|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Study Aids - Sample Answers These pages contain sample answers of short identifications and essays which have been taken from past student exams. Select the type of questions you wish to see sample answers for from the list below: Identification Answers | Sample Essays Each example will contain the question asked, the sample response and an explanation of why that response was a good one. Note that the questions were taken from a western civilization course, so these answers may be about somewhat different material than the course you are taking--but all of them still show what a good answer would be. Finally, you should remember that there are many different styles of good answer. As long as the answer fulfills the requirements explained in "preparing for an exam," it is a good answer. You may want to develop your own style of writing the exam. |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
SAMPLE IDS Western Civilization 102 Sample IDS . Encyclopedia: The first Encyclopdia ever published consisted of 28 volumes and was edited by Diderot. It was constantly being "taken off the shelves" by censors, thus, it only appeared sporadically over a number of years. It was censored because the government believed that it instigated rebellious thought and ideas and prompted irreligious behavior. The financial backing came from a woman named Marie Therese Geoffrin who, in one of her salon meetings, announced that she would pay to have it finished. Eventually, the Encyclopedia was made cheap enough that doctors, teachers, and lawyers could afford it, thus helping spread Enlightenment ideas. Here is another identification, another "10" from the first test for the term "mercantilism". This answer was well organized and very clear, describing the main features of mercantilism and its significance. This answer gave the overall significance which other answers often lacked and even provided an example (always a good idea) to illustrate what the writer meant. Finally, it contrasted mercantilism with other views: Mercantilism: Mercantilism was the standard economic system up until the second half of the 18th Century. The main belief of mercantilism was that all available resources were used for the state. The wealth of the nation, according to mercantilism, depended upon the amount of gold and silver in the nation. Mercantilism did not always work. Being dependent on monopolies and colonization to open markets, the system started falling apart in some places. Spain is an example. In Spain, the constant arrival of treasure galleons flooded the market and gold and silver became almost worthless due to inflation. Adam Smith was greatly opposed to mercantilism, believing that the "invisible hand" of competition would set the best prices and a free market was the best economic system. Here is an alternative version of this answer, in a totally different style, which also earned a "10". This example shows how there are many different ways to answer an identification well. This answer is more specific about the policies of mercantilism and still fits in the significance of them: Mercantilism: This is the word adopted by historians of 17th and 18th century Europe. At this time in European history, all European powers wer mercantilists. They had 5 major goals. 1) All resources to be in control of the state (this is in line with absolutist thinking). 2) The government was to regulate manufacturing and trade. 3) Government increased tariffs to make foreign good expensive. 4) The keeping of colonies so that they could supply the home country with raw materials. 5) The various European countries wanted to maintain a favorable balance of trade/payment. The major aim of this plicy was to make profit out of long distance trade. Examples of countries that benefitted were Spain (gold and silver from South America), England (tobacco and cotton from North America), and France (fur from Canada). It is often harder to understand what makes a good essay. A good essay answers the question in an organized fashion and uses specific examples to support its argument. Usually I am not looking for particular information or readings (unless I ask for them in the question), rather I am looking for any good examples taken from lecture or class. It always helps to outline before starting so that the answer is organized and focused. Well written essays with clear arguments (even if they have less evidence) often do better than those that rehearse greater amounts of factual information with no clear purpose. The following essay was an answer to a question in an early western civilization class: "Compare and contrast any one Greek polis (Athens, Sparta, Corinth) with the Roman Republic. How did the Roman Republic's government and social structure differ from that of the Greeks." Essay #1: In Rome, the most important social force was the familia. The head of it was the paterfamilias and the household included included blood relatives, adopted children, those who married into the family, slaves, ex-slaves and the spirits of deceased family members. The familia was like its own small state. Aroudn 509 BC, the eilte in Rome (the patricians) and the averaged <citizens> (the plebeians) were the two main social groups. They both ahad the same citizen rights, but the patricians had more privileges. It was not a monetary distinction, instead the patricians came from older families. The Spartans also had two main social distinctions--the Equals, or Spartiates, and the Helots. You could only be a Spartan if you had a Spartan father and met rigorous <requirements> and the Helots were basically slaves. There was no social mobility. In Sparta, the family was not <as> important as it was in Rome. Sparta has a small population, only about 20,000 and war was what everything centered around. Males left home aroudn the age of 5 and joined was was basically a boot camp in which they were trained to be Hoplites. In Rome, there were social ties outside of the family. The idea of clientage was very important. It was a relationship based on reciprocity between a superior (patron) and an inferior (client). The client was usually someone who was poor or an immigrant that wanted a connection to a Roman family. The client did services for the patron and patron granted him prvileges in return. The only thing similar in Sparta was the relationship between younger warriors in training and their older veteran tutors, with whom they sometimes had <homosexual> relationships. The governments of Rome and Sparta worked on different principles but had similar <structures of> rule. Once a spartiate had served in the military for about ten years from age 20 to 30, if he was still alive, he could be an Equal. Equals ran the government. There were two generals who acted as kings. They had the power of command. There was also an assembly of Equals, but it had less influence. In Rome, there likewise 2 consuls who ahd the power to execute the law as well as the power to judge and <propose> the laws. But in Rome, the most important governing body was the Senate, which at first was made up only of patricians. But aroudn 494 BC, the plebeians seceded from Rome, and formed their own assembly. They appointed tribunes who were there to watch <over> the patricians. If a law was passed that was detrimental to the Plebeians, the Tribuen had the power to veto it. The consuls served for only a year, the Senators for life and the tribunes were elected. There was also a popular assembly. In Rome the lower class was treated more fairly. In Sparta, the Equals systematically terrorized the helots in order to keep them in control. In Rome, the plebeians beleived that the superior patricians should rule, but they insisted and received more fair treatment. Around 360-300 BC, the majority of grievances between the paricians and plebeians were over and by 267 BC the plebeians were full citizens. The Spartans were the first to invent Eunomia, the idea of self-sacrifice and loyal to the state. All allegiance was to the state and the military system. They made all conquered people helots who worked the land. In Rome, on the other hand, citizenship was granted to conquered people and this was why Rome was so much more successful than Sparta. The Romans did not change their ways until the 1st Punic War (around 264) when it imposed rule over some of the cicilians <sic>. Sparta had a difficult time getting allies because everyone was so afraid of them, but Rome made allies who stuck by them even during Hannibals rampage in central italy in the 2nd Punic war. The Romans were very cultured and educated, while the Spartans tended not to be. The Spartans were not much interested in high culture and were often unsophisticate dby Greek standards. The Spartans were therefore "laconic", meaning terse and this contributed to their fearful mystique. Comment: This essay had a clear proposed answer to the question. It started abruptly and then got better as it went along. A clearer statement of a thesis or where the essay was going would have helped a lot at the beginning. Even if it was stuck in after the essay was written it would have helped, but the writer overcame this problem. Towards the end, the writer obviously comparing Rome and Sparta more directly and making larger points. There was no conclusion as such but clearly the writer ran out of time. This essay has excellent examples and shows good command of the relevant terms (indeed it basically starts by using information the student had studied for the IDs). By the end, I had already figured out that the writer deserved some form of A. Once an essay has demonstrated a clear understanding of the subject, ok organization and good knowledge of detail, it has done its job. It is important to make the strongest point first and to have some kind of ending. If one gets short on time, having an introduction and conclusion that really answer the question is most important. You can always go back and fill in details later if there is any time left. Sally Hadden Courses | Study Aids | Research | Bio All Contents © Sally Hadden
| |||||||||||||||||||||
