Talk:World History Final Exam

Comments

World History Lecture Six describes the crusades as a series of wars covering nearly 200 years, from A.D. 1096-1291, and goes on to list five campaigns:

• First Crusade: 1096-1099
• Second Crusade: 1147-1149
• Third Crusade: 1189-1192
• Fourth Crusade: 1202-04 and
• Childrens' Crusade of 1212

According to the data of the crusades, we have five campaigns or (four military campaigns and a failed pilgrimage) covering more then 100 years.

On the other hand, the data of 1291 indicates the fall of Acre, the last of the crusaders' states. This happened after the ninth crusade (1271–1272).

Not mentioned at all is e.g. the Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229), declared by Innocent III.

Now you ask in your exam:

“

The Crusades were: (a) two military expeditions over a 100-year period, beginning in AD 1050, by Christians to free Jerusalem and make it safe for pilgrimages (b) four military expeditions over a 100-year period, beginning in AD 1099, by Christians to free Jerusalem and make it safe for pilgrimages (c) five military expeditions over a 200-year period, beginning in AD 1001, by Christians to free Jerusalem and make it safe for pilgrimages (d) one military beginning in AD 1050, by Christians to conquer the world

”

None of the answers fits the information given during your lectures (4/5 campaigns from 1096 until 1212/1291) - or what seems to be consensus under historians: from 1095-1291 they generally enumerate nine crusades to free Jerusalem.

AugustO 09:19, 17 December 2011 (EST)

BTW: I sent you an email & I would appreciate an answer. Thanks! AugustO 09:19, 17 December 2011 (EST)

You make good points, but the "best answer" is still the same. The other three answers are clearly wrong.--Andy Schlafly 13:32, 17 December 2011 (EST)

So the pupils have to chose the least wrong answer? AugustO 15:31, 17 December 2011 (EST)

Badly Phrased Questions

I think this exam needed a little copy-editing before it was released. A few of these points may seem picky, but there's nothing more unfair to students than a badly worded question.

Question 1: No one 'discovered' gravity; it's always been known about. The person in question devised a theory to predict the force of gravity between any two objects and to explain the movements of the planets through gravity.

Question 6: I think the idea of the 'original' name may cause some sniggers, as if if before the great powers went to war in 1914, they had to pick a name for it. A better phrase would be 'and earlier name'.

Question 15: The wording of this one is both uncomfortable and confusing. Just to take option a: how can 'throwing two people off of a lifeboat in order to save the remaining ten' be either true or false. Even if we allow for bad phrasing, it's not clear whether we are being asked whether we are being asked whether utilitarians believe that 'throwing two people off of a lifeboat in order to save the remaining ten' is a good thing or that it is a bad thing. The question might better read 'Utilitarianism asserts that all of the following are morally acceptable EXCEPT:'

Question 18: Queen Elizabeth needs a regnal number here. Strictly speaking, so does Queen Mary, though she has been disambiguated, albeit in a rather ugly way.

Question 35: Should really be 'Who first broke the German’s Enigma?' It was broken again and again as the Germans continued to refine the system.

Question 40: I can name 19 national leaders with the surname Romanov (and I may well have missed a few). Admittedly the whole dynasty does not overlap with any of the other answers, but I'd have thought 'The House of Romanov' would have been clear for option IV. --QPR 14:22, 17 December 2011 (EST)

Your comments are welcome, and let's look at each of your six criticisms:

• "No one 'discovered' gravity" - I disagree. Action-at-a-distance gravity was discovered, and was not always known.

• Unless you know of a common prior name for the "Great War," then it was indeed the "original" name.

• Although you make a good point, your suggested rewording would not be an improvement in light of all the answer choices.

• It's not necessary to give a number to the first (and most important) in a line of rulers. Queen Elizabeth did not have such a number when she ruled. No one refers to "Napoleon I"!

• No, I don't think a "first" need be added. It is not common to say, "Who first broke the door?"

• You have a valid point here but, again, historical names are clear enough without obscure qualifiers. Do we need to include a middle initial for Karl Marx to distinguish him from others in history who had that same name???--Andy Schlafly 15:19, 17 December 2011 (EST)

• Fine, then say 'action-at-a-distance gravity' in the question.

• The article here: http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/more/581/, attributes 'The First World War' to September 1914 and 'The Great War' to October 1914. An additional problem is that 'The Great War' also used to refer to the Napoleonic Wars. Also, H.G. Wells called the war 'The War That Will End War' in the title of a book of 1914 (not sure which month).

• If I make a good point then there is surely a better wording, even if it's not the one I suggest.

• "Napoleon I" gives 2.4 million hits on Google. True, QEI did not have a regnal number when she ruled, nor until 1952, but today 'Queen Elizabeth' is at best ambiguous and, if one is forced to choose' generally means the present queen. Would you have simply put 'King Edward'?

• It would be if the door was subsequently repaired and broken again.

• No, Marx does not need disambiguation. Tell me then, which Romanov is were you clearly implying?

As I mentioned originally, none of these issues is going to put off the confident and intelligent student for long, but they do reveal to such a student a lack of attention to detail on the question setting which I don't think sets a good example.--QPR 16:34, 17 December 2011 (EST)