Question C - unfair in another way (1 Viewer)

[MasterOfDisgyis]

Sorry for making a new thread, but I think this belongs on its own.

I think it is unfair that question C gets special consideration when some people answered the question properly. It's not our fault (students that studied legal studies properly) that some students who failed or didn't bother to do much 'outside' work get special consideration for a crappy response.

Our class went over childrens court and juvenile type things over and over again. So, I think people do didn't bother should just wear it.

 

[goan_crazy]

I hope MasterOfDisgyis gets 25/25 for the crime question in that case.

 

[rink]

Sorry for making a new thread, but I think this belongs on its own.

I think it is unfair that question C gets special consideration when some people answered the question properly. It's not our fault (students that studied legal studies properly) that some students who failed or didn't bother to do much 'outside' work get special consideration for a crappy response.

Our class went over childrens court and juvenile type things over and over again. So, I think people do didn't bother should just wear it.

ur an idiot mate......this just makes me REALLY angry............IT WASN'T ON THE SYLLABUS, GET IT THRU UR HEAD

I DID do outside work......i did the decriminalisation of cannabis as my current criminal issue, not juvenile justice........there r a million current criminal issues out there, we can't be expected to do each one and we WEREN'T expected to do each one as the syllabus says to choose ''A'' current criminal issue.

ur just annoyed becoz u wanna unfairly be advantaged and get good marks knowing that everyone else did crap..........and don't go saying that we didnt bother to study and what not.........alot of ppl here, including myself, are band 6 legal studies student who studied EVERYTHING we were required to study and knew the syllabus back to front

 

[rink]

yeah same here......learnt every single thing under crime and in the end 6 marks?? grrrrrrrr that's so annoying

 

[roadcone]

I am in two minds on the whole thing. Whilst I am not happy with the fact that a question was included that was derived from outside what I consider to be the syllabus boundaries, I think that I would be more upset/angry if the whole question was scrapped. This is because those who decided not to attempt it, or did so very poorly would be placed at an advantage in comparision to those of us who took extra time out to at least make a genuine attempt at the question.

As I said somewhere else if I thought that I would have been marked leniantly, I would have spent less time on crime and made sure that my focus essays killed it more.

I believe that complaints should be made with regard to the fact that the question was not reviewed properly to ensure that it was fair for all. But its unrealistic to believe that this will make them scrap the question, nor should it becuase as I have already said this would be even MORE unfair.

At the end of the day, we won't know what the Board really decide to do anyway. Its an inside process, they can tell us one thing and undertake the opposite actions.

What we all should remember is that it is a ranking process, and in this way I think you will find that the top students will still come out on top due to their ability to adapt the information they know to the circumstances provided. [Yes there will be some who are advantaged, but in a large number, the ranks should all pretty much settle themselves out appropriately]

Thats just my thoughts though.


EDIT - I must say that I only believe that (c) was unfair, I have no problems with part (d) because you are meant to study how the criminal justice system deals with individuals rights etc etc

 

[Rafy]

Sorry for making a new thread, but I think this belongs on its own.

I think it is unfair that question C gets special consideration when some people answered the question properly. It's not our fault (students that studied legal studies properly) that some students who failed or didn't bother to do much 'outside' work get special consideration for a crappy response.

Our class went over childrens court and juvenile type things over and over again. So, I think people do didn't bother should just wear it.

With all do respect, you really are trying to preserve your unfair adavntage at the expense of us all. Okay, your class concentrated on Juvenile Justice, you got lucky! But that subject is not in the syllabus, and there is therefore NO expectation that it would be tested in the exam.
The exam is designed to test knowledge in the syllabus. Your inference that in some way the majority of the state just didnt bother to do work is just ignorant, I studied in accordance to the syllabus, and as per it, i choose mandatory sentenceing as a case study.

So we did bother. Dont imply we didnt. The expectation is that we are tested on the content in the syllabus. Juvenile justice was not in it!

 

[rink]

I am in two minds on the whole thing. Whilst I am not happy with the fact that a question was included that was derived from outside what I consider to be the syllabus boundaries, I think that I would be more upset/angry if the whole question was scrapped. This is because those who decided not to attempt it, or did so very poorly would be placed at an advantage in comparision to those of us who took extra time out to at least make a genuine attempt at the question.

As I said somewhere else if I thought that I would have been marked leniantly, I would have spent less time on crime and made sure that my focus essays killed it more.

