stylusdef Posted January 30, 2008 Report Share Posted January 30, 2008 How much difference is there between History at Standard Level and Higher Level? Does anyone know what the differences will be in the new syllabus that will apply to the may 2010 candidates? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spaceisland Posted January 31, 2008 Report Share Posted January 31, 2008 I'm not sure about what's entailed in the syllabus changes... Our History teacher that to save our confusion, he wouldn't bother telling us, and would just wait to confuse next year's candidates... At our school, the course is exactly the same for two semesters, and if you want to take HL, you enroll in an extra semester of History of the Americas, and write a third paper. Like Cam said, there really isn't much difference besides a bit of extra material, so if the subject interests you, you'd might as welll take it at Higher Level. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nanki_c Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 I switched from SL to HL history in Yr 13 (second year) and though the level required is the same, there's a huge extra amount of reading/content required. Paper 3 is your option topic and some school choose to do topics that overlap with the rest of the syllabus, but unfortunately, ours didn't so we're rushing through this whole new chunk of history that none of us know well. And the HI is worth less, and it's quite easy to score on it, but the skill level is the same. So if you're not worried about the extra content (not to mention the 3 essays in 2 and a half hours), it's not very different. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chileanbob Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 Hmm... Well I'm somewhat elated that I won't have to learn even more stuff, though I have a decent ammount of memory skills. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
davshere Posted February 10, 2008 Report Share Posted February 10, 2008 It really depends on the teacher. My teacher teaches both classes the HL material... Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck10112 Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 How much difference is there between History at Standard Level and Higher Level? Does anyone know what the differences will be in the new syllabus that will apply to the may 2010 candidates?The only difference between HL and SL is that HL covers more material than SL. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agneisse Posted February 16, 2008 Report Share Posted February 16, 2008 I'm not sure about 2010, but if it's anything like '09, HL is just more material. You don't have to take analysis to a higher level at HL (pun not intended), be held to a higher standard or anything. It's just that more topics are covered and thus you need to know more facts. IA counts for less (20% instead of 25%) and there's a Paper 3 on the IB Exam, which is 3 essays on the HL material. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CdnIBer Posted March 9, 2008 Report Share Posted March 9, 2008 at my school we don't have a choice, we have to take HL history Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
youcantstopthebeat Posted April 15, 2008 Report Share Posted April 15, 2008 History HL isn't that much different than SL, it just has an extra topic.Our teacher said that they have changed the course starting from next year, and that it will be harder. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
teddy>you Posted April 16, 2008 Report Share Posted April 16, 2008 Not that much difference but you must definitely be prepared for a lot of reading.. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
esthers123 Posted May 4, 2008 Report Share Posted May 4, 2008 HL is obviously the harder course, and there is more emphasis on facts and specific information.As others have stated, HL and SL have different percentages regarding the Internal Assessment and examinations.In HL, the IA counts for 20% and the exams are 80%.In SL, the IA counts for 25% and the exams are 75%.I hope that helps? And I am not sure about the new changes that are being made as I will be gone before 2010. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CellarDoor Posted May 4, 2008 Report Share Posted May 4, 2008 History Standard covers only 20th century history, so it's roughly half the syllabus of HL. HL also has one paper dedicated entirely to 19th century history. HL is broader and you get to see the roots of everything that happens in the 20th century.The 2010 examinations, according to my teacher, are worse than they are now. It covers topics such as Arab-Israeli conflict (which is current) and Sicilian wars. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellogoodbye Posted June 1, 2008 Report Share Posted June 1, 2008 i heard that the change was going to be that slavery and like the civil war stuff were going to be gone, replaced by like nixon and stuff.the stuff my teacher told me sounded more like topics...oh well Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertomx Posted June 10, 2008 Report Share Posted June 10, 2008 as far as for 2009 candidates, sl students dont have to write paper 3 (the regional questions) so the IA is worth i think 5 percent more. actually, i think theres no point on taking history sl, but thats just IMO. however, 2010 changes i am totally unaware of. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
schouston1991 Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 High level history and standard level history are essentially very similar. The main difference is that high level history has to do an extra exam paper at the end exams (paper three) wich is you option topic. This just means that higher level students have a bit more content to cover, mind history has so much content already this can sometimes be a bit of a set back. However, in our class our option (we havent started it yet though) overlaps with some of out other course work so it's not too much of a big deal. The other main difference is that for standard level history students, the internal asssessment is worth more than it is worth for the higher level students. Therefore the main exams are worth less for them. Some people call this a disadvantage, I call this an advantage myself. As for the differences in the 2008 syllabus, sorry i cant help you there. Our teacher is also refraining from confussing us. I hears a rumour though that they are adding an ancient history component. Hope this helps-soph x Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.