Raw mark of x should give....? (1 Viewer)

[fleepbasding]

True, but to argue as such in a Modern History essay would make it sound, in my opinion, more like an Extension History essay (the subject for which I usually save such profound ideas). So yes, while I agree that the idea of calling Nazi Germany totalitarian being anathema is quite trite and hackneyed, and that generalisations are all well and good (the 1918 'revolution' in Germany, for example, was anything but), it still forms the best basis for a totalitarianism essay in the 2 unit course.

I didn't mean that what I wrote just now has any place in a modern history essay, I was just trying to illustrate how I feel the argument against Nazi Germany being totalitarian, which is often done through debasing the term, is rather tiresome. but you are right, there are limits on howe much one can justify things in a modern history essay.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

I didn't mean that what I wrote just now has any place in a modern history essay, I was just trying to illustrate how I feel the argument against Nazi Germany being totalitarian, which is often done through debasing the term, is rather tiresome. but you are right, there are limits on howe much one can justify things in a modern history essay.

Well, if you don't think it has place in a Modern History essay, then where does it fit. It is a historical argument, evidently, and that is why the nature of the HSC question was as it was. I agree with you both (c_james and fleepbasding) and all though I am tempted to attack the entire usage and generalisation of the term and its application to The Third Reich, I would never do so in a 40 minute essay. Haven't, to some extent, these arguments been made allready by notable historians, especially regarding Nazi Germany? From what I can gather, it seems that fleep is further undermining the nature and validity of the term 'totalitarian' itself, but not suggesting that this is cause to argue against Germany being so. No?

Either way, c_james essay seems frighteningly similar to mine down to the last word! Hah. Well, let's just suffice to say that we can take comfort in engaging in such ideas at a level far beyond the realm or capacity of many modern history students, and that (aswell as our brilliant minds hehe) it is the study of Modern History and (Modern) Historiography that has allowed us to do so. And now I refrain from acting as a running commentary on this heated and fascinating debate. Hehe. Back to the Gabba.

 

[fleepbasding]

Well, if you don't think it has place in a Modern History essay, then where does it fit. It is a historical argument, evidently, and that is why the nature of the HSC question was as it was. I agree with you both (c_james and fleepbasding) and all though I am tempted to attack the entire usage and generalisation of the term and its application to The Third Reich, I would never do so in a 40 minute essay. Haven't, to some extent, these arguments been made allready by notable historians, especially regarding Nazi Germany? From what I can gather, it seems that fleep is further undermining the nature and validity of the term 'totalitarian' itself, but not suggesting that this is cause to argue against Germany being so. No?

Either way, c_james essay seems frighteningly similar to mine down to the last word! Hah. Well, let's just suffice to say that we can take comfort in engaging in such ideas at a level far beyond the realm or capacity of many modern history students, and that (aswell as our brilliant minds hehe) it is the study of Modern History and (Modern) Historiography that has allowed us to do so. And now I refrain from acting as a running commentary on this heated and fascinating debate. Hehe. Back to the Gabba.

I guess the only place for such debate is on internet forums! It just seems that a lot of people argue against Nazi Germany being totalitarian (not you c_james or Crazy Pomo, I'm sure yours are solid), with very selective evidence, and often with a motive of somehow absolving Germany of guilt almost! Sounds strange I know. You know how some are always trying to show that the Nazis were actaully "really good" for Germany, except for the whole holocaust thing... and this argument is the driving force behind theri argument for Nazi state not being totalitarian. OK, maybe I'm just being paranoid now.

Yeah, I'm just pissed off that the term (totalitarianism) isn't a very good one... Although I definitely think we need such a term to describe and define such regimes/states/societies.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

I guess the only place for such debate is on internet forums! It just seems that a lot of people argue against Nazi Germany being totalitarian (not you c_james or Crazy Pomo, I'm sure yours are solid), with very selective evidence, and often with a motive of somehow absolving Germany of guilt almost! Sounds strange I know. You know how some are always trying to show that the Nazis were actaully "really good" for Germany, except for the whole holocaust thing... and this argument is the driving force behind theri argument for Nazi state not being totalitarian. OK, maybe I'm just being paranoid now.

