The pesky essay

Let’s presume we are aiming for a Grade 7. Here is the IB guide to a top essay, taken from the Course Guide:

16–20

Answers are clearly focused responses, showing a high degree of awareness of the demands of the question. Where appropriate, answers may challenge the question successfully.

 Detailed and accurate historical knowledge is applied as evidence and used consistently and effectively to support critical commentary. Events are placed in their historical context and there is a perceptive understanding of historical processes and (where appropriate) comparison and contrast.

 There may be evaluation of different approaches to, and interpretations of, historical issues and events. This evaluation is integrated effectively into the answer to support and supplement the argument.

 Answers are well structured and clearly expressed, using evidence to support relevant, balanced and focused historical argument

Whilst here is the section for the top grade band from the generic mark scheme that precedes the specific mark schemes for each individual question:

16–20: Answers are clearly structured and focused, show full awareness of the demands of the question and, if appropriate, may challenge it.

 Detailed, accurate specific knowledge is used as evidence to support assertions and arguments.

 Historical processes such as comparison and contrast, placing events in context and acknowledging and evaluating different interpretations are evident and are used to produce a level of argumentation which is convincing and at the highest level, insightful and revealing of a very sound grasp of the demands of the task.

Let’s analyse step-by-step, the making of a Grade 7 essay. But be clear, be very clear, that the exam will test your ability to THINK as well as your ability to recall what you know. So, THINK!

Step 1

“Answers are clearly focused responses, showing a high degree of awareness of the demands of the question. Where appropriate, answers may challenge the question successfully.”  (from the Course Guide)

 “Answers are clearly structured and focused, show full awareness of the demands of the question and, if appropriate, may challenge it.”  (from the generic mark scheme)

To achieve this is really quite simple and only requires two steps, though each must be approached with care:

Read the question and spot the instruction as well as the focus of the question (and don’t forget you have an IB list of command terms), and plan your response. Underline your instruction and circle your focus word(s).

Take this Paper 3 May, 2008 question as an exampl Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of Russia in the second half of the nineteenth century.

The instruction is clearly to analyse (instructions are usually at the beginning of a question). Half your essay will analyse the strengths, and half the weaknesses. You can analyse them in different ways: by focusing on economic, social and political strengths and weaknesses separately or whether they were beneficial to the people or not, or in other ways. The important thing is that you analyse.

However, looking out for opportunities for more marks is obviously a good approach to have – where are the opportunities to earn more marks? Your introduction could explain what makes a strength and what makes a weakness in Russia in the second half of the nineteenth century. This could then form the basis by which you evaluate the state of Russia in the body of your essay, while your conclusion could return to this, and you could make an overall judgment.

Sometimes the word “and” is the most important word in the question (and often overlooked) and, like the question above, will have two parts to it, but in some essays you receive two very different instructions. This can help your planning, but you have to spot it!

Take this Paper 2 example from November, 2008:  Define “total war” and examine to what extent either the First World War or the Second World War was a “total war”

Do what it instructs you to do: define total war and examine the extent to which WW1/2 meets the definition. Why would you do anything different? Are there extra opportunities to earn more marks? You bet there are! What about a conclusion that suggests it was more of a total war for the likes of Britain, Germany or Russia but less so for America?

Sometimes questions can look as if they have too much to think about but this actually helps shape your plan. Look at this one from November, 2007: Define the term “limited war”. With reference to two wars, each chosen from a different region, explain why they remained limited.

You have to do four things (and note you have two instructions):

1 Define “limited war”

2+3 Explain why two wars remained limited

4 from different regions

Any essay that asks “To what extent do you agree?” or “How far do you agree?” clearly requires you to conclude with a judgment of the extent to which you agree to a statement that will be in the question. Let’s go back to Paper 3 and November, 2009, for an example: “The contribution of foreign powers to Franco’s victory in the Spanish Civil War has been greatly exaggerated.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?

