Don Mackey said:Whilst I dont particularly feel like weighing into this debate the constant whinging about crime is so unnecessary. The 7 mark question was actually quite easy to answer. Plus if you aren't up to date so to speak with current social justice issues and especially juvenile justice issues then what are you doing in Legal studies. The one thing that can possibly give any one a case for whinging is that the HSC does not allow to much thought outside the syllabus for once they give us a question that is not a straight dot point and we have a massive cry. Quite frankly That legal paper was bloody good and Im sorry but perhaps it is to bad for those who cannot think for themselves without a syllabus study guide.
But I'm fairly sure all students are taught accessibility problems, and you just write them all down. If you read my whole post you would see that I covered the problem of specifics, even if I didn't know about specific juvenile problems.. I could quite easily write down every general accessibility issue that I can remember, and since you only gain marks (not lose marks) I would have ended up with a high mark. Especially since they are now taken this into account.The broadness of the dot-point meant that the question easily fitted the guidlines.
And so they are right to argue that point, the question is easily related to the syllabus. The problem lies in the fact that the "specific problems" are not specified. Those who were able to answer the question (and i Garantee they are a minority) were able to do so because they picked that one current topical issue. With the state of the nation at the momemt that dot point could have applied to almost every minority and even the majority. To argue that those who didnt specificly study juveniles are at fault is pety.
Access to justice is in the syllabus, so if people don't know how to answer it they haven't followed the syllabus - it is fair. All that it asked was a question that is in the syllabus, to be applied to juveniles.. which just meant you could have answered the question and customised it slightly without knowing any real specifics.No, you are being stupid. They asked a question which a HELL of a lot of people would have no clue how to answer... which.. isn't... FAIR no matter what you say.
If you read it properly....Lozacious said:No, you are being stupid. They asked a question which a HELL of a lot of people would have no clue how to answer... which.. isn't... FAIR no matter what you say.
Your arguement that "it wasn't a physics test" is missing the point..
Why didn't they ask a question from a 4th year university law degree then? That's legal studies.. There.. I narrowed the representation for you small brain to be able to understand.
ssssssssssssssssssssssNot-That-Bright said:Access to justice is in the syllabus, so if people don't know how to answer it they haven't followed the syllabus - it is fair. All that it asked was a question that is in the syllabus, to be applied to juveniles.. which just meant you could have answered the question and customised it slightly without knowing any real specifics.
In fact, i imagine if you wrote down everything you learnt from access to justice in general you would have recieved full marks.
No i agree, people should be able to answer questions about things they've never even heard of before. That's what the HSC is all about.Captain Karl said:Lozacious, if you dont want to be part of an open forum then just keep it to yourself.
Not-That-Bright actually posted those views a while ago, and I was simply agreeing.
This forum is not designed to be a one-on-one name-calling fight
Access to justice is in the syllabus clearly.nedzelic said:yeah i have no idea how you two can claim it was a fair dinkum question. sure, it may have been aimed at band 6 students, but for every question is meant to be made to give each student a chance to get full marks - other wise it is unfair and unequatable. for instance, if they asked a question about the issues that people from rose bay faced, it would benefit them.
and in nay case, hey can yous come here and say 'if you put that...and this...you'd probabaly get full marks'. how on earth would you know? and you will never know what you got for that question. it was merely pot luck as no one knew what they were after. hey, it might turn out that most of the state got band 5s and 6s, becasue we all answered it so well - but only by luck and flook. everyone ahs seemed to just put everything that saw to be relevant, whereas for other questions in othre HSC papers, it is more clear of what ytou need to put in (b/c it's in the SYLLABUS - directly) and so you can apply your knowledge. obviously L.S isn't like some other subjects like PD/H/PE where many questions are just like direct replicas of the syllabus dot points and all you have to do is copy it out, but the questions are never usually that vague
so it asking that question, under your arguments (on that accessibilty and whatnot is in the syl) is like asking, say, um...i can't even come up with an example (post HSC dead brain) but i will think of one and post in good time