I believe that complaints should be made with regard to the fact that the question was not reviewed properly to ensure that it was fair for all. But its unrealistic to believe that this will make them scrap the question, nor should it becuase as I have already said this would be even MORE unfair.

At the end of the day, we won't know what the Board really decide to do anyway. Its an inside process, they can tell us one thing and undertake the opposite actions.

What we all should remember is that it is a ranking process, and in this way I think you will find that the top students will still come out on top due to their ability to adapt the information they know to the circumstances provided. [Yes there will be some who are advantaged, but in a large number, the ranks should all pretty much settle themselves out appropriately]

Thats just my thoughts though.


EDIT - I must say that I only believe that (c) was unfair, I have no problems with part (d) because you are meant to study how the criminal justice system deals with individuals rights etc etc

well i took some extra time off my other sections aswell to answer this question, but i still think this question should be completely disregarded

a) because it WAS NOT on the syllabus and therefore they had no right to ask it

b) because idiots like masterofdisguise will be unfairly advantaged (even if they do mark leniently all it means is that ppl like him will get full marks and people like us will get a crappy 3/7 or something)

c) because there is a guideline as to how much time we r supposed to allocate to each section ie.equal time........ofcourse hardly anyone follows these guidelines(including myself in the exam) and they r merely guidelines....however, the guidelines r there for a reason - eg:when things like this happen. I'm not saying it was our fault but.......(refer to next point)

d) because in a situation such as this u can't please everybody and be fair to everybody

e) therefore, do what is fair to the majority and that means that the only acceptable course of action can be to get rid of the question completely

 

[jaihson]

Yeah masterofdisguise thats arrogant, pretentious and just infuriating! I wont say anymore cause its all been said.

 

[Smartie87]

Sorry for making a new thread, but I think this belongs on its own.

I think it is unfair that question C gets special consideration when some people answered the question properly. It's not our fault (students that studied legal studies properly) that some students who failed or didn't bother to do much 'outside' work get special consideration for a crappy response.

Our class went over childrens court and juvenile type things over and over again. So, I think people do didn't bother should just wear it.

Listen here, mate. 1 guess- u studied this area?? Think logically- how can they test us on something we were not required to have learnt??

What if they asked a bio question in chemistry, and some lucky kids did both?? Would u say oh well to the chem kids who studied what their course required of them? If it was just a tricky question, but was actually required as knowledge, I couldn't agree more, but the fact of the matter is, WE WERE NOT REQUIRED TO STUDY THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[rnitya_25]

Sorry for making a new thread, but I think this belongs on its own.

I think it is unfair that question C gets special consideration when some people answered the question properly. It's not our fault (students that studied legal studies properly) that some students who failed or didn't bother to do much 'outside' work get special consideration for a crappy response.

Our class went over childrens court and juvenile type things over and over again. So, I think people do didn't bother should just wear it.

you just don't get it do you? they MIGHT change the marking guidelines, but reward those who answered properly, if you answered the question correct, then you will reek your rewards. stop complaining if you answered it properly.

 

[rnitya_25]

If we were given a question that the creator of this topic knew nothing about, would she create this topic?

-------

The disappointing thing, is only a small amount of people have complained (other people probably just moved on). Surely more people care then that?

i certainly bloody well hope so. i've complained, alot of other people have and i hope the number keeps increasing until something is done about it. what smartie87 said is also correct, comparing knowledge with different subs, i hope we just justiced for the work we did...hehe. we have the right to speak for ourselves!

 

[santaslayer]

Having information outside the syllabus is a good way to touch up your essays but the question must be asked within the confines of the syllabus. What was the question anyways?

 

[MasterOfDisgyis]

With all do respect, you really are trying to preserve your unfair adavntage at the expense of us all. Okay, your class concentrated on Juvenile Justice, you got lucky! But that subject is not in the syllabus, and there is therefore NO expectation that it would be tested in the exam.
The exam is designed to test knowledge in the syllabus. Your inference that in some way the majority of the state just didnt bother to do work is just ignorant, I studied in accordance to the syllabus, and as per it, i choose mandatory sentenceing as a case study.

So we did bother. Dont imply we didnt. The expectation is that we are tested on the content in the syllabus. Juvenile justice was not in it!

Out class finished legal studies a term before the HSC exams so we had a whole lot of time to revise. We dedicated ourselves to legal studies, even taking personal trips down (multiple trips) to the local and district courts and once to a supreme court session. We did this during the holidays even.

We spent time studying crime case studies, finding them ourselves in the newspapers etc.