Yeah, I'm just pissed off that the term (totalitarianism) isn't a very good one... Although I definitely think we need such a term to describe and define such regimes/states/societies.

Fair enough, it will be very interesting to see some exemplar answers next year, and see if and how students argued either way. On the other hand, it will be a joy (as usual) to see the examplar Band 1 totalitarian essay and see how hilarious they are.

I totally agree with you about the guilt free Germany shit. It is stuff like 'spiralling radicalism' which can, and is extended to the Nazi Policies leading to the Holocaust by some sort of inevitablilty that was inherent in the nature of the regime, and Hitler's failing leadership, rather than a genocide based solely in racism.

 

[c_james]

Fair enough, it will be very interesting to see some exemplar answers next year, and see if and how students argued either way. On the other hand, it will be a joy (as usual) to see the examplar Band 1 totalitarian essay and see how hilarious they are.

I totally agree with you about the guilt free Germany shit. It is stuff like 'spiralling radicalism' which can, and is extended to the Nazi Policies leading to the Holocaust by some sort of inevitablilty that was inherent in the nature of the regime, and Hitler's failing leadership, rather than a genocide based solely in racism.

Indeed, I'm gunning for at least one of us three to make it into the 2005 Modern History Student Answer Book .

 

[Crazy Pomo]

Indeed, I'm gunning for at least one of us three to make it into the 2005 Modern History Student Answer Book .

Hah it wouldn't surprise me. But count me out. For all my big talk and what not my essay was good (I think), but not exemplar material. Seeing Fleep and I are in the same class, that complicates matters I think. I'm better at talking about history than writing about it. Allthough I'm still better at writing about it than most of the state so who knows.

 

[fleepbasding]

Hah it wouldn't surprise me. But count me out. For all my big talk and what not my essay was good (I think), but not exemplar material. Seeing Fleep and I are in the same class, that complicates matters I think. I'm better at talking about history than writing about it. Allthough I'm still better at writing about it than most of the state so who knows.

And I'm better at writing about history on net forums than I am in the exam room! You might make it in the standards package Crazy Pomo, as a band 3/4 cutoff sample.

I'm well out of the running for Germany exemplar due to my missing the keyword 'society', and coldwar due to only discussing one crisis. I got no chance for WW1 because I used more than the allocated space for the extended responses, and they like to show in the standards that getting top marks in the allocated space is do-able. I guess I'm hanging out for Speer then... ha ha ha.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

And I'm better at writing about history on net forums than I am in the exam room! You might make it in the standards package Crazy Pomo, as a band 3/4 cutoff sample.

I'm well out of the running for Germany exemplar due to my missing the keyword 'society', and coldwar due to only discussing one crisis. I got no chance for WW1 because I used more than the allocated space for the extended responses, and they like to show in the standards that getting top marks in the allocated space is do-able. I guess I'm hanging out for Speer then... ha ha ha.

You bastard. You will probably (due to your royal fuck up in Totalitarian) be an example of a 'problem paper.'

 

[fleepbasding]

You bastard. You will probably (due to your royal fuck up in Totalitarian) be an example of a 'problem paper.'

ha ha ha, atleast we'll both get in it then.

 

[cem]

Yeah I really wan to know what raw marks will align to as well

Does anyone know what raw mark you needed in 2004 to get over 90?

I was on the panel that recommended that very thing and guess what - we don't know!!!

What happens is that a committee makes a recommendation to the BOS of the cut-off marks at each of the levels BUT we aren't told what the BOS finally does with our recommendations.

We spend about 20 hours working through a process to determine the cut-offs by aligning the marking guidelines being used by the markers, the question and the Performance Descriptor Bands that you will get with your final marks. That is all we use. We don't compare the difficulty from year to year because if we are using the correct information that will come out with the recommendation anyway.

Modern History has a paper whereby the judge markers (the official title for this group) only use the most popular questions in each section.

 

[fleepbasding]

I was on the panel that recommended that very thing and guess what - we don't know!!!

What happens is that a committee makes a recommendation to the BOS of the cut-off marks at each of the levels BUT we aren't told what the BOS finally does with our recommendations.