You need to go into the exam armed with different grades for evaluating the significance of things. Whether it is for the “To what extent/How far” essay or whether it is to evaluate individual points as you end your paragraph:

The following question, from May, 2009, has the possibility of an additional twist to your conclusion: “The Spanish Civil War was a disaster not only for Spain, but also for Europe.” To what extent do you agree with this assertion?

You could argue that whilst it was a disaster for Spain (they didn’t get rid of Franco until he died in 1975), it wasn’t such a disaster for Europe. It did contribute to Stalin signing the Nazi-Soviet Pact but there were other factors at play, and Spain remained neutral throughout the war.

Don’t be afraid to challenge the assumption of an essay but only if you feel it is appropriate to do so (don’t do it just for affect). A Paper 2 question from May, 2010 serves as a useful illustration: Analyse the conditions that enabled one left-wing leader to become the ruler of a single-party state.

The instruction is to analyse and the focus is the conditions that led to a left-wing single-party state. It depends what single-party state you choose but a good analysis could include things like war as a factor, democratic inexperience, weak economies and, resulting from all of the previous factors, social chaos. But there is an opportunity to challenge the question and the assumption it makes in your conclusion. For it wasn’t just the conditions that led to so many single-party states, but the inspired leadership that took advantage of those conditions. Why not let the examiner know you are aware of this?

Challenging the assumption in a question can be more straight-forward. Take this question from Paper 3 in May, 2007: Why was the Weimar Republic so short-lived? You could make a strong argument that, given the circumstances in which it was established and the troubled times it “lived” through, it is more surprising that it lasted so long!

Step 2

“Detailed and accurate historical knowledge is applied as evidence and used consistently and effectively to support critical commentary.” (from the Course Guide)

 “Detailed, accurate specific knowledge is used as evidence to support assertions and arguments.” (from the generic mark scheme)

First’ let’s deal with “detailed accurate and specific historical knowledge”. This requires you to have applied yourself throughout the course and to have revised thoroughly. There is no getting away from this, unless you are a genius and if you feel the need to read this, I’m afraid you’re not!

But look further, this knowledge needs to be “used or applied as evidence and used consistently and effectively to support critical commentary, assertions and arguments.”

I think the key words are used and applied for this shows that you have to do something with your knowledge. Scary! You have to answer the question! And note that this has to be done consistently and effectively. Help!

Well, your plan should help you because this has started a thinking process that has you focused on the specific nature of the question. My guess is that you are not being asked to chuck everything you know about Hitler onto paper in 45 minutes. Rather you are being instructed to answer a specific aspect of Hitler’s rise to power or his policies in power. Note also what it is you should be applying your super dooper knowledge to: critical commentary, assertions and arguments.

This is where you should think of the three “E’s” and apply them to your plan (remember that?). The three “E’s”, of course are: Explain, Evidence (or Examples) and Evaluate.

Explain the relevance of the point you are making to the question you are answering, or the debate – assertion or argument – that you know is relevant, even an integral part of the question you are answering (because you have paid attention throughout the course and you have revised thoroughly). See how it all comes together: hard work, reading the question carefully, planning your response, and now you are writing a very good response!

Now apply evidence to support your point or, if appropriate, to throw a question against the assertion or argument.

Now evaluate the merit of the point you have made and/or the evidence you have applied. Is it convincing, or should its validity, reliability or value be questioned? – critical commentary or critical analysis.

So let’s see an example of this in practice. We’ll go back to Hitler and a question from Paper 3 in May, 2003: Evaluate Hitler’s social, economic and religious policies between 1933 and 1939.

Now, if I am to evaluate then I need to do so against some criteria, and this may change from issue to issue. Whether Hitler’s policies were successful or not is an obvious way to evaluate but still, how do I measure success? I would measure against Hitler’s aims: what was he setting out to achieve with the policies I have selected (and note, I am in control of the selection)? I have now put myself in a position to write an introduction that carries marks: I will establish what his aims were, and I will set out to use these in order to address the question. I’m focused and so, my work will be relevant.

