SOR I - Section 3! YOUR THOUGHTS (1 Viewer)

[breannonbailey3]

it was just frustrating as the exam questions have always been straight out of the syllabus, people seem to have responded in three ways
- including one aspect of syllabus study
- including all three aspects of syllabus study
- discussing their own personal interaction

that quote was (for christianity) largely a matter of interpretation, completely threw me. i thought we hadnt been taught a part of the syllabus

 

[DominicDimech]

When I saw the question I thought I could integrate the quote pretty easily. I though it didn't really make sense to randomly talk about St Paul so I kept it on ethics and baptism. I ended up writing heaps on baptism so got nothing done on ethicss.

 

[tomph]

Sitting the Studies of Religion 1 Unit exam yesterday in one of the schools who demand the study of such a subject, I was indeed surprised when seeing the question for Judaism within question three. Having prepared myself well I attempted to analyze the question which stated something like show connections between the 'laws and rules' and the love of god as a guide for the life of the adherents. Thus, I immediately related such a question to my study of sexual ethics within Judaism - these 'laws and rules' which dictate the life of the adherents in order to achieve the love of God, thus lifting their relationship to another level. In answering the question I attempted to make such a notion as clear as possible through continually referring back to the question. On finishing the exam I felt confident I had answered the question correctly, but now with all this discourse and people referring to the introductory depth study contained within the syllabus I am apprehensive and unsure whether may answer was correct, though logically, I found that my response was answering all the aspects of the question. Oh and by the way, I did not think it was easy or 'easy marks', it required one to think before answering instead of simply blurting information, which in some ways is a positive notion. Any thoughts?

 

[cahblue]

i thought it was actually a really good question (for islam this is)..sure i freaked out at first, i havent seen quote questions in past papers, but once you got over the shock and thought about it for a minute it was awesome! im pretty sure that you just needed to talk about how the qur'an and stuff helped muslims answer ethical questions, so you could talk about ANY of the ethics. it gave alot more room to write alot! i loved it!

 

[cahblue]

Sitting the Studies of Religion 1 Unit exam yesterday in one of the schools who demand the study of such a subject, I was indeed surprised when seeing the question for Judaism within question three. Having prepared myself well I attempted to analyze the question which stated something like show connections between the 'laws and rules' and the love of god as a guide for the life of the adherents. Thus, I immediately related such a question to my study of sexual ethics within Judaism - these 'laws and rules' which dictate the life of the adherents in order to achieve the love of God, thus lifting their relationship to another level. In answering the question I attempted to make such a notion as clear as possible through continually referring back to the question. On finishing the exam I felt confident I had answered the question correctly, but now with all this discourse and people referring to the introductory depth study contained within the syllabus I am apprehensive and unsure whether may answer was correct, though logically, I found that my response was answering all the aspects of the question. Oh and by the way, I did not think it was easy or 'easy marks', it required one to think before answering instead of simply blurting information, which in some ways is a positive notion. Any thoughts?

oh man i agree with you so much! i think people are commplaining because we're all so used to questions that are specific to different modules of the course, and seeing as this time it didnt specify everyones chucking a hissy

 

[RachaelRae]

On the radio this afternoon, 10 schools have formally complained about the situation.

From what I can see the most likely situation is "easy" marking for this section. However, that would not be my preferred resolution because a lot of people (and very smartly so) decided to just write all they knew about their religious tradition and it's highly likely that quite a few of those people will be able to score full marks. For those of us who don't work quite so well under the stress of "OMG WTF DOES THAT MEAN" failed to show the markers actually how much we knew in an attempt to answer the question.

 

[keough131]

think of it this way...

if everybody is talking about it this way, then the board of studies will have no choice but to expand the marking criteria for that question.

we may all be suprised and get good marks...?

just something to think about

 

[jess.13]

hey... well my whole year was like WTF with that exam and so was my RE teacher, didnt know what the board of studies was doing to us and my friend today was looking through the syllabus at just exactly what they asked and he said that they gathered multiple ideas from the outcomes list. WE DONT STUDY OUTCOMES!!!!! so yeh they screwed us over..

 

[VK2FMCR]

Section Three was extremely Vague. I chose Christianity because I had no idea what the hell to do for Islam. I wrote 2 pages on Baptism and communion. But At least I know 45 other people were screwed in the process.

 

[pinkfairyfloss]

the question fucked me in the ass with a fresh roll of quarters

whoever you are, you are awesome

 

[Sophie-N]

im not sure about any other schools but we were basically told that there was a problem in the third section and also that we should all do Christianity for out short answer responses by the EXAMINERS. this left us with doing Islam for the extended response which was not at all relevant to the HSC course...we are specifically told not to study Mohammed and we dont ever look at the quran. most ridiculous exam of my life, that question threw me off for the entire exam. absolutely ridiculous.