We spend about 20 hours working through a process to determine the cut-offs by aligning the marking guidelines being used by the markers, the question and the Performance Descriptor Bands that you will get with your final marks. That is all we use. We don't compare the difficulty from year to year because if we are using the correct information that will come out with the recommendation anyway.

Modern History has a paper whereby the judge markers (the official title for this group) only use the most popular questions in each section.

Wow, there is some inside info. I think that last sentence is especially interesting.

 

[Crazy Pomo]

Wow, there is some inside info. I think that last sentence is especially interesting.

It is. But why? I don't quite understand. How does this person have insider aswell!

 

[fleepbasding]

It is. But why? I don't quite understand. How does this person have insider aswell!

As far as I can tell, it means that the people who do obscure topics get no special consideration in the exam alignment process. So they look at Russia and Germany and decide what rawmarks should get aligned to whatever aligned mark, but they don't look at specific, obscure topic responses to determine the amount of alingning that should occur. I'm not being terribly clear, but from what I can gather this is what was meant. It is just interesting, not particuarly significant.

And it seems they have inside information because they are a teacher who worked on a 'panel' that helped formulate these things. That's if they are genuine...

 

[cem]

I am a teacher who has been involved in the marking process now for 14 years and the judging for a few years as well.

Because of the number of options in Modern History only the most popular question in each option is 'judged' namely one essay on Germany, Speer, and one essay on Indo-China (in my years as a judge anyway - it may be different options this year if a different option is more popular in one of those areas). Speer will certainly be the personality as he is clearly the most popular one according to my SM. We started marking yesterday.

Is this fair? The BOS feels it is and they have spent many thousands of dollars in ensuring equity across all the papers through the setting process, pilot marking to ensure equity and the marking process itself. For instance ALL personalities and ALL essays have the same marking guidelines so the same standard is being applied to each essay. In other words you have to be able to show that you can produce work in both content and writing skills wise to reach a certain level and if you do you will be rewarded with the marks.

To judge all the options for MH would mean the judging process continuing well into January as it takes about 20 hours to do four questions (NB questions not options - we only do half of Germany and half of Indo-China and nothing else) so imagine how long it would take to do the rest of the paper and remember that the judges are also full-time teachers.

AH would take even longer!!!


I have only tried to explain the process from my experience as I believe that you should know what happens to your papers as far as well are able to tell you.


Having been involved for the number of years that I have I have as much confidence in the fairness of the process as it is possible to have. I really do believe that every student's work is assessed fairly and the the final results really do reflect the work produced on the day.

 

[roadcone]

so that just means that all the options are marked according to the same standards that were established on just one of the options?

are the results then changed based upon the performance of the cohort doing the option (say because the question could have been more difficult than the one that the standards were written for) or just left alone?

 

[cem]

so that just means that all the options are marked according to the same standards that were established on just one of the options?

are the results then changed based upon the performance of the cohort doing the option (say because the question could have been more difficult than the one that the standards were written for) or just left alone?

There is, I believe some internal scaling based on the Core results but otherwise everyone is based on the same standards.

The standards though aren't written for one question but are written as a generic marking scale and could apply to all questions quite easily.


There has been very little change to the criteria over the years.

The core does change but the others have only been changed if they felt they weren't working properly for all questions, which happened last year and the essay marking guideline set last year is so generic it could be used to mark any essay in any subject.

 

[cem]

ALL marking criterias and guidelines are changed according to the performance of the cohort. Before ALL exams in all subjects are marked, Chief markers read about 100 different answers, find the best of those 100, and change the marking criteria to meet that response. This is used mostly for extended responses though.

This happened with the old HSC but since 2001 the marking guidelines are set by the Exam committee at the time they sit the exam.

In Modern History the criteria has not changed that much over the 14 years that I have been marking it, except for the first part of the Core. Part III of the Core had the term perspective added in 2001 but other than that really no major change other than to simplify it so that it can be applied more easily to ALL essays, whether national studies or international studies. (I know they are marked out of 20 and 30 but that simply means changing the range of marks for each band.


You may choose to not believe me but after 14 years I think I know what is happening. Unfortunately some people haven't realised just how big the change was that took place in 2001.