frankyd said:I think that 2005 was the easiest test I've ever seen.
I mean I did a practice of it a few weeks ago... the teacher marked it as either 43-45/45 depending on how pedantic the marker was, but more toward the high side of things.
Whereas this paper... like it was do-able not that i actually didn't do anything or aren't hopeful..
BUT i'm worried because compared to past years or trials it was harder.
For example (2005) -
section 1 - simple
section 2 - almost no restrictions on what you could write (the stimulus images fitted next to everything)
section 3 - there wasn't even a quote!!!! - what is your understanding of journeys? ... my 10 year old brother could answer this
but no point dwelling on that... need to hit up the modules paper!
Couldnt agree more...and the other two section1 texts were imaginative journeys, wtfs up with that?Triangulum said:the second text (the story), in my opinion was not a journey, nor was the landscape significant to it at all (landscape being the 3-mark question for it).
Section II was pretty good - I had to restructure my prepared story to fit the opening they gave us but I think it turned out better that way.
Section III was also pretty good - the imaginative journeys question was very fair and could be shifted into pretty much whatever you liked.
I thought physical looked a lot worse than the other two. What the hell is the interpretation of the new? At our school Standard does physical and Advanced does imaginative, so Standard had the much harder job.mrwaggles said:Couldnt agree more...and the other two section1 texts were imaginative journeys, wtfs up with that?
Everyone at my school complained about the physical journey question...wasnt that bad to me!