This article does not indent to impugn any individual or institution image but rather seeks some genuine answers from the people at the helm of the affairs. The writer has left with no option than to go to the media for this cause.
While acknowledging the utmost respect to all teachers of History, I want to point out some of the mistakes, arguably, committed in History Paper III (General) and History Paper VIII (Honours) question papers, Nagaland University, Bachelor of Arts Examination, 2011.
Firstly, in History Paper III, Objective Part A: I. (multiple-choice question) No. 5, no correct option was given. The facsimile of original question is thus: “the Edict of Nantes was announced in the year”, (a) 1593, (b) 1594, (c) 1595, while the Edict of Nantes was announced in 1598. Secondly, the Objective Part A: I. (multiple-choice question) No.18, too, had no correct option. The facsimile of the original question is thus: “the first marriage of Henry VIII was with”, (a) Anne Boeylyn, (b) Stella Byron, and (c) Jane Seymore. The first marriage of Henry VIII was with Catharine of Aragon, and not as rendered in the question paper. Thirdly, in Part:B , Descriptive, Question Number eight (8), the farming of question is somewhat defective. The question was, “Enumerate the courses of the Second World War with emphasis on the responsibility of Hitler”. It could have been much better in this way, “Enumerate the causes (rather than courses) of the Second World War with emphasis on the responsibility of Hitler”. Adolf Hitler was held historically responsible for the ignition of World War II than its long course of action that follows. Besides, there is also repetition of question in Part: A, II, short notes (2 marks), Question Number one (1) on the “rise of new monarchies” while Part: B, I, Descriptive (15 marks), Question Number one (1) was also on the “rise of the absolute monarchies in Europe”. These two questions are more or less the same.
In Honours Paper VIII: Historiography, Question Number two (2) on the contribution of Livy and Polybius to Roman historiography is also disputed. Unit IV- Paper VIII Historiography, focus on the Major Trends in Historiography: Herodotus (of Greece), Leopold Von Ranke (of Germany), Historical Materialism (of Marx), A J Toynbee (of England) and Marc Bloc (of France). I understand that the above-mentioned exceptional historians, who shaped the writing of history, were given importance in the syllabus. So the question from Roman historiography, the contribution of Livy and Polybius to Roman historiography, is still elusive in the syllabus.
Again, Question Number ten (10), Honours Paper VIII: Historiography, short notes on Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar – ten (10) marks each, came out of nowhere. In Unit V of this Paper, from where the questions suppose to be, it is specifically mentioned there to deal with a few Indian historians: RC Majumdar, J N Sarkar and DD Kosambi. Both Habib and Thapar are outside the purview of this syllabus.
Students are trailing by some 20/40 marks in Paper III and Paper VIII respectively. I hope all teachers of history should contribute their assessment on the defective formation of History question papers.
To alleviate the growing confusion among the teaching and learners community, and boost the morale of the University, orientation pogramme should be arranged before long as proposed by the BUGS (History and Archeology, NU) when the new syllabus was introduced during the academic session of 2007-2008. It will be good if the University reexamine History Paper III syllabus by giving clear-cut instruction; it is a complicated and cumbersome paper. The projected defects would be the University’s Achilles heel; need to be corrected immediately.
Senka Yaden,
Ao Kashiram, Dimapur
While acknowledging the utmost respect to all teachers of History, I want to point out some of the mistakes, arguably, committed in History Paper III (General) and History Paper VIII (Honours) question papers, Nagaland University, Bachelor of Arts Examination, 2011.
Firstly, in History Paper III, Objective Part A: I. (multiple-choice question) No. 5, no correct option was given. The facsimile of original question is thus: “the Edict of Nantes was announced in the year”, (a) 1593, (b) 1594, (c) 1595, while the Edict of Nantes was announced in 1598. Secondly, the Objective Part A: I. (multiple-choice question) No.18, too, had no correct option. The facsimile of the original question is thus: “the first marriage of Henry VIII was with”, (a) Anne Boeylyn, (b) Stella Byron, and (c) Jane Seymore. The first marriage of Henry VIII was with Catharine of Aragon, and not as rendered in the question paper. Thirdly, in Part:B , Descriptive, Question Number eight (8), the farming of question is somewhat defective. The question was, “Enumerate the courses of the Second World War with emphasis on the responsibility of Hitler”. It could have been much better in this way, “Enumerate the causes (rather than courses) of the Second World War with emphasis on the responsibility of Hitler”. Adolf Hitler was held historically responsible for the ignition of World War II than its long course of action that follows. Besides, there is also repetition of question in Part: A, II, short notes (2 marks), Question Number one (1) on the “rise of new monarchies” while Part: B, I, Descriptive (15 marks), Question Number one (1) was also on the “rise of the absolute monarchies in Europe”. These two questions are more or less the same.
In Honours Paper VIII: Historiography, Question Number two (2) on the contribution of Livy and Polybius to Roman historiography is also disputed. Unit IV- Paper VIII Historiography, focus on the Major Trends in Historiography: Herodotus (of Greece), Leopold Von Ranke (of Germany), Historical Materialism (of Marx), A J Toynbee (of England) and Marc Bloc (of France). I understand that the above-mentioned exceptional historians, who shaped the writing of history, were given importance in the syllabus. So the question from Roman historiography, the contribution of Livy and Polybius to Roman historiography, is still elusive in the syllabus.
Again, Question Number ten (10), Honours Paper VIII: Historiography, short notes on Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar – ten (10) marks each, came out of nowhere. In Unit V of this Paper, from where the questions suppose to be, it is specifically mentioned there to deal with a few Indian historians: RC Majumdar, J N Sarkar and DD Kosambi. Both Habib and Thapar are outside the purview of this syllabus.
Students are trailing by some 20/40 marks in Paper III and Paper VIII respectively. I hope all teachers of history should contribute their assessment on the defective formation of History question papers.
To alleviate the growing confusion among the teaching and learners community, and boost the morale of the University, orientation pogramme should be arranged before long as proposed by the BUGS (History and Archeology, NU) when the new syllabus was introduced during the academic session of 2007-2008. It will be good if the University reexamine History Paper III syllabus by giving clear-cut instruction; it is a complicated and cumbersome paper. The projected defects would be the University’s Achilles heel; need to be corrected immediately.
Senka Yaden,
Ao Kashiram, Dimapur