To say NO ONE even touched on Juvenile Justice is just a crock of shit. Didn't you guys ever learn about Youth Justice Conferencing and other stuff like that?

 

[MasterOfDisgyis]

Having information outside the syllabus is a good way to touch up your essays but the question must be asked within the confines of the syllabus. What was the question anyways?

Stimulus:-

Juveniles in Crime​

In the 12 months prior to the survey we estimated that 29 per cent of students assaulted someone, 27 per cent maliciously damaged property, 15 per cent received or sold stolen goods, 9 per cent shoplifted, 5 per cent committed break and enter and 5 per cent committed motor vehicle theft.

Male students generally had higher rates of participation in each offence than female students,...

Given the low rate of apprehension amongst juvenile offenders, there is a clear need to focus more on primary prevention strategies rather than rely solely on criminal justice system approaches in dealing with juvenile crime. Primary preventative strategies would involve targeting the opportunities and incentives for involvement in crime,...

Adapted from: Juveniles in Crime - Part 1
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (1998)​

(a) Identify TWO types of crime from the offences mentioned in the stimulus material. (2 marks)

(b) Outline how our society attempts to reduce juvenile crime. (4 marks)

(c) Compare and contrast the problems faced by young male and young female offenders when they come into contact with the criminal justice system. (7 marks)

(d) Evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment of adults and juveniles by the criminal justice system. (12 marks)


>>>>

And no I didn't type the entire stimulus, what I did is I went and looked on the BOCSAR website and copied and pasted it. Just one of the skills we were taught, to go look up such statistics and reports by our teacher.

 

[MasterOfDisgyis]

I think you should go to hell. Why would you study something that wasn't even set for study?

Because I am interested in LAW just like all (well 5 of the 11 students) the other students in my class. We actually bothered to learn about legal studies and our teacher encouraged and helped us. I mean we went so indepth into crimes such as paedophilia, child porn, rape, murder, political crimes such as assasination, childrens court etc.

And that question about JUVENILE crime was not so far off what has already been taught.

Did your teacher ask you to write 2 essays a week for homework?

 

[nedzelic]

see, what they should have done was asked a generic question - like 'assess effectiveness of a curent criminal justice issue' or something

 

[lukey15#]

NO WE DID'NT EVEN TOUCH ON IT OUR WHOLE CLASS HAD NO IDEA AS WE DID'NT STUDY FOR IT OR EVEN LEARN IT. WE MAY HAVE WELL HAVE BEEN ASKED A PHYSICS QUESTION.
THERE WE GO IN THE FIRST REPLY BY MATER OF DISQUISE AND MANY OTHERS WE SEE THE INEQUALITY AND UNFAIRNESS TO THOSE WHO DID'NT STUDY IT. MASTER OF DISGUISE DID IT SO BASICALLY HE'LL / SHE'LL GET BETTER MARKS THAN THE ONES THAT DID'NT. UN FAIR. THERE IS SO MANY LISTS OF INEQUALITIES.

THE BOS DID A VERY VERY VERY VERY BAD THING AND SHOULD ADMIT THEY RIPPED LEGAL STUDIES STUDENTS OFF.

 

[melsc]

I resent the fact that you think we didn't study legal studies properly, I studied everything in the book thankyou very much and 'not bothering' had nothing to do it...

Groups in my class did presentations on extradition, mandatory sentencing, trial by media, effectiveness of ADVOs so don't say we didnt work hard. It was just unfortunate that no one did that issue, mainly because it isnt specified it says "study one contemporary criminal justice issue' or words to the affect! Really since so many people had a problem with the question do you really think it was a matter of ppl being unprepared

If the tables were turned and it was a question on extradition and u hadn't studied it wouldn't you be complaining...and how would you feel if I came on here gloating about how my class studied it!

I have not complained to bos, i think its unfair but I am over it...why don't ypu just relax, you will get full marks

 

[MasterOfDisgyis]

If the tables were turned and it was a question on extradition and u hadn't studied it wouldn't you be complaining...and how would you feel if I came on here gloating about how my class studied it!

We studied that as well.

I suppose it made a difference in that we had a teacher with 40 years teaching experience in this field.

This is why I hate 'dot point' teaching. Sure learn the dot points and skim the content but don't learn much more.

DOT POINT 1: explain this this and this.

Boring.

I think we only had the dot points told to us once at the beginning of the 4th term last year and that was about it. Just a procedural matter.

 

[melsc]

there is no way we can cover every single topic

Well soooorrrryyy you had a better teacher