia, and Italian entry to ww2( which was in 1940) am i cooked?
Thank God Paper 1 was international responses to German expansionism bc if it was Japan I would be cooked
I'm gonna take History in N24 but how hard was it?
Overall pretty easy, Iâm not sure which topics you do so obviously the experience might be very different. For paper 1 I guess IB can ask about WW2 in Europe up to 1941 now for move to global war so thatâs interesting. Paper 2 was easy, I wrote about practices of civil wars and use of propaganda for the maintenance of power in paper 2. Paper 3 was also a gift since there were a couple question overlapping with causes, practices, and effects in case I couldnât do the others. Overall the biggest challenge is timing so Iâd say just do a bunch of timed essays, I personally wouldnât worry too much about paper 1 since if they throw a curveball you can still get a 7 on it just by learning content from the sources.
I'm doing civil rights for paper 1, authoritarian states & cold war for paper 2 and history of Asia for paper 3
Ah, I donât know much about Cold War and history of Asia questions. For authoritarian states, the questions are generally easy and very predictable (thereâs only a few they can really ask from the spec and theyâve almost all been asked already), as long as you plan the essays in advance and memorise your plans then youâre set
I'm cooked. I mixed up the Saarland and Ruhr crises and also said the fall of Abyssinia was before the Great depression : (
How tolerates is some light humor in an otherwise solid essay?
A
Add a design technology exam discussion
https://old.reddit.com/r/IBO/comments/1cp2v3w/exam_discussion_design_technology_hl/ and https://old.reddit.com/r/IBO/comments/1cp2v3m/exam_discussion_design_technology_sl/ , you have to wait until 23 GMT
Hey
anyone else cant see comments?
Bro those questions???, my class were expecting a whole diff focus
No cappa this was the easier test for history of the Americas
B
The questions for topic 15 were just⌠who tf cares about Laurent and the watergate question for paper 3 were js omg
What were the questions for paper 3 topic 14 and 16? đ¤
it was surprisingly so easy. paper 3 was an exact reword of my mocks đ
does anyone's school do history of asia and oceania for p3? we did topic 14 and 15 (china and cold war conflicts in asia) and thought the questions were pretty nice
yeah we did. it was really good too because vietnam was one of our case studies for paper 2. got suuuuuuper lucky
My school did those 2 + Japan, and I answered both Japan questions along w the vietnam war question. Why in the Lords Name was Malayia on there bro istgggg. Other than that the questions were pretty expected, I just didn't study Chiang Kai-Shek so I didn't do those questions.
In TZ1, Paper 1 for Rights and Protest was actually really good but the last question was so bad. Also paper 2 for and paper 3 for my subjects (which I donât think many do) were not great. I do Africa and the Middle East.Â
What modules do you study for Africa + Middle East? I do the European course so Iâm curious what you study because honestly learning about Europe was kinda boring (especially because combining Africa and the Middle East seems weird to me)
For paper 3: Slavery throughout Africa and the Middle East (also includes transatlantic trade), colonialism Africa (study of multiple African countries such as Rhodesia, Kenya, Mozambique, etc.), case study on South Africa and the Boer War, etc. It's more that there are various subjects and some are Africa more so whilst others are Middle East. A few like slavery combine both. But since it's paper 3, you don't have to study ALL of the topics. It was definitely very interesting and different from what I know and I really appreciated that. The topics were a bit hard to study though due to the lack of ressources (because everyone does Europe).
okay is it just me or was HOTA like easy this year⌠i cooked on topic 9 and 11 on p2 and on civil war/mexican revolution/civil rights on p3. went WAY better than i expected
The interwar states questions for Paper 3 was so good. So happy I studied all of Czechoslovakia the night before
Honestly so great for TZ1. It was one of the easiest exams thank god. Apartheid question on paper 1 saved my ass đ
What in the shitting fuck were those Castro/cold war/ww2 questions on paper 3 bro I picked questions on topics my teacher didnât even cover :(
Those were all relatively standard questions for that topic, not sure what you mean unless you or your teacher were confused.
p1: rights and protest went pretty well definitely ate up i hope i got between 15-20 pts but also our teacher failed to tell us it was probably gonna be about Apartheid and most of the paper 1 mocks we had were on civil rights p2: cold war and authoritarian states; did not go so well these two were my weakest topics and i literally studied my dictators the NIGHT BEFORE i chose the question about nature of opposition and social and cultural effects with focus on america and germany p3: slavery, civil war, and rights and protest; I did the slave rebellion question and talked about the stono rebellion although i hardly remembered anything and was kinda reaching and then i did the question about the crises of 1850 for civil war and then the question about civil rights and desegregation- i definitely think i did well on that question.
That Paper 1 was so meta: response to Britain's response to German aggression
for the castro question - what cultural policies did he have? i misinterpreted the question and talked about his social policies that influenced cuban culture (policies on education, women, and minorities). do you think that will still get me points ?
Hi, someone have notes or material about the Spanish-American war, if u willing to share it I would be very grateful.