![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ceebeegeeSo, as I posted yesterday, we FINALLY got our midterms back and I pulled an A, yippee! Very, very happy about that. We took this exam a while ago, on March 9, and I've been sitting on my hands waiting for it ever since. It was an interesting format: the first part, worth one-third, were identifications--a phrase or term was listed and you had to write up to three sentences identifying it. The professor gave us thirty of these and said that ten would be on the exam, so you just had to study for that and remember your definitions. The second part, worth the other two-thirds, was more complicated. He gave us three essay questions, and said that one of them would be on the exam. Here's the kicker--you had to answer the question citing original sources. Without books. So you not only had to compose an argument to answer the question, you had to remember all the citations and who wrote them. NOT easy. The questions were:
How and why did the Roman Republic "fall"? Describe five historical events from the last century of the Republic (133-31 BC) and explain why they should be considered "turning points" in the transition.
What were the military, social and economic events that led to the Gracchan land reforms (discuss one each of military, social and economic)? How did the Gracchi attempt to resolve these problems (discuss three)? How effective were they?
How and why did the Romans conquer Italy and the Mediterranean (390-146 BC)? Choose five historical events (include at least one from the conquest of Italy, at least one from the conquest of the Western Mediterranean, and at least one from the conquest of the Eastern mediterranean) and explain how these events illustrate Roman strategies, Roman motives (or driving forces), and the consequences of Roman expansion.
I studied these questions pretty thoroughly. They're certainly not impossible to answer, you just have to decide which historical events you want to cite as important or transitional, and then find original sources who support that view. But in looking at the questions, I realized how much more complicated the second question is than the other two. I mean, that question could easily take twice as long to answer--again, this is not impossible, but when you have to remember all those original sources, without having reference to books, it gets much more difficult. I figured that question would probably not be the one chosen for the exam, it's just too difficult. So I strategized--I prepared an argument for that one, but concentrated much more on the other two.
I prepped my answers, and found original sources--Plutarch, Appian, Seutonius--that supported them, and then wrote out outlines for the questions, and ME-MO-RIZED them. I was muttering in the shower Fall of the Roman Empire: 1) Gracchi reforms (highlighted ineffective laws, unconstitutional, political violence) 2) Marian reforms (unconstitutional), 3) Sullan regime (use of terror as political tool, subverted constitution), 4) rise of Julius Caesar (culmination of everything before him--Marian reforms, went Sulla one further, dictator for life), 5) death of Julius Caesar (violence is now state policy--the murderers are the senators). Anya must've thought I was nuts. And of course I was doing this for the other questions as well. And then, after this was memorized, I had to try to remember the sources--what did Plutarch, Appian, Tacitus say about all of this? (And of course I had to paraphrase what they said.)
Anyway, got to class and when they handed out the exams, I just started writing and writing. Awesomely, the exam didn't choose only one question--it gave us a choice of two, and neither was the complicated Gracchi question, so my instincts were right! I immediately wrote down my outline for the question I'd decided to answer--the Fall of the Republic. I scribbled out the ten definitions (phalanx--a battle formation the Romans borrowed from the Greeks in the early part of the Republic. The phalanx was an horizontal column of soldiers, tightly linked and armed, forming in theory an impenetrable barrier. The phalanx was later discarded for the maniple) and attacked the essay. I wrote this basically extemporaneously--when I'd prepared the questions, I saved a few phrases that came to mind, but I wasn't trying to remember whole sentences or anything. Writingwritingwriting. My hand was killing me at the end of the session! I was rather proud of this though--
What makes Caesar's assassination so viscerally poetic is that now, finally, violence and murder have become state policy. Rather than lynch mobs or hired assassins, the murderers are the Senators themselves. As Plutarch tells us, Brutus, Cassius and the other senators walked through the Forum "hot from the murders...not like fugitives but with joy and pride." The Roman Republic is now in shambles around them; the constitution is meaningless.
The following week (March 15-19) was spring break and I was hoping we'd get them back after that but alas, no. I danced up and down a few times as I asked my TA WHEN? Then Tuesday before class, the professor came up to me and said "I read your essay, it was very good." I beamed! After class, I was waiting for the professor (I'd emailed him a complicated question and we were going to talk about it over coffee) and the TA went past me, and said "Oh, BTW, you have nothing to worry about." Which could mean ANYTHING! A B is something to worry about--I want an A, dammit! Anyway, after our cawfee tawk, as the professor and I were parting ways he said "again, congratulations on your midterm essay, it was very well-written."
So we got them back yesterday. (And there was a note at the end, "this is an excellent example of an argumentative essay that uses sufficient detail and primary source documentation to defend the argument," eeeh! I have to admit, I lap up praise. What can I say, I want to do well!) And the TA talked a long time about how she'd graded them, and apparently not everyone knows how to write an history paper. I'd never actually written one before but I figured it couldn't be that different from an English paper--you state your position and use examples (either from the text, or from original or secondary sources) to support it. And as an English major, and as someone who went to a very good high school with a strong IB program where we bloody well WROTE, I am very comfortable writing papers--in fact, it's one of my favorite forms of expression. The TA talked at length in what amounted to a remedial writing seminar. One of the other students, a guy who talks a LOT, who--let's just say he has a real need to "win" discussions in class, and has talked over other people several times, to the point of annoyance--seemed to want to discuss his exam results, and kept bringing it up. Some of the other guys, including Scott, a friend I've made in my discussion section, were exchanging long-suffering glances with me re: Mr. Talksalot. It was actually pretty funny, I was thinking "aw man, I KNEW I couldn't be the only one to feel that way!"
