Should paper 2 be 3 hours? (2 Viewers)

[lil_nat_cat]

I think 3 hrs is too much...............
Another 15-30 minutes extra would've been good enough to me~

 

[llamalope]

well you all should get used to it... at uni they expect more of you, and usually in less time.

my boyfriend used to write twice as fast as me, and is pissed me off so much... I don't know to this day how he writes so fast. it doesn't even look like he's writing fast, and his writing isn't attrociously scrawly like mine..... grrrrr

 

[osirisX]

3 hours would have been nice. But oh well...

 

[yabby]

wow close poll 50.7-49.3
- i think 2hours because:
1. it'll show the more "able" students
2. most people will end up acing it
3. ENGLISH IS OVER, WATCH THE UPCOMING YEAR12'S SUFFER!!

 

[7th Sign]

far out im sick of people bitching about time limits of exams every where!

You know well before the exam how long its is going to be, You have to plan to this time span and you would have been perfectly ok...

 

[scoby_2000]

far out im sick of people bitching about time limits of exams every where!

You know well before the exam how long its is going to be, You have to plan to this time span and you would have been perfectly ok...

good call

*reps*

 

[fleepbasding]

are you talking to me, or the general english population who found the time-limit tough? because I don't think I'm bitching, I just wanted to know what other people thought of the idea. Often the 2 hour time-limit allows students who are infact less studied to get an advantage because it allows them to be more generalized and brief whereas the students who've analyzed the texts in depth try to answer the question with real evidence, not just the occasional quote out of context. I'm not bitching about my personal situation, I'm really calling into question the whole idea of 40 minute english essays. I mean, if they are going to make us cover so many texts + ORT's there should be the time to match. And in my opinion the amount of time given to analyze a text (for telling the truth as an example- 2 poems + 2 ORT's means I have less than 10 minutes to discuss a complex poem that uses a variety of techniques) is just encouraging students to study in a lazy manner.

Of course when one knows the exam will be 2 hours one has to plan for it. I'm just putting forward the idea that 3 hours would be conducive to better essays and rewarding for those who've studied the text closely (as we are told we should).

 

[Götterfunken]

if two hours = true then don't make us poems = 3.

 

[physician]

hmmmm... if u asked me this question the day before the exam I would have replied, YES!.... however now that im able to think logicaly again with english over I say no!

20 minutes extra per response is a little overboard... If there was to be a time increase the maximum would be 15 minutes giving us 5 minutes extra per response, but anything above that will
1: be too long
2: bore the wits out of everyone doing the exam...

hehe.. if i was doing an english exam for 3 hours, i wouldnt be spending the exatra 20 minutes (per response) on writing it would just be extra time to daydream and perhaps give my hand a break...

2 hours and 15 minutes I think would be reasonable, however 2 hours is OK...

think of it this way...
usualy u have one of the modules which is ur strong point... thus u would probably write 10 solid pages in 40 minutes, the second module might be Ok as well.. so u spend 50 minutes and write 10 pages ... ur left with 90 minutes for the last response!!!.....ppl will be writing books not essays... so ...

I think 2 hours is fine... but if there ever was to be an increase... (which i HIGHLY doubt) the increase should not exceed 15 mins... but then again ppl can KEEP DREAMING..hehe.. because many HSC students have always managed to achieve band 6 results even with the time restraint!...

 

[Sepulchres]

The fact of the matter is, that even if they extend the time limit, the standard and extent to which you will be expected to write will be greater also. So you're always going to need that "little-more-longer" no matter how long the paper is, which is why its an "exam" - meant to be a challenging not a trivial excercise. So, I'd rather stick with 2 hours. Knaw mean.

 

[llamalope]

agreed. people have always complained about it, but it aint gonna change any time soon.
people still manage to write masses and masses of booklets in the 2 hours.

exams ared supposed to test your recall under pressure. that's what distinguishes the very brightest from the rest. that's why iq tests are timed, because essentially its something that everybody could do if they had enough time, but its the time pressure that sorts the sheep from the goats, so to speak

 

[fleepbasding]

agreed. people have always complained about it, but it aint gonna change any time soon.
people still manage to write masses and masses of booklets in the 2 hours.

exams ared supposed to test your recall under pressure. that's what distinguishes the very brightest from the rest. that's why iq tests are timed, because essentially its something that everybody could do if they had enough time, but its the time pressure that sorts the sheep from the goats, so to speak

fair point of course. but I'm yet to be convinced that it really does distinguish the "very brightest". I question the extent to which the current system is really good enough. I'm not talking about needing a "little more time", it is more a matter of whether or not it's really possible to cover it all in the time-limit.

