Hello, my name is George and I'm an undergraduate reading History at Oxford.
My aim is to be as approachable and patient as possible, explaining concepts with as much clarity as needed and encouraging you to have confidence in your understanding of topics. I also aim to foster the independence of thought and judgment that really impresses whoever is looking at your work- I want to be asking you questions as well as the other way round to help you get a real grip on whatever topic you want help with. If I were to boil History down to anything it would be about asking difficult questions and it is in that spirit that both of us should approach it and enjoy it as we do so.
I have experience in teaching from my time as a mentor at school as well as from leading lessons to large groups of children as part of my role in a cadet force- both helped me develop various methods to guide students through issues they had difficulty with in a calm and clear manner.
What I can offer:
In addition to tutoring History I also offer help with Economics, a subject I have made great use of in my degree and one that is enjoyable and engaging in its own right- especially given the interesting times we find ourselves in today. I can also offer Latin lessons to GCSE standard, with a special focus on the Literature aspect of the course. I can help too with university applications and personal statements for History and joint courses from my own experience and I can offer my insights into the challenging (but very enjoyable!) Oxbridge admissions process, including the HAT, as well as offer mock interviews based on my own experience and my understanding of what the actual History degree course at Oxford entails.
How to get in touch:
Please feel free to get in contact if you have any questions or would like to arrange a 'Meet the Tutor' session, as well as outlining what topic you'd like to discuss. I look forward to hearing from you!
|Economics||A Level||£20 /hr|
|History||A Level||£20 /hr|
|History||13 Plus||£18 /hr|
|Latin||13 Plus||£18 /hr|
|-Oxbridge Preparation-||Mentoring||£20 /hr|
|-Personal Statements-||Mentoring||£20 /hr|
|.HAT.||Uni Admissions Test||£25 /hr|
|Before 12pm||12pm - 5pm||After 5pm|
Please get in touch for more detailed availability
Rahman (Student) November 21 2016
S.Y. (Parent) November 21 2016
Rahman (Student) November 18 2016
S.Y. (Parent) November 17 2016
My caveat about using historians' names is always that it can seem to the reader that you are 'hiding' behind an established viewpoint.Examiners are always looking for that 'independent judgement' that makes what could be a mid-range answer into a Level 4 or even Level 5 answer (based off AQA mark scheme). By all means, use the arguments of historians but always remember to base those arguments on the evidence you have to hand and not the reputation of whomever you namedrop. Personalising the judgements of historians to your own prose style and understanding of the evidence is a lot more convincing than just 'X says...'.
Of course, another facet of a good essay is to show awareness of the historical debates about the topic you're being asked about. Here it can be useful to succinctly lay out an historian's argument with their name attached to prove you've done your research into that area. My general rule of thumb though is to only name historians if I disagree with them and have an example to hand, or I wish to take their general argument and apply it synoptically to a case study they haven't discussed themselves. If you have nothing to add to or detract from historians' arguments I would not bother naming them: otherwise the course of the essay can sink into simple description which wins no kudos from the examiners and hinders the development of a coherent argument within the essay.see more
The HAT's structure tells us a lot about Oxford's criteria for who they think will make excellent students. 10 marks are awarded for an exercise in boiling down the essence of a long paragraph to one succinct sentence; 20 marks are on offer for taking a historical argument and making it your own by rewriting it; 30 for deployment of relevant and useful knowledge in support of a well-considered argument. Finally, 40 marks, nearly half the sum value, rests on close and imaginative analysis of a source document. Remembering that History and Economics applicants substitute in a separate, more mathematical, section for the third question and we can see where the emphasis lies. The emphasis in sections 1 and 3, the only two that all candidates are expected to complete, is on the ability to cope with texts: condensing their arguments, reinforcing their messages in persuasive and powerful prose and finally and most importantly, uncovering insights into writers and societies from not only the content but the form and style of the document they have left behind. Given Oxford's pride in keeping its undergraduate course far more source-based than other universities, it is no surprise that two thirds of the paper are dedicated to judging candidates on their ability to decipher and make arguments out of unfamiliar texts.see more