Hi I'm James! I have a first-class bachelors degree with honours from the University of Bristol. This year I am undertaking a research degree (MPhil). I tutor at GCSE, A-Level and undergraduate degree level.
I could not have got this far, or indeed, have the wish to go further had I not had both a passion and enthusiasm for history. However, of equal importance has been the excellent tutoring I have had over the years. Engaging tutors make the sucject come alive, and I hope that I can share my love of history with others. I am happy to help anyone at degree level, A-Level and GCSE level. For those at undergraduate level, I have particular expertise in historiography, approaches to history (social, economic, cultural, intellectual), as well as Foucauldian studies.
All tutorials will be tailored to your needs. Simply guide me as to what you would like help with, whether it be something for class, in an essay or project, in preparation for exams, or just something you are interested in and want to discuss further!
I think that a useful way to practice and get better at history is to do history. It may be useful therefore to bring samples of your work, such as essays and practice questions to tutorials so we can work through it and improve them together. This is not necessary but it certainly helps.
I believe that like with any subject or job, there is a necessary toolbox that you need to use to be able to be proficient. One you are equipt with this toolbox you can do anything! But you have to make sure you have all the tools you need and that they are the right ones for the job! Its important to get this right :) I can help to equip you with the skills you need to succeed in history.
I have previously helped a number of students with university and UCAS applciations. These have ranged across a wide variety of subjects including aeronautical engineering, geography and philosophy. I'm therefore happy to provide tutoring for applications for any subject. I originally began an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering but switched to history on realising it was my real calling.
If you have any questions, send me a 'WebMail' or book a 'Meet the Tutor Session'! (both accessible through this website). Remember to tell me your exam board and what you're struggling with.
I look forward to meeting you,
|History||A Level||£24 /hr|
|History||13 Plus||£22 /hr|
|-Personal Statements-||Mentoring||£24 /hr|
Sam (Student) July 14 2016
Paul (Parent) May 21 2016
Annie (Parent) April 24 2016
In order to assess whether economics were the most important factor for reform in Russia under Tsar Alexander II, the emancipation of the serfs in 1861 under Tsar Alexander II must be considered. There is contention as to whether economics were the primary motivation for the edict. Some historians such as Darby have argued that it political. As a piece of legislation, the emancipation edict is in substance a political act. While Darby has argued that Alexander was “determined to have emancipation” and to live up to his title as ‘Tsar liberator’ it is unlikely that Alexander would have favoured reform. “Alexander II was not by nature a reformer” Kochan and Keep argue, and that he “had the wit to realise that substantial changes were necessary if the Russian autocratic state was to survive”. Indeed, the Tsar’s autocratic regime had been continually threatened in the period 1800-1860, where 1467 revolts had occurred. Reform may therefore be seen as a political response to the challenge represented by the peasant revolts. However there is a distinct economic logic behind the emancipation reforms. Lynch has commented that Russia was both “economically and socially backward” in 1861 when compared to her European neighbours. The objectives of the emancipation reforms, Lynch argues was two-fold. It was to provide “…Russia economic and social stability... for industrial and economic growth”. So while in the short term social stability was sought, this was a means to economic ends, namely, industrialisation. From an economic perspective serfdom was detrimental to the economic growth. Serfdom tied people to the land which prevented the free flow of labour and obstructed the introduction of modern methods of agriculture. The emancipation edict’s success may be inferred from the increase in the industrial workforce from 860,000 in 1860 to 1,320,000 1887. The free-movement of labour granted the freedom to move labour from the land to the city. It may be said therefore that while the emancipation was political in its intentions it provided the economic conditions that allowed for growth. However the question gives little scope of the contextuality of the edict. For a more accurate account of the history of emancipation act in Russia, the Crimean War must be considered as well as its political and economic implications for Russia.see more