Eco predictions/thoughts (3 Viewers)

[bruhmoment.]

what did people write for question 27 about international economic integration?

increase in trade flows - linked it to ricardos principle of comparative advantage, then talked about how basically a reduction in protection levels was beneficial blah blah, said however tho that the adoption of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements is bad as it creates trade diversion rather than trade creation.

that was body para 1. body para 2 was mostly waffle where i smushed financial flows (increased levels of FDIs) and the rise of TNCs throughout the global eco - linked that to more job opportunities - higher growth - increased living standards - blah blah. then linked that to how it has however created increased income inequality as it has disproportionately benefited advanced and emerging ecos, where FDIs havent really flowed to developing nations and regions such as sub saharan africa - faked an example about benin (HOW TF WOULD THE MARKER KNOW ABOUT THE COUNTRY OF BENIN LMAO)

body para three was meant to be international division of labour/advancements in tech, but i didnt really seem to find enough coming through my brain that would make it a whole para. so i just then shifted the whole para to WTO, saying how their free trade agenda has increased eco integration where their policies regarding removal of protectionist policies such as unilateral reform have proven to be immensly effective in increasing eco integration. linked that again to a disadvantage being the rise of bilateral and multilateral agreements, which are bad.

overall i think i didnt do well tho, cause my stats were shit idk tho

 

[bruhmoment.]

increase in trade flows - linked it to ricardos principle of comparative advantage, then talked about how basically a reduction in protection levels was beneficial blah blah, said however tho that the adoption of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements is bad as it creates trade diversion rather than trade creation.

that was body para 1. body para 2 was mostly waffle where i smushed financial flows (increased levels of FDIs) and the rise of TNCs throughout the global eco - linked that to more job opportunities - higher growth - increased living standards - blah blah. then linked that to how it has however created increased income inequality as it has disproportionately benefited advanced and emerging ecos, where FDIs havent really flowed to developing nations and regions such as sub saharan africa - faked an example about benin (HOW TF WOULD THE MARKER KNOW ABOUT THE COUNTRY OF BENIN LMAO)

body para three was meant to be international division of labour/advancements in tech, but i didnt really seem to find enough coming through my brain that would make it a whole para. so i just then shifted the whole para to WTO, saying how their free trade agenda has increased eco integration where their policies regarding removal of protectionist policies such as unilateral reform have proven to be immensly effective in increasing eco integration. linked that again to a disadvantage being the rise of bilateral and multilateral agreements, which are bad.

overall i think i didnt do well tho, cause my stats were shit idk tho

overall i think i did ass tho, idk i ran out of time for the employment essay, pissed me off quite a bit,

can someone tell me an approx mark for what I did:

intro - this was hella good

Body para 1 - explained cyclical unemployment at the start then linked it to Monetary and fiscal during covid, where the 1500 Jobkeeper shit was useful and stuff, added the quantitiative easing scheme that the government adopted, blah blah, then linked it to recent times where higher levels of inflation (except most recent quarter which was 2.8%) was detrimental to full employment - increasing unemployment rate - linked that to poor coordination of fiscal and monetary, contradicting aims of the RBA and Chalmers. this was overall a very chunky para, probs 3 pages

Body Para 2: I ran out of time here, so i rushed a lot of micro, i was meant to have a whole para towards government taxation (i forgot national competition policy shit so i was like fuck it) and completely waffled, literally pulled shit i learnt in business. i was tryna link it to recent albanese tax cuts and new tax brackets that happened this yr, but didnt really have time, so just waffled most of it

and i fucking ran out of time for a conclusion and its pissing me off....

anyone think i can even pull a 12/20 with this for the employment essay?

 

[bruhmoment.]

it was weird tho how the essay directive verb was "Explain" like wtf?

 

[danieljames]

no way i did the exact same for all of those questions!

 

[tywebb]

another mc sol, this time by zrznb

 

[pilot_djeddie]

Question, did ya’ll find the last essay question (appreciating aud one) hard to fit in up to date stats?

 

[peepeepoopooo]

Question, did ya’ll find the last essay question (appreciating aud one) hard to fit in up to date stats?

yeah thats why I didn't use it

 

[danieljames]

that means I got 20 if its correct

are u on track for band 6 u reckon? thats so good dude

 

[pilot_djeddie]

yeah thats why I didn't use it

Like I managed to fit in a couple. But my structure was weird.

short para for Individiuals and firms.

FAT para on government

 

[Azan123]

Was the exam harder or easier than previous years?
What would an 80 theoretically scale to?

 

[Ishi081]

how leniently do the hsc markers mark the short and long responses?
like for the short answers do you need several statistics to get all the marks (like the 5 markers) or is like one or two sufficient as long as you explain the theory for it?

 

[Ishi081]

Was the exam harder or easier than previous years?
What would an 80 theoretically scale to?

I feel like the multiple choice was easier than previous years imo but the rest was the same level
but this is just my opinion coz the difficulty can be subjective so others may have found it harder or easier

 

[bruhmoment.]

how leniently do the hsc markers mark the short and long responses?
like for the short answers do you need several statistics to get all the marks (like the 5 markers) or is like one or two sufficient as long as you explain the theory for it?

i had no stats lmao for any of the 5 markers except china question

 

[Ishi081]

i had no stats lmao for any of the 5 markers except china question

no same tho, I tried to attach it to an event like covid but I dont think that worked out well lmao. how many marks would they give out of the 5 for the theory part of it tho without much statistics?

 

[NoobBread1]

Was the exam harder or easier than previous years?
What would an 80 theoretically scale to?

yeah good question mate, I would personally say that the short answers were harder, essays were the same and, multiple choice WAY easier than the past 3 years. it is comparable to 2023 short answer i guess, but short answer would be where it was the hardest.

How did you go mate?

 

[ahihimeowmeow]

no same tho, I tried to attach it to an event like covid but I dont think that worked out well lmao. how many marks would they give out of the 5 for the theory part of it tho without much statistics?

4 max bc ur expected to memorise a case study stats if it’s not one of the essays

 

[Azan123]

Wait no way NoobBread1, omg arent you the lowest ranked guy in our whole school. buddy arent you averaging 15% in eco. Wow its honestly a pleasant surprise seeing you here on such a forum, Thanks for the imput G.

 

[Azan123]

NoobBread1 you also asked how I did. I think i got around 80 raw mark, what about you my friend?

 

[Ishi081]

4 max bc ur expected to memorise a case study stats if it’s not one of the essays

oh sorry but I meant for the other 5 mark questions (not the other economy question) coz I didnt have stats for those other questions so I just tried to explain it theoretically

 

[Azan123]

yeah umm ahihimeowmeow that waffle bud