So what policies will I select? From social, I will go for the family and the Jewish Question (I don’t see this as a religious matter). From economic, I will go for rejuvenating the economy from the Great Depression and getting Germans back to work. And from religious, I will go for the concordat with the Pope. I will underpin all of this with two themes: consolidating power in the first phase, and volsgemeinschaft. I could have chosen different themes and I could indicate other possible themes in my intro just to show that I am aware of other perspectives that could have been taken – but there is only so much time in an exam.

So, I now have a plan (note I have changed the order from that set out in the question – it suits me to)

Introduction: identifying Hitler’s aims

Paragraph 1: Consolidation – What Germans most wanted (this need only be short)

Paragraph 2: Creating jobs

Paragraph 3; Concordat with the pope

Paragraph 3: Explain volksgemeinschaft (this too need only be short)

Paragraph 4: The family

Paragraph 5: The Jewish Question

Conclusion: Link to consolidating power, and volksgemeinschaft

28 words

Step 3

Now we are really rockin brothers and sisters! But we’re not done yet!! We are about to scale the dizzy heights!!!

“Events are placed in their historical context and there is a perceptive understanding of historical processes and (where appropriate) comparison and contrast. There may be evaluation of different approaches to, and interpretations of, historical issues and events. This evaluation is integrated effectively into the answer to support and supplement the argument.” (from the Course Guide)

 “Historical processes such as comparison and contrast, placing events in context and acknowledging and evaluating different interpretations are evident and are used to produce a level of argumentation which is convincing and at the highest level, insightful and revealing of a very sound grasp of the demands of the task.” (from the generic mark scheme)

Now, don’t panic! Not all of this is required in any one essay, indeed it won’t be appropriate to apply it all in any one essay.

“Events are placed in their historical context.” It might be appropriate to set your response in its “historical context” in your introduction but whether this is the case or not, look for opportunities in your essay to do so. Surely you would place both Russian revolutions in 1917 in the historical context of WW1, a total war. So you can see, it’s not as hard as it sounds.

“…a perceptive understanding of historical processes” What is driving things to happen? A key individual, economic changes, a war; or what? And how do people react? Supportively, angrily, in fear? How did the Chinese peasantry react when Mao’s Red Army treated them with respect? You can put this in historical context too.

“comparison and contrast” There may be a question asking you directly to compare and contrast, for example Compare and contrast the social and economic results of two wars fought in the second half of the twentieth century. (November, 2011)

However, other questions might present an opportunity to do so. If so, take it! Look at this example of a past question, also from the May, 2002 Paper 2 exam: Why were there so many civil wars in the twentieth century? Your approach may well be to look at common conditions (those that compare) and to identify reasons particular to specific civil wars too (contrasts). Doing this can give an effective “shape” to your essay.

“… evaluation of different approaches to, and interpretations of, historical issues and events….”  Or “… acknowledging and evaluating different interpretations… ”

You should know the major historical debates related to the topics of your course. For example, Fischer’s argument for German blame re WW1 or the Quagmire thesis re the Vietnam War. But again, look for other opportunities: the German perspective of the Treaty of Versailles or a woman’s perspective of Hitler’s “separate spheres”. Evaluation of this kind would be integrated into your essay but it could be, particularly when there is an historical debate to be used, that you use it most forcefully in your conclusion.

Now, let’s write a paragraph for that Paper 3 question: Evaluate Hitler’s social, economic and religious policies between 1933 and 1939. I will select Paragraph 5: the concordat with the Pope

I must be honest – I used a textbook to help me with this paragraph and it is much longer than I could write in timed conditions (but I thought it would help your revision). The point is though, to check the structure, not the content.