Anyway. Danced up Broadway yesterday afternoon. It is spring, the weather is getting better and I got an A on my midterm in my wonderful, awesome history class that affirms that history is endlessly fascinating and something I want to pursue.
How and why did the Roman Republic "fall"? Describe five historical events from the last century of the Republic (133-31 BC) and explain why they should be considered "turning points" in the transition.
What were the military, social and economic events that led to the Gracchan land reforms (discuss one each of military, social and economic)? How did the Gracchi attempt to resolve these problems (discuss three)? How effective were they?
How and why did the Romans conquer Italy and the Mediterranean (390-146 BC)? Choose five historical events (include at least one from the conquest of Italy, at least one from the conquest of the Western Mediterranean, and at least one from the conquest of the Eastern mediterranean) and explain how these events illustrate Roman strategies, Roman motives (or driving forces), and the consequences of Roman expansion.
I studied these questions pretty thoroughly. They're certainly not impossible to answer, you just have to decide which historical events you want to cite as important or transitional, and then find original sources who support that view. But in looking at the questions, I realized how much more complicated the second question is than the other two. I mean, that question could easily take twice as long to answer--again, this is not impossible, but when you have to remember all those original sources, without having reference to books, it gets much more difficult. I figured that question would probably not be the one chosen for the exam, it's just too difficult. So I strategized--I prepared an argument for that one, but concentrated much more on the other two.
I prepped my answers, and found original sources--Plutarch, Appian, Seutonius--that supported them, and then wrote out outlines for the questions, and ME-MO-RIZED them. I was muttering in the shower Fall of the Roman Empire: 1) Gracchi reforms (highlighted ineffective laws, unconstitutional, political violence) 2) Marian reforms (unconstitutional), 3) Sullan regime (use of terror as political tool, subverted constitution), 4) rise of Julius Caesar (culmination of everything before him--Marian reforms, went Sulla one further, dictator for life), 5) death of Julius Caesar (violence is now state policy--the murderers are the senators). Anya must've thought I was nuts. And of course I was doing this for the other questions as well. And then, after this was memorized, I had to try to remember the sources--what did Plutarch, Appian, Tacitus say about all of this? (And of course I had to paraphrase what they said.)
Anyway, got to class and when they handed out the exams, I just started writing and writing. Awesomely, the exam didn't choose only one question--it gave us a choice of two, and neither was the complicated Gracchi question, so my instincts were right! I immediately wrote down my outline for the question I'd decided to answer--the Fall of the Republic. I scribbled out the ten definitions (phalanx--a battle formation the Romans borrowed from the Greeks in the early part of the Republic. The phalanx was an horizontal column of soldiers, tightly linked and armed, forming in theory an impenetrable barrier. The phalanx was later discarded for the maniple) and attacked the essay. I wrote this basically extemporaneously--when I'd prepared the questions, I saved a few phrases that came to mind, but I wasn't trying to remember whole sentences or anything. Writingwritingwriting. My hand was killing me at the end of the session! I was rather proud of this though--
What makes Caesar's assassination so viscerally poetic is that now, finally, violence and murder have become state policy. Rather than lynch mobs or hired assassins, the murderers are the Senators themselves. As Plutarch tells us, Brutus, Cassius and the other senators walked through the Forum "hot from the murders...not like fugitives but with joy and pride." The Roman Republic is now in shambles around them; the constitution is meaningless.
The following week (March 15-19) was spring break and I was hoping we'd get them back after that but alas, no. I danced up and down a few times as I asked my TA WHEN? Then Tuesday before class, the professor came up to me and said "I read your essay, it was very good." I beamed! After class, I was waiting for the professor (I'd emailed him a complicated question and we were going to talk about it over coffee) and the TA went past me, and said "Oh, BTW, you have nothing to worry about." Which could mean ANYTHING! A B is something to worry about--I want an A, dammit! Anyway, after our cawfee tawk, as the professor and I were parting ways he said "again, congratulations on your midterm essay, it was very well-written."
So we got them back yesterday. (And there was a note at the end, "this is an excellent example of an argumentative essay that uses sufficient detail and primary source documentation to defend the argument," eeeh! I have to admit, I lap up praise. What can I say, I want to do well!) And the TA talked a long time about how she'd graded them, and apparently not everyone knows how to write an history paper. I'd never actually written one before but I figured it couldn't be that different from an English paper--you state your position and use examples (either from the text, or from original or secondary sources) to support it. And as an English major, and as someone who went to a very good high school with a strong IB program where we bloody well WROTE, I am very comfortable writing papers--in fact, it's one of my favorite forms of expression. The TA talked at length in what amounted to a remedial writing seminar. One of the other students, a guy who talks a LOT, who--let's just say he has a real need to "win" discussions in class, and has talked over other people several times, to the point of annoyance--seemed to want to discuss his exam results, and kept bringing it up. Some of the other guys, including Scott, a friend I've made in my discussion section, were exchanging long-suffering glances with me re: Mr. Talksalot. It was actually pretty funny, I was thinking "aw man, I KNEW I couldn't be the only one to feel that way!"
Anyway. Danced up Broadway yesterday afternoon. It is spring, the weather is getting better and I got an A on my midterm in my wonderful, awesome history class that affirms that history is endlessly fascinating and something I want to pursue.
