Search results

Don't be scared - the standards package last year showed the standards isn't that high. and since it was such a crap question anyone who had the ability to link it to the syallabus is likely to do really well anyway.

it just enables people who didn't study to have the same opportunity to do well as people who didn't study grr... and in doing so - means reduces people's chances of getting band 6 because they put such unfamiliar bs in it. i wish the board of studies would "respond" to each exam - and say...

we've had the SAME supervisors for our year 10, 11 and now HSC exams...

just think - the people WRITING the business hsc exams are pathetic loosers who have salaries less than half than any decent business person. ok, that's probably too harsh ... so i'll say, "it was an excellent and fair paper"... there. :rolleyes:

i'll just add and say i agree with most of you that it was too ethics+global concentrated. and question 27, 28 & 29 were written sooo much better in school trials (around the state). how come BOS managed to come up with such crap, iffy questions?? how dare they deglect a decent marketing...

i only put time/action, finance and resource. that's what was so stupid about the paper! project management is different depending which bit of the syallabus you look at. i think the right answer would include talking about criteria to evaluate success, areas of investigation, research...

yes it was poorly written - because it tested the same thing over and over! but why is everyone saying it tested y11 stuff??

don't be mean - none.

argh! the more I read this post the more I realise how badly I did! :eek: :eek: :eek: section 2 in 20 mins? that's an exaggeration right. I spent 25 minutes on multichoice (damn question 18 and 19); 1 hour and 15 minutes on section 2!! so 40 for each last section.

don't worry - the majority of students wouldn't have written more than one booklet. i wrote 8 for the first, 6 for the second... in big fat illegible writing.

i used tanya denny (bondi) and megan finlay (CUT - unsw). My conversation was soo vague and general though, plus VERY short. :(

if you used examples you'll be fine

that's not funny! i did the same thing. :( i only realised when I "signed" my name at the end of it! :chainsaw:

A hella lot less than everyone else! freaks! Btw, why did they make us tie our SECT III and SECT IV together? and also staple back all of sectionII?

well at least you answered the question p00_p00! I didn't like the business report-type question. I just recommended improvements... did read the "critically analyse reponsibilities"...oops! And my improvements are sooo general and brief... oh well.

i realised we were suppose to talk about: employment relations AND business management AND global but all i talked about was a very brief reasons for expansion and some talk about cultural influences on my case study. I thought it was a shockingly poor question. like you couldn't make an...

WAS IT? Whilst the paper definitely seemed to focus on very narrow aspects of the syallabus - i still think all the stuff in the exam was in the syallabus. I just can't believe I wasted so much time learning all this stuff about you know Certified Agreements, AWAs, Industrial conflict...

ARGH! My answer is soo bad for 29. I listed the reasons for expanision i could remember... then I sort of "summarised" the cultural issues my global business (YES ... my case study) had to consider when expanding overseas. SO CRAP! Anyway - this isn't the FIRST time the board of studies...

I nearly wasted all my reading time trying to pull apart the paper without ripping the pages LOL Anyway, I walked out of the exam feeling as if I had just done an entire paper on 'GLOBALISATION AND ETHICS' - :apig:

SO STUPID! I thought the exam was completely ridiculous! The multichoice was OK. Section II though was stupid - why the hell did they test us on managment and evaluation when they already did that in the folio?! Although I'm annoyed at myself because for some reason I restricted myself to...