Difficulty in comparison to previous years? (1 Viewer)

[Riviet]

Overall I thought it was a fair exam, definitely didn't think it was the hardest in recent years.

 

[Boots Riley]

Section I was better than 2005's paper. I found that one hard.

 

[nick1048]

They made it easier again? Our paper was not hard, did you guys get chucked any obscure text types? Anything out of the norm? ... I'll probably ask this again for the modules

 

[Sgs2006]

Wasn't any harder than 2005, just generally the same

 

[passion89]

I thought section 1 in the 2005 paper was a little easier because some of the questions in this years section 1 were kind of blah. I like the 2nd section and 3rd (even though the imaginative journey question was stupid).

 

[Riviet]

did you guys get chucked any obscure text types? Anything out of the norm? ...

Nothing out of the ordinary, we had fairly straight forward questions for section 3 (essay).

 

[tarsus]

I found the 2005 section 1 *easier than this year's section 1. The rest were pretty good though.

Edit: Still exhausted from exams.

 

[onebytwo]

not a bad test...as expected
i found section 1 to be pretty easy compared to last years
section 2 was quite open
section 3 was very broad
not too many complaints

 

[frankyd]

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!

 

[Triangulum]

Section I was good, apart from the second text (the story), which 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.

Overall, it's not the easiest I've looked at, but it's not the hardest either. A good paper.

 

[Wackedupwacko]

section one was alrite...... text 2 was a bit =S but the others were ok

section two ahhh ...... the sheer joy of no restrictions

section three...... i hate specific questions.... >.<

 

[luscious-llama]

First section was good
Second section wasn't too bad though I hope I didn't too subtly state my journeys
I wasn't happy with the Physical journey question because it was kind of vague "interpretation of the new?"
Sigh. Oh well, its over now, I can't think of too much more to say than "omg, modules/ancient"

 

[Trebla]

It was way harder than 2004 and 2005. The 2005 Paper 1 was the easiest paper ever and 2004 Paper 1 was even quite interesting. It was harder than our CSSA trials.

 

[B35tY]

section three...... i hate specific questions.... >.<

Why didn't you disagree, and insert your ideas in there instead. It wasn't restrictive at all.

I thought it was easy.

 

[wdoueihi]

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!

i couldnt agree more. i think this paper was heaps harder than both 2004 and 2005. compared to 2001 and 2002 it was easy though. um... section one annoyed the living hell out of me. i think i might have got a 10 out of 15... grrrrrrrr but the other 2 sections im hoping for better

 

[poisonthemon]

Interpetation of the new questioned was good, my additional texts fit in with it

 

[xxxx8888]

i hated the question for imaginative journeys. i don't think i argued for it properly now that i think about it.

from reading over other peoples' posts, i'm guessing our paper was harder? i dunno, i never looked at any of the past papers.

 

[mrwaggles]

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.

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!

 

[Triangulum]

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!

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.

Luckily, I do imaginative, which was nice and easy.

 

[pLuvia]

It was better than the 2005 one, especially the section 3 question