Well if they had informed us that they could/would ask us about questions based on common knowledge/logic/common sense etc etc then yes, that would be fine (not that the question was one that could be answered merely through common sense anyway.......I very much doubt that you've seen the question). But when they tell you that you cannot possibly be asked on anything that isn't in the syllabus then that's a different story.
Legal Studies We Were Plain Ripped Off (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter lukey15#
- Start date
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Oh it's a part of the syllabus, just not a main part.
I imagine there's also something on the syllabus about applying knowledge to different situations etc.
I imagine there's also something on the syllabus about applying knowledge to different situations etc.
Kirika
Member
well not really,. it is good to get students to apply knowledge rather than just write it all out, but in this case we didnt HAVE the knowledge so hence could not apply it. and no, it wasnt that we didnt get taught it, or didnt do it as extra curricular or wateva other reason anyone wnats to make, we didnt know it coz the board said we didnt have to know it.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
No the only thing I've noticed is that you never make any sense and most of your arguments are illogical.
ngmares said:
I have just sent an email to my Local State member and the Minister for Education. i suggest everyone else (who realises WE WERE DISADVANTAGED) do the same. If the politicians and media get involved BOS may do what they should have done in th first place - remove the question!
Valeroso
Member
When you have a really ambiguous question like that, your ONLY option is to bullshit! I ended up bullshitting and applying any "logic" that I possibly could have, but then yet again, when the question itself is even worded in such a retarded ambiguous manner, the level of bullshit is seriously degraded. 
So THEN lets go on to Question D. Given the fact that I spent considerable time trying to figure out what the fuck C wanted me to do, I had a smaller time to answer D, and as such, bullshit yet again became my friend however I am fearful as to the quality of my bullshit relative to others. Conclusion? Legal Studies SUCKS and I REGRET doing it! And I shall discourage all those wishing to take it up as a form of my own hostility being expressed upon the youth. I find it REALLY stupid that the Bored of Studies INSISTS that no one even had a slight advantage with these questions, so er, let's continue our crusade in condeming the BOS for all its fucked up actions! We shall overcome beaurocracy and maintain that the fundamentals of natural law and procedural fairness are still intact within our society! *waves fist at sky*
So THEN lets go on to Question D. Given the fact that I spent considerable time trying to figure out what the fuck C wanted me to do, I had a smaller time to answer D, and as such, bullshit yet again became my friend however I am fearful as to the quality of my bullshit relative to others. Conclusion? Legal Studies SUCKS and I REGRET doing it! And I shall discourage all those wishing to take it up as a form of my own hostility being expressed upon the youth. I find it REALLY stupid that the Bored of Studies INSISTS that no one even had a slight advantage with these questions, so er, let's continue our crusade in condeming the BOS for all its fucked up actions! We shall overcome beaurocracy and maintain that the fundamentals of natural law and procedural fairness are still intact within our society! *waves fist at sky*daniandrow
Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 43
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2005
Not That Bright show me where it addresses juvenile justice in the syllabus let alone young female and male offenders.......hhmmmm let me guess you can't BECAUSE ITS NOT THERE
Trippendicular
Member
Um, what about all the people that did juveniles for their crime assessment, where do you think their schools and teachers got the idea for that assessment task? I'm pretty sure they got it from the syllabus, I don't teachers are aiming to concentrate on issues that aren't in the syllabus. The fact that some people knew about juveniles and could answer the question means that it must be part of the syllabus as why else would they have addressed it during the year?daniandrow said:
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Given that it is also supposed to increase your knowledge of the legal system, and how it affects you (you are afterall youth), I can't see how the question is that bad...
jdrockefeller
Member
In retrospect, I could've probably answered the question sufficiently, using my own knowledge and the stimulus, but I had a pretty major mind blank during the exam and as such, I'm simply riding the wave of anger!
I don't see why this is such a huge issue anymore. The marking guidelines will be changed significantly to accomodate all candidates and their attempts to answer what was, under exam conditions, what appeared to be a pretty ambiguous question. Oh, and if you complain that the marking guidelines wont accomodate those that simply left the question blank, then stiff shit.
Also, I empathise with those who did the extra study and could answer the question sufficiently and are going to be disadvantaged as the question will be marked very leniently.
I don't see why this is such a huge issue anymore. The marking guidelines will be changed significantly to accomodate all candidates and their attempts to answer what was, under exam conditions, what appeared to be a pretty ambiguous question. Oh, and if you complain that the marking guidelines wont accomodate those that simply left the question blank, then stiff shit.
Also, I empathise with those who did the extra study and could answer the question sufficiently and are going to be disadvantaged as the question will be marked very leniently.
Valeroso
Member
I'd consider that more of an advantage for them. But again, Legal Studies is my lowest 2 Units after that exam and I have successfully detered several Year 10's from choosing it next year. Woo!jdrockefeller said:
The legal system doesn't really affect me - as I do not undertake criminal behaviour and I do not associate with people qwho have criminal tendecies. the only time I have being in any court room is when I went with the school.Not-That-Bright said:
It was not in the syllabus - therefore we did not have to study it. If the schools chose something else to study - then ok.
Because it was NOT in the syllabus - there was no need to study it. And because of that - some of us may have known little to nothing about the topic.
The question should not have been worth 7 marks. The last question should not have being worth 12 marks either. It is too much for the lack of information supplied in both the study of Legal Studies and the stimulus material provided.
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
Obviously you have learnt nothing if you believe that.
I showed that access to justice is brought up commonly in the syllabus, as is a focus on applying what your learn to yourself to give you a greater understanding of where you stand in the legal system.
Not that it really matters... because honestly if they give u an 'access to justice' question you should just write down the same things no matter whom they are, as in the hsc you will not lose marks if you write a wrong answer.
Last edited:
wat i meant was that is hasnt directly affected me. Someone said (in this thread or another thread) they had being in children's court - something that the majority have not experienced. Reading about juvenile crimes etc - does not provide enough information for anyone (who hasnt studied juvenile justice) to answer the question competently for it to eb marked out of 7.Not-That-Bright said:
Not-That-Bright
Andrew Quah
If you mentioned access to justice issues... and said how they could apply to a juvenile, u would recieve 7 marks im sure.