The Church preaches “love thy neighbor”. So, it was always going to be a difficult relationship with a regime based on Mein Kampf (struggle), demanding loyalty to the Fuhrer and the German state, and prepared to use ruthless violence to get its way. Still, in consolidating power, Hitler was wary of the church’s own power. He knew he couldn’t destroy the Church easily and so his initial aim was to gain some control over it and even a measure of support from it. Then, he would work on reducing its influence. In his concordat with the Pope made in July, 1933, the Catholic Church agreed to keep out of politics (a huge gain for Hitler) and agreed to the dissolution of the Catholic Centre Party. Though the Centre Party would have gone the same way as all the other parties and the Trade Unions anyway, the fact that the pope had accepted the fait accompli must have made the transition to a single-party state a lot easier. For his part, Hitler agreed not to interfere in the Catholic Church which would keep control of its schools and its youth movements. On the whole, Hitler’s policy was successful. With regard to the Catholic Church he had to move cautiously, at least to some degree, but this didn’t stop him from establishing the Hitler Youth which was made compulsory in 1936 as church groups were disbanded. Further, Catholic schools had almost disappeared by 1939. Monastries were closed down and over 200 priests were forced to face show trials charged with sexual deviance or financial malpractice.  In 1937 Pope Pius XI issued an encyclical, “With Burning Grief”, which criticized Nazi philosophy, eg idolizing Hitler and the state, as well as its brutal methods. Bishop Galen, known as the ‘Lion of Munster’ also spoke out repeatedly against Nazism and, in 1941, led the protests against the Nazi euthanasia programme which forced the regime to formally end the programme though it carried on secretly. He was about to write an encyclical condemning anti-semitism when he died in 1939. His successor, Pope Pius XII, failed to openly condemn Nazism or anti-semitism, and was criticized for failing to do so. On the whole, the relationship between the Nazi state and the Catholic Church was always uneasy, described as “a state of simmering tension”. But the problem for the Church was that most of what the Nazi’s were doing for Germany was popular and Hitler was idolized. Germans were willing to turn a blind eye to the loss of freedom, the general brutality of Nazism and even the atrocities, because Hitler had given them their jobs back and Germany it’s pride back. Consequently, the Church feared it would lose its congregation if it were to oppose them too vociferously. They also feared a crushing retaliation from the regime if they were to push against it too hard. After all, the Night of the Long Knives had shown that Hitler would turn on his comrades if he thought their opposition endangered his position. Critically, the Church failed to prevent Nazi policies, most notably with respect to the Holocaust, and even supported some measures, eg. The Nazi attitude to women and the family and, most significantly, Hitler’s anti-communist “crusade”.

Now that you have read it once, I want you to go back and look for the following points:

• the introduction of the significance of the policy

• relevant knowledge used or applied as evidence and used consistently and effectively to support critical commentary, assertions and arguments.

• critical commentary, assertions and arguments

• the opportunity taken to place events in their historical context

• the opportunity taken to demonstrate a perceptive understanding of historical processes

• criteria by which I am going to evaluate the success of the policy

• evaluation of the success, or lack of

Tick them off as you spot them and note how they are integrated into the paragraph.

You can’t write a paragraph like this in a timed exam: I certainly couldn’t. But you can demonstrate these skills in a fashion that would fully justify a Grade 7!

So, do it!!!

Step 4

Finally, “Answers are well structured and clearly expressed, using evidence to support relevant, balanced and focused historical argument.” .” (from the Course Guide)

 “…a level of argumentation which is convincing and at the highest level, insightful and revealing of a very sound grasp of the demands of the task.” (from the generic mark scheme)

Here, we complete the circle. Clear, structured answers that are relevant, balanced and focused, revealing of a very sound grasp of the demands of the task, require a careful reading of the question and a thoughtful plan!

Don’t you just LOVE history!!!

A task for you

Why don’t you take that way-too-long paragraph of mine and edit it down to something that would be manageable in an exam, and that still meets enough of the criteria to leave you confident that you are on target for a Grade 7.