When I look at the rubrik, the question and the amount of texts that need to be covered I just wonder if it is really possible to do everything they ask in 40 minutes, to a good level of depth.

Either way, it doesn't much matter because it is all over for us. I just wanted to know what others thought, so thanks for the opinions people, keep them coming if you want.

It seems that less people who voted 'yes' are speaking out...

 

[avalonian]

couldnt b bothered to read the other threads so i dont know if anyone else has said this:

since the exam is 2 hours we've all trained ourselves to write essays in 40 minute time slots. if the exam were 3 hours then ud have to put more in the essay as the markers would expect u to write more, you'd still be really pressed for time but your hand would hurt even more cos you'd b writing for 3 hours straight. its like english extension, they give u an hour to write the essay in that but i always go over the hour into the creative writing time cos you have to fit so much crap in.

summary: the longer the exam, the more crap you're expected to put in, the more writing, you're still pressed for time, not a good idea.

 

[stressed_em]

2.5 - hours to 3 hours would be excellent! I think 2 hours is just too rushed!!

 

[The Savage God]

Exams, particularly IQ tests are not accurate, particularly in regards to "intelligence". They are culturally biased and generally only measure a person's ability to regurgitate whatever crap we've been taught. Yes, granted there are some skills measured, such as memory, speed and to some extent reasoning skills, but that is not a measure of somebody's ability in a particular area. Quantity and speed are often antithetical to quality. People need to realise this.

And llamalope, you are wrong. Not everybody could produce great quality work if given the time. Many would simply churn out a pile of ill-reasoned, ill-written excrement lacking in punctuation, grammar and capital letters.

The entire system is fatally flawed.

 

[pikto]

i cant be bothered reading this whole thread, but my point is - they shouldnt make it three hours now that we have done it, make everyone else suffer!

 

[paolo21]

The Paper should stay 2 hours. Sure it'll be easier to write a sophisticated essay but the skill is actually synthesising a succinct essay within a short amount of time. Essays would be too long and markers would get the shits going through all the pages of useless dribble. Short time = essays of content and not dribble

 

[_dhj_]

There's just so much content that you want to put down onto paper so I doubt 1 hr per essay will end up with shit essays (at band 5/6 level). Nevertheless, I do agree that 2 hr exams force you to write in a succinct manner, using selective textual evidence, so the time factor is used to differentiate.

 

[fleepbasding]

The Paper should stay 2 hours. Sure it'll be easier to write a sophisticated essay but the skill is actually synthesising a succinct essay within a short amount of time. Essays would be too long and markers would get the shits going through all the pages of useless dribble. Short time = essays of content and not dribble

"synthesis" and "succinctity" are but two skills among the many we should be displaying in the exam. As dhj has just pointed out, the issue is that how much we are expected to cover and the level of depth apparently required for band 6 is incompatible with the time limit. Extra time would not lead to "useless dribble", rather it would allow the student to cover everything demanded of them to the level of sophistication and depth demanded. In fact it would differentiate those students who've read and analyzed the texts at a high level from those who did so superficially. "Synthesis" is often a euphemism for "generalisation", which is what I'm arguing the 40 minute time-limit is forcing students to do. Also, I think "drivel" is the word you're looking for, unless if you're reffering to students falling asleep and dribbling all over their exam paper.

 

[miapants]

Exams, particularly IQ tests are not accurate, particularly in regards to "intelligence". They are culturally biased and generally only measure a person's ability to regurgitate whatever crap we've been taught. Yes, granted there are some skills measured, such as memory, speed and to some extent reasoning skills, but that is not a measure of somebody's ability in a particular area. Quantity and speed are often antithetical to quality. People need to realise this.

And llamalope, you are wrong. Not everybody could produce great quality work if given the time. Many would simply churn out a pile of ill-reasoned, ill-written excrement lacking in punctuation, grammar and capital letters.

The entire system is fatally flawed.

you're a champ. the current system isn't a test of intelligence, it's a test of whether one is able to learn crap by rote, and then be able to reproduce it in response to whatever shallow argument is presented by the exam question. intelligence isn't being able to write essays within a timeframe, it's being able to understand and relate to people and contexts. this is what they say the english syllabus is about, but i seriously doubt whether studying powerplay or journeys has taught the majority of hsc students to do anything other than resent the word "journeys" and contemplate burning down a marking center. it's a total joke, but then, standardised testing is never going to work unless the board of studies gets its act together and creates a fair, useful, relevant syllabus