 

[icola]

I would be one of those students who “loved” the exam. I think it was an excellent question because it required students to think for themselves rather than just reciting a memorised essay. The fact that it drew from aspects of the preliminary course meant students had to show they had a sound knowledge of the faith they chose as a whole, rather than knowing a lot about tiny aspects of the faith. This is a question that clearly showed who were good students, because it showed their ability to think on their feet in an exam and interpret a difficult question. Also, I have heard that many schools refused to do the question, are applying or illness and misadventure, or simply wrote “INVALID QUESTION” at the top of the paper, and are expecting to receive an averge mark. I would be absolutely appalled if the BOS allowed this, as these students have simply given up becaused they we faced with a hard question that required them to actually think, and I believe it would be an insult to the students who comprehended the question and attempted to answer it.TOTALLY AGREE ^^

 

[icola]

SOPHIE N "we are specifically told not to study Mohammed and we dont ever look at the quran. most ridiculous exam of my life, that question threw me off for the entire exam. absolutely ridiculous" The question wasn't asking you to speak about Muhammed although you *are* supposed to have knowledge of him from the prelim course. It was clearly an invitation to talk about the sources of revelation like the Qur'an and the Hadith and even though you don't "ever look at the Qur'an" you are expected to have knowledge of it as it is the essence of the Islamic teachings (practices, ethics) that you've studied all year. Seriously, all anyone had to do was comprehend the question, get over ittt!

 

[spazamataz]

My school put in a complaint about it.It was the biggest load of bs ever, and to those people who are thinking it was a good question because it stopped people from reciting memorised essays, try the people who actually knew the syllabus.My principal used to mark this section and she said it wasn't correct, as the people who set the exam question for that section was changed over this year, so thats probably why.I needed 40 in that exam to get into uni I hope the appeals work!

 

[spazamataz]

SOPHIE N "we are specifically told not to study Mohammed and we dont ever look at the quran. most ridiculous exam of my life, that question threw me off for the entire exam. absolutely ridiculous" The question wasn't asking you to speak about Muhammed although you *are* supposed to have knowledge of him from the prelim course. It was clearly an invitation to talk about the sources of revelation like the Qur'an and the Hadith and even though you don't "ever look at the Qur'an" you are expected to have knowledge of it as it is the essence of the Islamic teachings (practices, ethics) that you've studied all year. Seriously, all anyone had to do was comprehend the question, get over ittt!

You sound like a person from the BOS trying to cover up the mistake.

 

[sarahroberts]

That was freaking horrible. Personally. Dont think we ever got taught that in class

Its apparently the first line on the syllabus somewhere.and yeah it basically meant that we had to create a combination of all things we learnt in that topic. it was a collaboration exercise but it was bullshit because more then half the state didnt get it.

 

[icola]

Spazamataz, there was no mistake? Just because the question didn't hit everyone in the face with the direct words from the syllabus doesn't mean they made a mistake. The outcomes up the top clearly said "a variety of religious aspects" or something along those lines.. we've studied three aspects of a religion in depth.. not that hard to understand what they wanted.

 

[andrewtom6]

Time to look at this rationally and objectively.People who think they have done well in this section are more than likely kidding themselves. Alot of what I have read is simply people interpreting the question in their own way. Its lovely to know you're so self assured that you think your interpretation is the best but unfortunately it is probably not. These people should be prepared for shocks come december. Unless you have covered all aspects of your depth study, including basic aspects of a religion in fulfilling questions of believers in the preliminary course, than raw band 6 responses are VERY unlikely. However, as many people have pointed out, the marking standards and certainly the scaling standards will be well adjusted to the point where most significant attempts will score well if youre essay is well structured, long and you integrate the quote well. I wish everyone the best and unfortunately the question is within the syllabus, but only within the overview of what a "Religious Depth Study" is. The question is relevant but certainly vague. I pity us all. Like many the question made me laugh and I think it was A JOKE. As many of us already had a hunch on, the Board of Studies are a bunch of CUNNING BASTARDS who would trade a clear exam which assesses the ability of the student to reproduce the content and skills they have been taught in a normal classroom at an average school for a fucking VAGUE and CONFUSING exam which is designed to make life harder for all of us. THE BOARD OF STUDIES SHOULD GO AND EAT THEIR QUOTES TILL THEY REALISE THEIR SHIT REALLY DOES SMELL - as someone alluded to earlier. THAT EXAM WAS A JOKE - LIKE A DRUNKEN, INCOMPREHENSIBLE SLUT - AS IF ANYONE COULD HAVE PROPERLY SATISFIED IT, DESPITE MANY OF US BEING TRICKED INTO THINKING WE MAY HAVE. To reinforce earlier posts... F YOU BOARD OF STUDIES.

 

[odown]

It was in the syllabus.
I believe it is called a prescribed focus area? Or something along those lines.
It is basically about what we are meant to gain as an overall understanding of religions as opposed to specific dot points.
So while it sucks because the BOS have set a precedent for just asking dot points, they unfortunetly can ask that.
As long as you used the information you learnt within the unit of study (e.g. for Christianity, talking about baptism, or sexual ethics etc.) then you should be fine. If you didn't apply what you have learnt in the syllabus then you will have problems.
The plus is that HSC marking is all relative, so if most people did badly as appears to be the case, then it won't be marked to hard.
The BOS does not want us to do badly because it reflects poorly on them. If all the marks come back bad, they will relax the marking criteria to improve them.
But yes, i agree that it sucked. And I nearly had a heart attack in the middle of the exam.

 

[Mkj]

The board may do something if basically everyone appeals, but it's in the rules they can test the preliminary syllabus in the exam

Bad luck (I'm kinda loling at the fact no-one knew what to write though).

dude have u even read the syllabus...and do u know wat the q was...stupid yr 11's think they know their shit...i bet if u sat fr that xam u wuldv failed.....the frikn q had nothing to do with the syllabus...and they cant base a whole 20 mark q on the yr 11 syllabus.... btw i did islam...and wrote about revelations sent and twisted aisha into it and hajj and blah blah.... overall....BOS can go die!